See also: last week's Back page page.

Linux links of the week

Spanish-speaking readers may want to have a look at BarraPunto.com. The look is familiar, even if the language is different...

Section Editor: Jon Corbet

Letters to the editor

Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 13:13:34 +0100
From: Charlie Stross <charlie@antipope.org>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Oh, the embarrassment!

Leafing through a shelf full of ancient computer magazines the other week,
I cam across an early Microsoft infomercial. I can't resist the urge to
spread it around:

"Learning from minicomputers: until a few years ago, minicomputers
offered little of relevence to microcomputer users. With the recent rise
to prominence of UNIX, one of the minicomputer world's most popular
operating systems, microcomputer manufacturers are beginning to look
hard at minis. Microsoft's own version of UNIX, called Xenix, is the
only UNIX now available, tailored specifically for micros. Microsoft
has added many basic features omitted by UNIX's manufacturers, and has
announced the product with menus and mouse interfaces for example, for the
micro user. Xenix also arranges its files differently from conventional
micro operating systems, and it looks as though the Xenix filesystem
is catching on with micro manufacturers. Apple's new ProDOS for the
Apple IIe and Apple III uses a similar system, as does a forthcoming
OS from Dragon. Apple and Tandy as well as UK microcomputer companies,
Tycom and Plessy, have gone for Xenix on their newest machines. With
the Tandy model 16 and Apple's Lisa both running Xenix, it looks like
being as successful on micros as it is on minicomputers."
 
This advert ran in the now-defunct British magazine Practical Computing
on page 149 of their January 1984 issue (Volume 7 issue 1). Can anyone
else contribute some flagrantly enthusiastic UNIX advocacy on the part 
of Microsoft?

You might want to run this as a competition, with a prize for the most
recently published piece of blatant Microsoft UNIX promotion -- say,
a copy of Microsoft Windows NT 3.51 for Alpha ("a better UNIX than UNIX").




-- Charlie Stross
   Linux columnist, Computer Shopper (UK)

Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 17:54:15 -0400
From: walt smith <waltech@bcpl.net>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Gerstners speach

Thanks for placing the link to Gerstners speach.

I don't know whether to sell my IBM stock or hope
for a replacement for Gerstner.  Clearly the man is
living in a different world.

A significant part of IBM is it's proprietary properties
and manufacturing!  The only part that made sense was
the prediction of  the explosion of internet appliances.  But
even his estimates seem wildly exagerated. There's not much
more in the talk that is believable.

I was going to quote parts and rebut... I can't - there's too much!
(Is there an open source OS/2 ?)

Much of the talk was dedicated to convincing the audience that hi-end
servers - traditionally IBM's market (called mainframes) - connected
to 'appliances' is the wave of the future.  It certainly was the wave of
the
past when mainframes were connected to terminals.  Yes, internet
appliances
will make an impact, but not in the way he believes. I won't elaborate
unless
I get a check for consulting; that information is very valuable to IBM's
marketing!!

And the PC is dead ? In normal english terms: Sheeeesh !! !!

To conclude, this speech was really directed at the corporate officers.
And is a duplicate of the Microsoft strategy.  It may work; after all,
look
at MS's success!  Us technocrats see that.... maybe some of corporate
America has learned a few things by now?  (naawwww.....)

regards,

Walt Smith, Baltimore
--

From: Mike Richardson <mike@quaking.demon.co.uk>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Microsoft says
Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 08:40:04 +0100
Cc: sales@microsoft.com

Below is an extract from the MicroSoft website referred to in the 07-Oct edition
of LWN, http://www.microsoft.com/ntserver/nts/news/msnw/LinuxMyths.asp
I have seen the f99.9% figure somewhere else, but could not remember where, but
here it is again. Here is the quote (with acknowledgement to Microsoft)

> There are no OEMs that provide uptime guarantees for Linux, unlike Windows NT
> where Compaq, Data General, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, and Unisys provide 99.9
> percent system-level uptime guarantees for Windows NT-based servers.

OK, now what does a 99.9% uptime guarantee mean? Well, it means that at bottom,
a guarantee that the machine will not be down for more than one one-thousandth
of the time. If we assume that we have a stable system, ie., one where the
system is not taken down for software upgrades, etc., then we are looking at
the time from a system crash (strictly, I think, from the time that the crash
is actually noticed) to the time that the system is running again. So, below is
a little table that shows the best guaranteed up-times for various values of
the above restart time, rounded up.

Restart time   Uptime
10 mins        7   days
30 mins        21 days
120 mins      84 days
etc   .....

The conclusion I draw is that either (a) NT crashes very often and is quick
to restart or (b) NT crashes less often but takes a long time to restart.. As
someone who runs a machine that provides web services and a specialised
on-line auction system, I would consider the above to be completely
unacceptable. Our system, the last time I looked, has been up for about 250
days, and requires essentially no maintenance.

Yours
Mike Richardson

Date: Thu, 7 Oct 1999 07:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
From: kenneth topp <caught@prodigy.net>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Microsoft Hype (Re: Linux Myths)

Editor,

I hope that people responding to this document chose a different strategy:  
It's not responding to their claims (directly), and it's not pointing out
NT's flaws (nothing to learn), but it is talking about linux's future.

I am anticipating many new updates (XFree86 4.0, gimp 1.2, gtk1.4, kde
2.0, apache 2.0, perl 5.6, gcc 3.0, netscape5) which will make linux more
functional and easy for more and more people.  Linux doesn't meet NT
feature for feature, and microsoft has been able to define what's
important.  On technical issues, linux users know that there isn't
anything to fear.  The worlds finest developers are on every remaining
issue out there.

Let's talk about licensing, open file formats, open protocols, unified
platform.  Lets discuss the development and user peer groups that grows
larger ever day, and what they are accomplishing.  I've been using my
desktop linux box (Pentium 233) as a file/web/database/dns/smtp/dialup
server for 10 active clients (mostly microsoft OS's), without complaint.  
All this with a USB mouse (first with UUSBD, thanks Inaky, then with
backporting 2.3 code).

Or, if we must attack them, I will testify that I just had to reboot NT to
change where my web cache ("Temporary Internet Files") directory is
located (I cannot wait till I can replace my NT PDC with samba).

Kenneth Topp

Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 14:07:17 -0700
From: philo<no>v@<spam.>com.calweb<.no>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: Microsoft's FUD Storm

I have a comment to make about Microsoft's latest web page detailing how 'NT
works for corporations' whereas 'Linux does not.' I've read the document in its
entirety, and as someone that's familiar with the finer details of how Windows
NT works, I find it an amusing read at best.

I wonder how many Microsoft professionals are actually fooled by this web page.
It seems more aimed toward the uninformed management than anything.

It brings up a big social question: Is it really the case that corporations are
making technological decisions without the input of their technically
proficient employees? It seems that this is what Microsoft is banking on, and
given their huge marketing budget, I'd guess they've done their research. Is
that the sad state of affairs in the technology industry?

If so, is the increase in popularity of Linux a sort of social revolt by the
technically competent against their technically incompetent superiors? Are we
truly witnessing a revolution in the Linux movement?

--
Philo Vivero

To: lwn@lwn.net
Subject: http://www.lwn.net/1999/features/MSResponse.phtml
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 1999 12:55:33 +0200
From: Jan Nieuwenhuizen <jcn@cs.leidenuniv.nl>


Hi,

Thanks for putting up this overall very good response.  You use a
fine mild tongue, acknowlegdge some facts, and try to judge by
content.

However, I'd like to make a side comment.  Microsoft seems to be
a master at using certain imho distasteful/sneaky techniques, and
does so in this particular article.  You identified this occurence:

  ...as opposed to the wonderful free support services for Windows NT...

because it's a tad too obvious.  Microsoft will claim problems with
Linux (or any other package) and do it in such a way, that the reader
will accept implicitely that Windows has good solutions -- while in
fact Windows has similar problems.

Also, I don't buy it that the blatant lies they use, are out of
ignorance.  I assume that they know very well what they're doing,
(ie, apply tactic #2) and deliberately mix valid/half valid 
truths/problems with FUD, making the whole package of assertions
appear to be right to an outsider.  Remember that this page has
not been put up for us, it's for the manager/newbe that can be
fudded away.  Pure FUD is much easier to fight, but more importantly,
much more easy to identify by the newbe.

As a third tactic, they use tentative statements in both directions:

  'Linux is based on 30y old technology' -> must be bad (old == bad)
  'Windows (NT) has an object based security model' -> must be secure

Of course, both -> are rubbish, it's the actual performance in the
field that counts.

Lastly, what I really dislike (and you seem to miss, cmiiw), is sneaky
stuff like:

     Linux lacks a commercial quality Journaling File System.

*Commercial quality*.  Can anybody explain to me what that's supposed
to mean?  To me that's a hollow phrase.  Of course, windows 95 is
'commercial quality', and so is Solaris: they sell.  But we don't care
whether Linux sells or not.  We just want something Good.  So, if
anything, we could want a 'GNU Quality', or 'Free Software Quality'
JFS.  'Windows NT lacks a GNU Quality JFS'.

The problem is, once you've switched, you know how big the differences
are, quality wise.  But if you're still on the other side, it's very
hard to believe that something can be 'as good as Microsoft'.  Microsoft
knows this, and tries its best to maintain that line of thought: 'first,
let Linux prove they reach our quality level, because they haven't yet'.
We need to find a way to fight that (often hidden) message effectively.

There is one thing that most rebuttals seem to miss:

The `Linux Community' does not want to sell something.

You can get hold of GNU/Linux for free, you try it for free.  If a
manager wants to find out if this Linux-fad is really just a hype, or
a robust solution, he can find out for himself: get an old unused
computer and install Linux.

If he doesn't have the required knowledge to do this, he can find lots
and lots of reports on the pro and cons of both GNU and NT.  Since
GNU/Linux users don't have financial interests in making Linux appear
better than it is, the reports will be objective.

In summary, my answer to Microsoft FUD would be:

	``Don't believe what a company tells you about its
	competitors.  Find out for yourself: give Linux a try. You
	will be pleasantly surprised.''

Greetings,

Jan.

-- 
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien/      | http://www.lilypond.org/

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 1999 12:59:16 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Pavel Kankovsky <peak@argo.troja.mff.cuni.cz>
To: letters@lwn.net
Subject: A few more comments regarding "The Five Linux Myths"

Hi! I dare to comment things that were not addressed in your article.
I hope you won't mind some of my remarks are somewhat caustic. :)


> First, it's worth noting that Linux is a UNIX-like operating system.

And NT is a VMS-like OS. I am exaggerating a bit but there are too many
similarities between NT and VMS. Try reading Inside NT. Nevertheless, it 
is silly to assume old things are bad just because they are old.

> The Linux SWAP file is limited to 128 MB RAM.

It never occurred to me to use my precious RAM as a swapspace.

> They have been promising these since the development of the 2.0 Kernel
> in 1996...

What about...ehm...Cairo?

> Linux only provides access controls for files and directories.

There must be some bug in kill(). It does not allow me to terminate
root's processes.

> Linux has not supported key security accreditation standards. Every
> member of the Windows NT family since Windows NT 3.5 has been evaluated
> at either a C2 level under the U.S. Government's evaluation process or
> at a C2-equivalent level under the British Government's ITSEC process.

Everyone should read the detailed certification reports to understand the
whole truth about NT C2 or E3/F-C2 rating, esp. to learn what components
were excluded from the certification and what assumptions were made about
the hardware platform, the environment, and the configuration.

See:
http://www.microsoft.com/NTServer/security/exec/feature/c2_security.asp

> In contrast, no Linux products are listed on the U.S. Government's
> evaluated product list.

Even if Linux systems were able to satisfy the criteria, no Linux vendor
is rich enough to be able to afford the evaluation.

> Misconfigure any part of the operating system and the system could be
> vulnerable to attack.

This holds for virtually any piece of software.

--Pavel Kankovsky aka Peak  [ Boycott Microsoft--http://www.vcnet.com/bms ]
"Resistance is futile. Open your source code and prepare for assimilation."