Linux is free, incredibly fast and can handle more than one processor. Imagine
GPL for Linux on a dual Celeron 300A, both clocked to 450 MHz. That would give
us around 900 MHz of pure racing simulator power :o). It would actually allow
for 60 fps in GPL, or physics twice as good :o)))... We all know Win95/98 dont
support more than one processor at the same time, so how long do we have to wait
befor we see racing simulator ports to Linux?
/Christer, rambling again, or aint I :o)???
--
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the
online GPL ladders)
Should racing sims be ported to Linux
A poster suggested that Linux, with multiprocessor support, would be an ideal platform for sims like GPL. Replies covered GPL's 36 fps cap, the difficulty of multi-threading a sim, and whether the Linux market could ever justify ports. A long argument followed between Linux enthusiasts and sceptics who said ordinary users would never adopt it.
Automated summary.
>It would actually allow
>for 60 fps in GPL, or physics twice as good :o)))
well, not sure if its only the amount shown or the actual limit, but GPL
will only go up to 36 fps......maybe thats a limit to the FPS
indicator....not sure I am a dummy on that..........I did hear BTW, that
there are Windows emulators that will allow you to run games on
linux.......but again, thats somethin I heard, and not from an extremely
reputable source.
JT
That is a great idea. I have thought of that before too. I really hope
there will be Linux games soon, because I'm fat up with all that
microsuck bugware.
// Johan
Quoted text (14 lines)
> Linux is free, incredibly fast and can handle more than one processor. Imagine > GPL for Linux on a dual Celeron 300A, both clocked to 450 MHz. That would give > us around 900 MHz of pure racing simulator power :o). It would actually allow > for 60 fps in GPL, or physics twice as good :o)))... We all know Win95/98 dont > support more than one processor at the same time, so how long do we have to wait > befor we see racing simulator ports to Linux? > /Christer, rambling again, or aint I :o)??? > -- > http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online > racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone > has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)). > http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the > online GPL ladders)Unfortunately, the answer is probably never. The market for it is just
too small. The only real hope would be if the game company realsed an SDK
for their sim ala Id and Valve. Then there would be enough of a technical
base that others could begin an effort to port the sim over.
--
Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb."
Enteract, Chicago | - K MiB
Well, I haven't got an extra PC to install my copy of Linux yet, but as a UNIX
network administrator, here's my thoughts on the matter.
Yes, most flavors of UNIX have something like SoftWindows, to run Windows
software. This is software emulation, so there will be some processor overhead
incurred in running it. Not having used it myself, I can't give a good
ballpark percentage figure; it may well be dependant on the individual system.
In multi-processor setups, the chips generally are set up to run in parallel -
each runs seperate threads. How the threads are split between processors is
dependant on how the software is written. I think the logical split for a dual
system would be physics running on one chip, and graphics on the other (though
with accelerated graphics cards, the 2nd CPU might handle car position or
something).
As for 60fps graphics, considering that movies run at 28fps and television at
30fps, IMO 60fps would be overkill, and an unnoticible improvement. The
physics would probably not be "twice as good", but could perhaps be sampled
twice as often, therefore giving a smoother feel to it.
Bob
Its not a racing sim, but its a start. Sid Meier's Civilization III is going to be
sold with Linux support. First ever game to be sold in shrink wrap to support Linux.
Maybe other's will catch up on the idea. Good source for more on Linux is ZDTV's
Screen Savers, cause one of the hosts, Leo Laporte, is obsessed with Linux.
>Linux is free, incredibly fast and can handle more than one processor. Imagine
>GPL for Linux on a dual Celeron 300A, both clocked to 450 MHz. That would give
>us around 900 MHz of pure racing simulator power :o). It would actually allow
>for 60 fps in GPL, or physics twice as good :o)))... We all know Win95/98 dont
>support more than one processor at the same time, so how long do we have to wait
>befor we see racing simulator ports to Linux?
This isn't intended to be a slam or an endor***t of anything, so please
don't take it that way.
Linux will never be a popular OS because installing it and setting it up is
more difficult than Windows. People already *** and moan about how hard
it is to install and run and configure Windows, they certainly aren't going
to be lining up to do something more difficult. Until there is a huge
installed base of Linux boxes (never) you aren't going to see popular
software support for it in any substantial form. Already, lots of popular
software titles are dropping MAC support and OS/2 failed IN PART because of
lack of software.
To a bunch like us, who are probably more computer and hardware savvy than
the average user, setting up Linux may not seem like a huge undertaking, but
anyone who has played 'computer guru' over the phone to friends and family
(or in a professional setting) know how utterly clueless most of the general
populous is about ANYTHING regarding computer configuration. Have you ever
tried to talk someone through something as simple as managing the items on
the start menu in Win95, or creating a shortcut? People don't even know
they can resize/move windows, change screen res/color depth, that there is a
right-click context menu, or even where to click or double click. These
same people call hard disk space, 'memory' and think that AOL chat rooms are
the internet. Just tonight, my Mother in law, who has been a computer user
for over 5 years, aked me what my 'handle' is on the internet because she
saw someone with my name in a room on AOL and thought it was me.
Whatever. This is just a rant..ignore me.
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
The thing about the 36FPS is that it is to coordinate the FPS with the
physics model. I guess they want the frames to match up correctly and no
repeat frames where the calculations will be off. That is a reason why the
car is harder to drive at lower fps, the physics arent synchronized
correctly.
Jesse
Quoted text (10 lines)
>>It would actually allow >>for 60 fps in GPL, or physics twice as good :o))) >well, not sure if its only the amount shown or the actual limit, but GPL >will only go up to 36 fps......maybe thats a limit to the FPS >indicator....not sure I am a dummy on that..........I did hear BTW, that >there are Windows emulators that will allow you to run games on >linux.......but again, thats somethin I heard, and not from an extremely >reputable source. >JT...and think that AOL chat rooms are
Hehe, i talk to all sorts of people and I ask them what they do online and
they just chat. Thats all, go to a chatroom and talk. I was trying to tell
someone how to get to my web site and they were like, whats a website. So i
had to tell them to click the globe button (remembering from way back when,
when i had aol), then to type in the address into the box that has the
http://www.aol.com in it. They typed it into the search field. Said my web
page never came up. It took about 10 more minutes but finally they found
the place and typed it in and got there. AOL is such a hoax. Their adds
say, "easiest to use", yet when i go to the store, i see a book twice the
size of a bible with the title, "How to use AOL".
Just ranting like everyone else that says anything.
Jesse
AFAIK a sim would have to be written specifically to multi-thread in order
to use a dual CPU.
GPL (if win 98 DID support it) would pretty much thrash one CPU.
Also SMP boxes never get twice the performance of 2 CPUs due to task
scheduling / inter-process calls / resource contention.
If GPL was ported tomorrow most of the hardware we wanted to use wouldn't
have decent drivers.
Believe it or not I'm a rabid supporter of Linux and would LOVE to see it
harnessed for more mainstream applications than it's current web-server
fan-base.
this wasn't intend to flame, Christer; You're a fine chap !
Mike
:)
>Linux is free, incredibly fast and can handle more than one processor. Imagine
>GPL for Linux on a dual Celeron 300A, both clocked to 450 MHz. That would give
>us around 900 MHz of pure racing simulator power :o). It would actually allow
>for 60 fps in GPL, or physics twice as good :o)))... We all know Win95/98 dont
>support more than one processor at the same time, so how long do we have to wait
>befor we see racing simulator ports to Linux?
>/Christer, rambling again, or aint I :o)???
>--
>http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
>racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
>has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).
>http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the
>online GPL ladders)
The extra work involved in developing multi-processor sims is far from trivial - I
know because I design and code multi-threaded apps for a living. Multi-threaded
apps only really work properly if they are originally designed as such and it is
not simply a case of porting the app to a multi-processor environment. There are
several important issues:
1) Memory and resource contention. 2 or more threads must be prevented from
accessing the same memory or other resouirces simultaneously. Thread control
mecanisms must be used to prevent this. It is not simply a case of sprinkling
thread control objects around your code because you will almost always be left with
several threads executing one after another - which is actually less efficient than
a single-threaded app.
2) Deadlocks and deadly embraces. Once you have all these thread control objects in
place the most common problem is to have two threads each waiting for a thread
control object that the other owns. These are often a nightmare to rid from your
app - and a maintenance headache as well. Once multi-threaded sims are released we
will start to see much more "freezing up" than you get at the moment.
3) Unix in most, but not all, of its flavours only supports heavy-weight threading
models (ie on a process level) and this would be unacceptable in a racing sim. All
methods of crossing the process boundary are expensive in terms of processor usage.
I don't know whether Linux supports light-weight threading, but apart from the old
IBM mainframe operating systems, the best light-weight threading model I have seen
is in Windows NT - soon to become Windows 2000 and to replace Windows 98
altogether. This is hardly surprising since it is based on DEC's VMS, IMHO, one of
the best operating systems ever written.
4) Putting 2 processors in a box does not double your processing power. The OS
needs to spend some processor time managing the extra complexity introduced. At an
extreme end I believe that with NT 3.51 there was no extra benefit to be had by
placing more than 4 processors in a box. I think these problems are sorted out, but
it is still the case that you cannot multiply your processors speed by how many
you've got to give you a final "power" figure.
5) Multi-processor motherboards are expensive, as are the CPUs you can put in them.
Given this, the low usage of Linux (as already mentioned) and the maintenance
problems multi-threading causes, I think it is unlikely that we will see
multi-threading in sims in the next 5 years.
Cheers,
Paul
Quoted text (21 lines)
> Well, I haven't got an extra PC to install my copy of Linux yet, but as a UNIX > network administrator, here's my thoughts on the matter. > Yes, most flavors of UNIX have something like SoftWindows, to run Windows > software. This is software emulation, so there will be some processor overhead > incurred in running it. Not having used it myself, I can't give a good > ballpark percentage figure; it may well be dependant on the individual system. > In multi-processor setups, the chips generally are set up to run in parallel - > each runs seperate threads. How the threads are split between processors is > dependant on how the software is written. I think the logical split for a dual > system would be physics running on one chip, and graphics on the other (though > with accelerated graphics cards, the 2nd CPU might handle car position or > something). > As for 60fps graphics, considering that movies run at 28fps and television at > 30fps, IMO 60fps would be overkill, and an unnoticible improvement. The > physics would probably not be "twice as good", but could perhaps be sampled > twice as often, therefore giving a smoother feel to it. > BobScary, ain't it?
I forgot another favorite *** about AOL..their built in Web Browser
defaults to recompressing all the graphics it loads from the web. I take a
lot of time to make the graphics on my website look the way they look and it
galls me that anyone on AOL who hasn;t waded through the 5 levels of config
options to change it (presuming they even knew it was there) thinks that I
have no idea what looks good. Grrr!
daxe
[link lost in import]
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
Quoted text (14 lines)
> Well, I haven't got an extra PC to install my copy of Linux yet, but as a UNIX > network administrator, here's my thoughts on the matter. > Yes, most flavors of UNIX have something like SoftWindows, to run Windows > software. This is software emulation, so there will be some processor overhead > incurred in running it. Not having used it myself, I can't give a good > ballpark percentage figure; it may well be dependant on the individual system. > In multi-processor setups, the chips generally are set up to run in parallel - > each runs seperate threads. How the threads are split between processors is > dependant on how the software is written. I think the logical split for a dual > system would be physics running on one chip, and graphics on the other (though > with accelerated graphics cards, the 2nd CPU might handle car position or > something).Hi christer!
I too am a Linux user and have written to both Ubisoft (no reply, duh)
and Sierra asking them about a Linux port of their products. Sierra
people were nice enough to "forward the message to the appropriate
people", so I think they have seen the light and at least heard of
Linux.
I hope we'll see 1999 as the year that saw a lot of game releases for
Linux, and if Civilization III (coming in March, I hear), takes off
other game companies might get interested as well. You can hardly
generate more hype about Linux than you currently see in the
publications, so we stand a good chance of seeing more game companies
doing ports / releases for Linux.
Just imagine: No more unsolvable driver / directx / whatever /***OS
conflicts, just pure *** joy! Install it once and it'll run forever.
Let's hope it is going to happen soon, and maybe accelerate the
process a little by making ourselves heard.
SMP machines aren't too common as a *** platform (because of the
sucky way that NT "supports" (or tries to, rather) them, Win98/95
doesn't even know what two cpu's might be useful for), but it's a well
known fact that QuakeII achieves higher frame rates on Linux systems
than on similar Windows hardware, so in general performance of native
Linux versions should be considerably higher than under Windows.
If those people who cannot run GPL satisfyingly on their current
setups would demand an optimized Linux port finally giving them the
performance they once paid their hard-earned bucks for instead of
having it swamped by that sloppy OS from Hell (tm) the ports might be
appearing more quickly than what we currently see.
GPL and MGPRS2 are the only things I have to reboot into Windows
for, if I get them or similar stuff for Linux, it's Windows refund
day. ;-)
Cheers for now,
Uwe
--
Spam-proof e-mail: Uwe Schuerkamp <hoover at telemedia . de>
http://www.telemedia.de/~hoover ////// Phone: +49-5241-80-10-66
Best of Scottish Folk: http://home.pages.de/~nsg
>>> Blue Ribbon Campaign: Support Free Speech on the Internet <<<
Quoted text (15 lines)
>AFAIK a sim would have to be written specifically to multi-thread in order >to use a dual CPU. >GPL (if win 98 DID support it) would pretty much thrash one CPU. >Also SMP boxes never get twice the performance of 2 CPUs due to task >scheduling / inter-process calls / resource contention. >If GPL was ported tomorrow most of the hardware we wanted to use wouldn't >have decent drivers. >Believe it or not I'm a rabid supporter of Linux and would LOVE to see it >harnessed for more mainstream applications than it's current web-server >fan-base. >this wasn't intend to flame, Christer; You're a fine chap ! >MikeWho needs an extra PC for Linux? I'm running mine next to Windows on the
same PC without a problem. As long as you make sure that windows is
installed before you install Linux... no problemo. Linux installs a
bootmanager that let's you choose between Win or Linux at startup.
// Johan
> Well, I haven't got an extra PC to install my copy of Linux yet, but as a UNIX
> network administrator, here's my thoughts on the matter.
Don't think that race sims could be very well programmed for dual CPU.
You could either divide the number of cars evenly over the CPU's or let
one CPU do the physics and one CPU the graphics.
// Johan
> AFAIK a sim would have to be written specifically to multi-thread in order
> to use a dual CPU.
I don't think that's true. As we all know Linux is way better than
windows and even more important, less buggy. So all the time that MS is
investing in bugfixes gives all those enthusiatic Linux developers the
chance to make it more user friendly. The result? Linux will catch up on
windows in user friendlyness (is that a word?) and MS will go bankrupt
when paying the bail for Bill. :-)
Is that 'buch like us' not the largest group of customers for sims like
eg GPL? And could it therefore not be usefull to consider Linux?
// Johan
There is another element you need to consider. The enthusiastic Linux
developers aren't doing it for the money. One one hand, as soon as you try
and sell Linux and games written for it to the general public, you are going
to have people SCREAMING at the developers to support every piece of
hardware they own. "Does not support the blahblahblah
soundcard/videocard/mouse/modem/etc. at this time" isn't going to fly.
When developers are required to respond to consumer demands, they are going
to want money. As soon as money comes into the picture, you will lose the
'everybody pitching in to make it great' concept that makes Linux what it is
and it will become another commercial endeavour, subject to the same rules
as any other.
I am willing to bet that the "buch" of us are a really small fraction of the
game-buying public. the number of copies of NASCAR Revolution that will be
sold to people who have never even HEARD of Usenet newsgroups probably
exceeds the entire readership of r.a.s.
What if I wanted to run Linux today? (and I have installed and set it up a
few times) It doesn't support my scanner or my video capture gear and
doesn't implement all the features in my soundcard or video card. What do I
have to do to get Linux to support these things? (All mainstream hardware,
BTW) I am a pretty computer-savvy user, and I have no recourse. I'm not a
programmer, and nobody is going to conjure up device support for me just
because I want it. Even if it did support these things, what am I supposed
to do with al the WIndows software I already own?
Before you throw in the 'windows emulator' concept, let me tell you about
OS/2. It was touted as being able to run Windows programs 'better than
Windows'. Basically, it allowed you to run each 16 bit windows program in
its own virtual machine and allowed you to specify the environment with more
flexibility. It worked, but getting programs to run in it was a huge hassle
and they often didnt work fully/correctly. You also needed big hardware to
run more than a couple things smoothly. It also had poor device support.
Eventually, I said to myself: "Why am I trying so hard to make Windows
programs/hardware run in OS/2 when I can just run them in Windows?".
I'm not down on Linux at all, I think it is wonderful, but thinking that it
is ever going to have a place in *mainstream* public computing as a desktop
OS is blind, MS-hating optimism.
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
Well, maybe you should get your facts straight: Supposedly win98 will
suffer several "followups" before the lines finally merge into the
nt-only domain, but by then (sometime around 2004, I guess) we'll all
be running Linux anyway.
Ouch! You've outed yourself here a a die-hard ***. ;-) I admin'ed
a mix of Ultrix /VMS vaxen while in Uni, and my colleagues and I took
turns in "forgetting" the VMS admin passwords just not to have to work
with it...;-)
Yep, but this is still some NT only problem. SMP scales much much
better in Unix systems. The only thing that noticeably helps NT
performance is throwing shitloads of RAM at it.
I agree. When the Bebox first came out I was finally hoping for
relatively low-cost consumer SMP to get a firm foothold in the ***
market, but this has not yet happened. Maybe if BeOS takes off (which
is great at supporting SMP, BTW) we'll see this change. We'll
definitely see a change in what you call "low Linux use" if the growth
rate of Linux keeps up (user base doubling each year for five years
running now, not bad!)
Cheers,
Uwe
--
Uwe Schuerkamp, Telemedia ////////////// Phone: +49 5241 80 10 66
Carl-Bertelsmann-Str. 161 I \\\\\\\\\\ uwe.schuerkamp at telemedia.de
33311 Guetersloh \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ http://www.schuerkamp.de/~hoover
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
By a margin of 10-to-1, perhaps?
Precisely. The economic realities of the marketplace just don't support it.
The mainstream computing user base is not looking for an alternative to
Windows as fervently as you fellows, if they're looking at all.
Actually, having worked with installing multiple OSs as part of a
networking class a year back, I think I can add to this discussion.
Linux was easy to install--much easier than Win95, which tends to
randomly not work. However, Linux wasn't as pretty--it was using text-windowed
menus for most of the process, where Win95 goes to that "pretty" GUI--and as
we all well know, prettier=easier.
Seriously, Linux was as easy or easier to install than Win95, and much
easier than Novell. WinNT was, however, much easier than either Win95 or
Linux.
-The Enigmatic One
> Don't think that race sims could be very well programmed for dual CPU.
> You could either divide the number of cars evenly over the CPU's or let
> one CPU do the physics and one CPU the graphics.
A racing sim would be an ideal candidate for a multi-threaded app. I didn't
intend to imply otherwise in my previous post. As with any software solution
there are many approaches you could take. An object threading model seems most
satisfactory to me and this could include both graphics and objects - eg cars
and there parts. But it is much more complex than programming single threaded
apps and will lose performance, albeit marginally, when run on a single CPU
box. It also requires a light-weight threading OS and I'm not sure that Linux
provides this - does it?
Cheers,
Paul
> Well, maybe you should get your facts straight: Supposedly win98 will
> suffer several "followups" before the lines finally merge into the
> nt-only domain, but by then (sometime around 2004, I guess) we'll all
> be running Linux anyway.
Oh God, don't flame me. I should have said the Windows family - I nearly did but I
couldn't find the correct wording. There is so much UNIX v NT at work. What the hell
does it matter?
Actually, I've only worked on VMS for about 3 months and even then I was working on
other systems at the same time. I've worked on them all - different flavours of IBM,
all kinds of UNIX, ICL, NT, Windows. I like the purity of design of VMS - in its day
it was good as was MVS which had an excellent multi-threaded capability in the
sub-system. UNIX has its good and bad points - in some ways if it had stayed at Bell
Labs it may have been better than it is now - so many fingers in the pie have rather
destroyed its clarity of design. IMO, the best thing Thompson and Ritchie did was
the C programming language and not UNIX. Who remembers the failure of Open Systems?
Who has tried to port from one UNIX flavour to another?
Programming in C, C++ or Java is much the same under any platform - it's the tools
and APIs that make the difference. The range of compilers available in NT far
exceeds those available in UNIX both in number and in quality. X is not nice to deal
with at all, and, though horribly flawed, the Win32 API is a lot nicer to program
with. I am not a Microsoft lover - much of their offerings are pilfered from others,
much is seriously flawed (eg COM - CORBA is much nicer) and a single software vendor
is not good for the world. Having said that NT does a lot of things very right. Dave
Cutler has produced an exceptional OS there and I have not seen a better
light-weight threading model than can be found in NT. I'm not saying one doesn't
exist, just that I have not seen it. I think we would both probably agree that the
Windows 3 - Windows 95 - Windows 98 family are shite operating systems.
I don't think so! Once you have more than one processor you have to start managing
threads, priorities, locking objects etc etc. This is always going to consume
resources.
True enough.
I would have absolutely no objection to this happening. I know little about Linux
other than it is a flavour of UNIX. Any competition to Microsoft can only be good.
One of the keys to its growing is that it must show a GUI as the primary point of
user contact, be easy to install and have dialog based access to all its
functionlity. As an IT professional, we may not find the interface to UNIX daunting,
but most users will. MacOS got all this right, the only shame was that they
preserved it for their own machines and were far to late to publically licence it.
Cheers,
Paul
> Precisely. The economic realities of the marketplace just don't support it.
> The mainstream computing user base is not looking for an alternative to
> Windows as fervently as you fellows, if they're looking at all.
Yes and no. Speak to a few Apple-Mac users (I mean users not programmers or
support staff) and you will realise that reliability and ease of use are things
people will buy. Too bad that Apple didn't have the nouse to publically license
it - now it could be too late. If Mac-OS is dying, what hope is there for
Linux.
Cheers,
Paul
No doubt that Apple won over a reasonable number of *new* users with their
"ease of use" pitch.
But I'd be really surprised if there has been any significant migration of
existing users from Windows to Mac. I'll venture a guess that there is a
substantially larger number of users that have migrated from Mac to Win than
from Win to Mac. And my guess is that that migration trend is driven by
software availability and other economic considerations.
So I don't see how Linux has a prayer. I'm a developer myself and, though we
know they exist, I've not met anyone that's writing for Linux.
> Actually, having worked with installing multiple OSs as part of a
>networking class a year back, I think I can add to this discussion.
I had one computer running NT4ws, Win95, Win95 OSR2, Redhat Linux and
WIn3.11/DOS6.22. I can probably add to it also.
I have installed and configured Win9x on about 50-60 computers. It has been
problematic on exactly one of them. Linux asked questions that no-one but a
computer-savvy person could answer. How many mainstream computer users do
you know who can name their graphics chip?
Unless you have plug 'n' play hardware.
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
Quoted text (13 lines)
>>...the number of copies of NASCAR Revolution that will be >>sold to people who have never even HEARD of Usenet newsgroups >>probably exceeds the entire readership of r.a.s. >By a margin of 10-to-1, perhaps? >>...thinking that it is ever going to have a place in >>*mainstream* public computing as a desktop >>OS is blind, MS-hating optimism. >Precisely. The economic realities of the marketplace just don't support it. >The mainstream computing user base is not looking for an alternative to >Windows as fervently as you fellows, if they're looking at all.>Yes and no. Speak to a few Apple-Mac users (I mean users not programmers or
>support staff) and you will realise that reliability and ease of use are things
>people will buy. Too bad that Apple didn't have the nouse to publically license
>it - now it could be too late. If Mac-OS is dying, what hope is there for
>Linux.
If? What is Apple/Mac's market share? 6%? It is a niche. The users are
vociferous and fervent in their support of the platform, but it isn't going
to go anywhere but farther down in popularity.
If I am not mistaken, Apple tried to license the technology to some
clone-makers a short while ago, but stopped the process because they were
losing their own sales! Mac users love to tout the crash-freeness of the
OS, etc, but if the Wintel platform didn't have to try and encompass 9
hundred zillion different manufacturers' products and the attendant
variations on the theme, it could easily make everything work just as
smoothly.
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
>No doubt that Apple won over a reasonable number of *new* users with their
>"ease of use" pitch.
Wanna bet a whole mess of them were REALLY suprised when they got their new
iMAC home and found out it doesn't run Windows 95/98? Think that sounds
stupid? You are starting to get a hint of what mainstream computer users
are like.
When I got my first computer in the summer of 1993, I didn't have a clue
about what the differences were between MACs and PCs. If anyone had told me
that MAC was the platform to go with if your interests are graphics and
music, I would have bought one. INstead, I went to a software store. I saw
row after row of shelves of software for DOS/Windows, and one or two for
MAC. I bought a PC. You have a catch 22 here...Nobody is going to port or
write software for Linux unless there is money in it (read: large installed
user base) There is not going to be a large installed user base until there
is software. Take your figures about how the user base is growing and make
sure you divide it up into the gamers, the office users, the graphics pros,
the DTP people, the casual internet surfer, etc. It is just common sense
that someone writing software for a living is going to try and sel it to as
many people as possible. Those people aren't using Linux.
If there was money in it, they'd be lining up at the door. No-one pays me
to do my hobby, either.
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
Chuckle.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> No doubt that Apple won over a reasonable number of *new* users with their > "ease of use" pitch. > But I'd be really surprised if there has been any significant migration of > existing users from Windows to Mac. I'll venture a guess that there is a > substantially larger number of users that have migrated from Mac to Win than > from Win to Mac. And my guess is that that migration trend is driven by > software availability and other economic considerations. > So I don't see how Linux has a prayer. I'm a developer myself and, though we > know they exist, I've not met anyone that's writing for Linux.I don't believe that this will be a problem. It hasn't been very long
since game programmers had to supply the hardware support themselves.
Only since the appearence of directX is this the case. It never stopped
any gameprogrammers from creating new games! Besides as Linux gains more
popularity, hardware manufacturers will start making drivers for Linux
themselves. If the PUBLIC asks for Linux the hardware and software
manufacturers will follow and since the group of Linux users is
increasingly growing, this will at some point happen.
I'm not saying it will happens this year, this sort of thing takes time,
but eventually MS will loose. Nobody wants to be forced into using one
specific product and this is exactly what MS is doing. That's also why I
believe that Linux will not 'win'. Over time there will be several OS's,
all with their strong and weak points. Only one of them will be most
suitable for ***. Wich one it is... who can tell? It might not even
exist yet, but I'm certain it won't be Windows!
// Johan
Quoted text (12 lines)
> There is another element you need to consider. The enthusiastic Linux > developers aren't doing it for the money. One one hand, as soon as you try > and sell Linux and games written for it to the general public, you are going > to have people SCREAMING at the developers to support every piece of > hardware they own. "Does not support the blahblahblah > soundcard/videocard/mouse/modem/etc. at this time" isn't going to fly. > When developers are required to respond to consumer demands, they are going > to want money. As soon as money comes into the picture, you will lose the > 'everybody pitching in to make it great' concept that makes Linux what it is > and it will become another commercial endeavour, subject to the same rules > as any other.Oh, come on, Ronny. If that's the case, you're *substantially* more
selective than I am! <g>
I love you sig, by the way, but isn't it a bit of a bias indicator?
Regards,
Jack
I don't think this will happen. While the absolute number of Linux users may
be increasing, even dramatically, I believe (I'm venturing a guess here)
that the number of Linux users as a percentage of total desktops is hardly
moving, simply because the number of new computer users (largely Windows) so
far outweighs the number of Linux converts. If the market share is minute
and, as a percentage of total desktops, that share is increasing at an
unspectacular rate, who's going to commit perpetually scarce development
resources to Linux, for the long haul?
> >You're just selective like me, I don't know ANYONE writing for
> >Windows... ;^)
> Oh, come on, Ronny. If that's the case, you're *substantially* more
> selective than I am! <g>
Ok, I'll admit it: I'm sometimes doing batch files on my Win95 PC,
but ONLY for games. All my professional work is done on some flavour
of Unix.
Well, you have to reboot Win95 for almost ANY change, but Linux for
almost NO change of system params...
l8er
ronny
--
Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change
to take effect. Reboot now?
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999 21:27:46 +0000, Paul Jones
>Too bad that Apple didn't have the nouse to publically license
>it - now it could be too late. If Mac-OS is dying, what hope is there for
>Linux.
Hi Paul,
Linux does have a huge survival advantage over MacOS in the very fact
that Linux is open source. It's a completely different paradigm, one
that, in a very real way, gives us The World vs. Microsoft.
Incidentally, it's this very fact that has Microsoft quaking in its
money-filled boots. - ref. http://www.opensource.org/halloween.html .
There is no way they can stop it. They can't effectively undermine
the continued development and exposure of Linux, and they can't engulf
it.
Linux is only just growing out of its infancy, and when it matures
into a more user-friendly system (which it most definitely will do),
we will all have our real, and superior, pc-based alternative to the
Windoze gorilla.
Oh, and Linux and its software are developed under the GNU GPL.
That's the GNU General Public License, not Grand Prix Legends. --Does
that qualify me as being on topic? ;)
Brett
Hi Johan,
Actually, Linux has such a relatively configurable kernel, that it
does *not* force you into anything at all. If you want to run a lean
OS, you can hack the kernel to do *only* what you wish, and nothing
more. This is exactly one reason that Linux could 'win'. It has the
ability to be all OSes to all people.
Now, I'm no Linux guru. To be sure, I've only played with it, and
couldn't hack the kernel to save my life. But I can easily see the
potential. The point is that the kernel *can* be hacked.
Just like an average user doesn't know the details of how the
wallpaper changes in Windoze, in the future, the average user won't
need to know how their Linux box switches to "Extra Lean Grand Prix
Legends VIII" mode, either. But it will be done, just as they wish.
When they wish, they will switch back to "Extra Fat Windoze" mode, so
they can do whatever it is that a bloated system does well. ;)
I think over time, there will be several OS's, that's true. Who
knows? But, Linux has the ability to capitalize on whatever strong
points you desire in an OS.
Sorry if I'm coming off as a Linux evangelist. I'm not (tho I
wouldn't be ashamed of it if I was, either.) I just see some huge,
adaptable, robust, evolving, exciting,
"the-way-it-should-have-always-been" potential in Linux.
Oh, and I did mention a hypothetical future GPL in there somewhere...
;) Sorry for going all off topic.
Brett
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999 13:15:18 +0100, Johan Foederer
>Nobody wants to be forced into using one
>specific product and this is exactly what MS is doing. That's also why I
>believe that Linux will not 'win'. Over time there will be several OS's,
>all with their strong and weak points.
The size of the market today isn't important, unless you compare it with
yesterday's size.
/Christer
--
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the
online GPL ladders)
Quoted text (7 lines)
> Unfortunately, the answer is probably never. The market for it is just > too small. The only real hope would be if the game company realsed an SDK > for their sim ala Id and Valve. Then there would be enough of a technical > base that others could begin an effort to port the sim over. > -- > Bill Mette | "A person is smart. People are dumb." > Enteract, Chicago | - K MiBI've heard one of the GUIs to Linux looks very much like Win95 just to make fun
of Win95...
/Christer, knowing hearsay isn't very trustworhy :o)
--
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the
online GPL ladders)
Quoted text (10 lines)
> I would have absolutely no objection to this happening. I know little about Linux > other than it is a flavour of UNIX. Any competition to Microsoft can only be good. > One of the keys to its growing is that it must show a GUI as the primary point of > user contact, be easy to install and have dialog based access to all its > functionlity. As an IT professional, we may not find the interface to UNIX daunting, > but most users will. MacOS got all this right, the only shame was that they > preserved it for their own machines and were far to late to publically licence it. > Cheers, > PaulYes, Red Hat... looks like it, but even better! However, even in Linux,
a GUI interface is still a HOG in terms of disk and RAM usage.
-_Dave
--
Dave Schwabe
The Aussie Toad -- Grand Prix Legends & Brabham site
http://users.wi.net/~schwabe
Quoted text (24 lines)
> I've heard one of the GUIs to Linux looks very much like Win95 just to make fun > of Win95... > /Christer, knowing hearsay isn't very trustworhy :o) > > I would have absolutely no objection to this happening. I know little about Linux > > other than it is a flavour of UNIX. Any competition to Microsoft can only be good. > > One of the keys to its growing is that it must show a GUI as the primary point of > > user contact, be easy to install and have dialog based access to all its > > functionlity. As an IT professional, we may not find the interface to UNIX daunting, > > but most users will. MacOS got all this right, the only shame was that they > > preserved it for their own machines and were far to late to publically licence it. > > Cheers, > > Paul > -- > http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online > racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone > has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)). > http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the > online GPL ladders)Oracle, the worlds largest database developer has it's latest database version
available for Linux, how's that for "Nobody is going to port or write software
for Linux unless there is money in it". Could it be that Oracle sees money in it
:o)?
Oracle will certainly help to spread Linux. Why not run all Oracle databases on
Linux??? It's just one step. Take the next step and see where that puts you, and
then the next. One of these steps will have you running racing simulators on
your free Linux copy, and it will be increadibly fast, stable, easy to install
and use. Is it really that hard to imagine :o)? I see it, why cant you :o)?
/Christer
--
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the
online GPL ladders)
Quoted text (26 lines)
> When I got my first computer in the summer of 1993, I didn't have a clue > about what the differences were between MACs and PCs. If anyone had told me > that MAC was the platform to go with if your interests are graphics and > music, I would have bought one. INstead, I went to a software store. I saw > row after row of shelves of software for DOS/Windows, and one or two for > MAC. I bought a PC. You have a catch 22 here...Nobody is going to port or > write software for Linux unless there is money in it (read: large installed > user base) There is not going to be a large installed user base until there > is software. Take your figures about how the user base is growing and make > sure you divide it up into the gamers, the office users, the graphics pros, > the DTP people, the casual internet surfer, etc. It is just common sense > that someone writing software for a living is going to try and sel it to as > many people as possible. Those people aren't using Linux. > >So I don't see how Linux has a prayer. I'm a developer myself and, though > we > >know they exist, I've not met anyone that's writing for Linux. > If there was money in it, they'd be lining up at the door. No-one pays me > to do my hobby, either. > daxe > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > -----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------Hi Jack,
I'm gonna get in on one of those Zandy races pretty soon this week.
Thanks for doing it, I was starting to wonder why no one ran Zandy on
VROC anymore.
To answer your question: Who has committed perpetually scarce
development resource to Linux, so far? It's gotten where it is now,
gaining users, because it is open source. Every interested hacker out
there takes a stab at whatever development they have to offer, for
notoriety among the Linux dev community, and because they like to do
it.
That's why I think Linux is such a strong potential challenger to
monolithic Micro$oft, because its development is based on a paradigm
that does not take into account immediate financial gain for the
developers/licensers.
Can this dev cycle continue forever into Linux's future? I don't
know, but I doubt it. But we already have Calderra, Red Hat,
Slackware - all companies based on the development of commercial Linux
distributions. If they've gotten this far, I would assume that
because Linux is growing in popularity, that truly profitable times
are only to begin for them.
Obviously, some very basic assumptions. But I wouldn't discount the
ability or potential of Linux. I would also venture a prediction that
Micro$oft will only weather the growth of Linux by impersonating
Linux. ;)
Brett
Err, sorry, that's Caldera.
Brett
O.K. Brett...
Here's the deal...Tonight at Zandy for all the marbles. You win and I'll
stop all my Windows development activity in favor of Linux.
Nooooo,....scratch that. 1) I, like most developers, can't afford to do
something like that, and 2) you'd probably beat me,...AGAIN! :-)
Hope to see you soon.
Hi Brett,
this posting made me feel warm all over. Thanks! ;-) Who would have
thought that so many Linux people would raise there (ugly not!;-) heads
in this NG a year ago? It feels good to know I am not alone anymore ;-)
Just to clarify things: This of course does not imply that you cannot
develop commercial software for Linux and make a living off it. Look
for example at Applixware (a complete office suite for Linux) or maybe
even quake/quake2 which are available commercially, and the Linux
distributions which sell like hot-cakes at the moment (SuSE Linux is on
six weeks backorder last I checked).
In closing, games developers may very well make a living off releasing
their stuff for Linux (read: charge money for their work), and I am
sure we will see several releases this year. Let's hope that the GNU
Public License isn't the only idiom for which GPL stands on Linux by
the end of the year.
Cheers,
Uwe
--
Spam-proof e-mail: Uwe Schuerkamp <hoover at telemedia . de>
http://www.telemedia.de/~hoover ////// Phone: +49-5241-80-10-66
Best of Scottish Folk: http://home.pages.de/~nsg
>>> Blue Ribbon Campaign: Support Free Speech on the Internet <<<
>Oracle, the worlds largest database developer has it's latest database version
>available for Linux, how's that for "Nobody is going to port or write software
>for Linux unless there is money in it". Could it be that Oracle sees money in it
>:o)?
And how many computer users use Oracle at home? Network professionals will
certainly embrace it, but you are deviating from the concept of 'mainstream'
use that is necessary for Linux to unseat Windows.
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
Brett Reschke wrote >...
You are still missing the point. "Interested hackers taking a stab" are
doing so because it's fun to them. What if no hackers are interested in
having fun doing development for XYZ peripheral that the public is
embracing? The public's interest in the OS will wane and the paradigm will
keep on humming away in its isolated corner of the computer universe because
it isn't based on satisfying the *consumer*. If the development is getting
done, how is the mainstream public supposed to know about it without it
being advertised? Who is going to pay to advertise something if no-one is
making a profit? Do you expect everyone to visit a website and download and
install the latest whatever of their own volition? Ask a basic mainstream
Windows user to update their video driver, see what happens. Basic
mainstream Linux users wouldn't be any smarter.
Furthermore, people keep projecting that Linux will be as 'user friendly' as
Windows at some point. It was also noted that a GUI is a significant drag
on resources. Do you suppose that when Linux has the same friendly GUI,
supports the same range of hardware (new and old) and has to run as many
disparate and sometimes poorly written programs and drivers as Windows, that
it will be any less bloated, hungry and unstable? Make sure you are really
looking at the whole picture.
At the risk of sounding jingoistic, I have noticed that a large portion of
the interest in Linux is coming from Europe. Success is really just short
for commercial success, and it might be the case that the European
contingent just doesn't grasp the reality that something needs to be
commercially proferred and marketed to become commercially successful.
There is really a raw, blind, disgusting commercial lust in America that is
responsible for the fact that something is not considered a BIG commercial
success unless America buys it.
I see all the Linux advocacy really being focused on unseating Microsoft.
As a Linux advocate, if the point really is that you want to have a stable,
efficient OS to use, don't you already have that? What do you care what
everyone else in the world uses for an OS if you're happy with yours? I see
Linux being a smashing success amongst the only people who have the
possibility of being served well by it, and they already are. The
mainstream home computing environment is where large-scale smash Microsoft
unseating success happens, and without a commercial paradigm, that just
ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. Keep it in perspective...Experienced internet users
almost uniformly detest AOL, but it is the darling of mainstream computer
users. Experienced computer users often find themselves in the
Microsoft-hater camp, but to mainstream users it is just the company that
makes their software and they are glad about it. It is obviously not
because they are superior products, but because they are marketed well. If
you think that reality is going to change substantially and make a
communally developed, non-profit hobbyist OS more popular than MS, you are
suffering serious delusions.
Anecdotal successes don't mean squat, either, so please don't bother using
them as a defense. Look at the whole reality, human nature and the modern
marketplace included, and you will see that there is no possibility Linux
will ever be substantially more than what it is.
Or maybe I'm just full of crap. Probably :o)
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
Is that their replacement for their office suite for Java? hehe
All in good fun.
Jack
I noticed at Best Buy yesterday that there is now Corel WordPerfect 8 for
Linux.
ANash
>If the PUBLIC asks for Linux the hardware and software
>manufacturers will follow and since the group of Linux users is
>increasingly growing, this will at some point happen.
The PUBLIC is not going to ask for Linux. The PUBLIC doesn't care who makes
their OS or what their corporate/non-corporate philosophy/ethics or lack of
it, is. You are giving mainstream computer users more credit than they
deserve. These people think Netscape is an online service! They call MS
Word 'Wordperfect': they don't even know the name of the program! They
don't know what a file extension is because they have never seen or heard of
one! I had one person insist on buying a full tower because they thought
they could "fit more programs into it". Do you think these idiots (the vast
majority of the buying public) knows or even cares where their operating
system comes from? Do you realize they think the operating system is part
of the computer hardware? Do you think telling them it is more 'stable' and
crashes less is going to send them to the store in droves to buy Linux?
MACs have been pushed with that idea for years and their popularity
continues to decrease. They are everywhere, heavily advertised, with a
loyal user base and software on the shelves. People just don't want them!!
Well, 94% of the people anyway.
At what point is a non-commercial operating system non-promoted by anonymous
computer geeks going to fascinate them into dumping everything they have to
gain an advantage that no-one is explaining to them that they wouldn't even
understand? (whew!)
And really..give me some figures about this growth in the MAINSTEAM MARKET
of Linux. It exists and is accepted and successful in the areas where it is
understood and can be put to good use, but it will NEVER be even marginally
popular as a mainstream desktop OS.
Mainstream..NOT corporate NOT network NOT net servers NOT computer hobbyists
NOT programmers/developers NOT *** sim-racers!!
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
That's right. It's also freely downloadable! As is Corel draw.
// Johan
> I noticed at Best Buy yesterday that there is now Corel WordPerfect 8
> for Linux.
> ANash
I think most mainstream users buy whatever product they're most
comfortable with. Usually this is windows, because this is what most
people use at work or at an earlier age at school. They are familiar
with it and don't want to spend time learning two different system and
mix them up all the time.
This is where the change will start. The people who setup the computer
networks for companies are very well aware of the advantages of Linux in
stability and safety. Already companies are rejecting their NT servers
and are replacing them with Linux servers. In time the workstations will
follow the servers and that will be turning point. People will want to
use Linux at home.
And what mainstream user cares about stuff like plug and play? Do you
really think they are willing, or even dare to open their PC and plug in
a new soundcard? It will be sufficient for pc selling stores to install
and configure Linux. And if they ever need an upgrade? They'll go back
to the store and let someone install it for them. That's the same way it
goes today. From a users point of view Linux is no harder to use than
Windows. Netscape can still be started by a double click and enter still
brings you to the next line in a word processor.
You're right the mainstream user doesn't care who made the software, so
why would they keep buying MS software? I really don't see any MS
commercials on TV to convince them!
// Johan
Yepper...
NT2K Consumer has been delayed 3 _years_, and now Win98 is no longer
expected to be the last 9x version...
Who didn't see this coming?
I'll speculate that MS is having a _bear_ of a time getting PnP and
other 'consumer' features working on the NT Kernel, and they
over-estimated the work that would be involved.
-Larry
> Well, maybe you should get your facts straight: Supposedly win98 will
> suffer several "followups" before the lines finally merge into the
> nt-only domain, but by then (sometime around 2004, I guess) we'll all
> be running Linux anyway.
Quoted text (11 lines)
> >Oracle, the worlds largest database developer has it's latest database > version > >available for Linux, how's that for "Nobody is going to port or write > software > >for Linux unless there is money in it". Could it be that Oracle sees money > in it > >:o)? > And how many computer users use Oracle at home? Network professionals will > certainly embrace it, but you are deviating from the concept of 'mainstream' > use that is necessary for Linux to unseat Windows.>I think most mainstream users buy whatever product they're most
>comfortable with.
Excellent point
Strange as it sounds, I have experienced more people willing to do that than
to try and, say, change a device driver for an existing piece of hardware!
Part of the trepidation they feel is that they believe their computer is
filled to the bursting point with a snakepit of wires and incomprehensible
electronic components. Many get a sense of confidence when they see how
empty their computer really is. Still, you are right, plug and play is not
for the mainstreamer. Troubleshooting a plug 'n' play detection that
duplicates an existing component or wrongly detects a new one is also not
much fun, even for people who know what they are doing! (sarcasm alert) My
favorite thing about Win98 is the way you have to NOT have a COM port
installed in order to use it for a modem. What a clusterf*ck that it!
All true and a good point. I still see a chicken-or-the-egg thing about it
though. Your model of workplace installations filtering down into the home
environment is interesting and likely true to some extent, but I still don't
see it triggering a mass exodus since I don't think the majority of computer
'inspiration' comes from the workplace or schools. MACs are prevalent in
schools because the company promotes themself that way, but people still
leave school and buy PCs. It's just so much like a small wave trying to
take over a much larger one. Then..there is the fact that the same people in
retail stores who*** people on component upgrade installations and
troubleshooting for a living really aren't going to be keen on an OS that
doesn't require frequent, wallet-filling maintenance and may not be
interested in pushing it. (Human nature again)
In particular, MS Office is very pervasive. The names of the parts of the
suite are often some of the few buzz words that neophytes know. I don't
think they really care if they have Excel or Word, but whatever they do have
has to be absolutely transparently compatable with these programs' latest
versions for it to work.
Thanks for this discussion..I am really enjoying it,
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
I think you might be right today but there is a whole generation of kids who
are so relaxed and comfortable with the current technology that they will be
more knowledgable and discerning.
On previous threads I do see the relevance of Mazlow and the motivation of
Linux developers. How would you like to become famous for the LINUX GPL or
F1RS code. Open Source, I suppose, make it possible and maybe fame not
money will be the motivation.
Great (but off-topic) thread.
Terry
>>If the PUBLIC asks for Linux the hardware and software
>>manufacturers will follow and since the group of Linux users is
>>increasingly growing, this will at some point happen.
>The PUBLIC is not going to ask for Linux. The PUBLIC doesn't care who makes
>their OS or what their corporate/non-corporate philosophy/ethics or lack of
>it, is. You are giving mainstream computer users more credit than they
>deserve. These people think Netscape is an online service! They call MS
>Word 'Wordperfect': they don't even know the name of the program! They
>don't know what a file extension is because they have never seen or heard of
>one! I had one person insist on buying a full tower because they thought
>they could "fit more programs into it". Do you think these idiots (the vast
Quoted text (8 lines)
>majority of the buying public) knows or even cares where their operating >system comes from? Do you realize they think the operating system is part >of the computer hardware? Do you think telling them it is more 'stable' and >crashes less is going to send them to the store in droves to buy Linux? >MACs have been pushed with that idea for years and their popularity >continues to decrease. They are everywhere, heavily advertised, with a >loyal user base and software on the shelves. People just don't want them!! >Well, 94% of the people anyway.>I think you might be right today but there is a whole generation of kids who
>are so relaxed and comfortable with the current technology that they will be
>more knowledgable and discerning.
This is interesting, yes. The face of things will certainly change when the
power base in the world really falls in the hands of people who were born
into a computer/tecnho literate era. I don't, however, see them being less
greedy and capitalistic :o)
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
> >I think most mainstream users buy whatever product they're most
> >comfortable with.
> Excellent point
Thanx :)
That's because people feel more comfortable with things they can touch.
But after plugging it, you still have to install a driver for it! How
many people will still know what to do then?
True, but most of them still don't know how to treat a computer, they
get over confident. Once I was installing a new videocard in someones
computer and he thought the computer was a bit dusty on the inside. So
what does he do? He plugs in his full sized vacuum cleaner and starts to
clean out the computer's inside. You should have seen him busy, that
couldn't be good for the computer, but he insisted it had to be done!
:-)
Let's not bring back all those back memories, shall we :-)
You're right, there is and that's why thing are changing so slowly. If
people want Linux, but they can't buy it anywhere, all is lost. The same
thing works the other way around, if shops are selling Linux PC's, but
nobody buys it...
But I bet that all these people have also used a PC before and heard a
lot about it from people around them. If these people around them are
telling good things about Linux and BAD things about Windows, people
will buy Linux PC's.
This is not an issue. Component upgrades are independant from the OS.
The faster PC's get, the more demanding the software gets. As a result
computer hardware will always be too slow for the current software. Just
look at GPL ( hurray, we're back on topic :-) ) with it's advanced
physics model that requires a high end PC just to be able to run. If
papy had put everything they wanted in that sim nobody would be able to
run it, so if PC's get faster, papy will start over and we're back to
the start.
People don't want latest versions. I know people who don't even want
Word, because they think it's too hard to use. All the possibilities
scares them, they only want to be able to type a letter! Even wordpad
has more than they'll ever use. Remember, people that buy their first PC
are still using typewrites.
Me too,
// Johan
>Yes, Red Hat... looks like it, but even better! However, even in Linux,
>a GUI interface is still a HOG in terms of disk and RAM usage.
>-_Dave
Red Hat is the distribution, I think the next version (6.0, expected
in March or April, I think) whill ship with Gnome 1.0, a very nice
desktop interface which should pose no burden on today's hardware.
Even when running KDE (the desktop you're probably on about, see
http://www.kde.org) Quake2 comes up much faster under Linux than the
Windows version on the same machine due to Linux' much more efficent
resource use.
Cheers for now,
Uwe
--
Uwe Schuerkamp, Telemedia ////////////// Phone: +49 5241 80 10 66
Carl-Bertelsmann-Str. 161 I \\\\\\\\\\ uwe.schuerkamp at telemedia.de
33311 Guetersloh \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ http://home.pages.de/~hoover
PGP Fingerprint: 2E 13 20 22 9A 3F 63 7F 67 6F E9 B1 A8 36 A4 61
Quoted text (11 lines)
>> I love you sig, by the way, but isn't it a bit of a bias indicator? >> >Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change >> >to take effect. Reboot now? >Well, you have to reboot Win95 for almost ANY change, but Linux for >almost NO change of system params... >l8er >Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change >to take effect. Reboot now?Quoted text (9 lines)
>Actually, Linux has such a relatively configurable kernel, that it >does *not* force you into anything at all. If you want to run a lean >OS, you can hack the kernel to do *only* what you wish, and nothing >more. This is exactly one reason that Linux could 'win'. It has the >ability to be all OSes to all people. >Now, I'm no Linux guru. To be sure, I've only played with it, and >couldn't hack the kernel to save my life. But I can easily see the >potential. The point is that the kernel *can* be hacked.>> Anecdotal successes don't mean squat, either, so please don't bother using
>> them as a defense. Look at the whole reality, human nature and the modern
>> marketplace included, and you will see that there is no possibility Linux
>> will ever be substantially more than what it is.
>But it has been "more than what it is" for the last five years, since the number
>of users has doubled every year. Are you saying that this expansion will
>suddenly stop?
Yes. When it runs into the mainstream market where it's growth will stop
dead. Its popularity is growing in areas where it is understood and can be
put to good use.
For an analogy: Lots of autoX / road racing folks are suddenly buying BF
Goodrich G-Force tires for their cars, but I really don't think The G-force
tires are going to become the #1 tire in popularity on all cars.
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
Just take the next step :o).
/Christer
--
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the
online GPL ladders)
Quoted text (17 lines)
> >Oracle, the worlds largest database developer has it's latest database > version > >available for Linux, how's that for "Nobody is going to port or write > software > >for Linux unless there is money in it". Could it be that Oracle sees money > in it > >:o)? > And how many computer users use Oracle at home? Network professionals will > certainly embrace it, but you are deviating from the concept of 'mainstream' > use that is necessary for Linux to unseat Windows. > daxe > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > -----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------> Anecdotal successes don't mean squat, either, so please don't bother using
> them as a defense. Look at the whole reality, human nature and the modern
> marketplace included, and you will see that there is no possibility Linux
> will ever be substantially more than what it is.
But it has been "more than what it is" for the last five years, since the number
of users has doubled every year. Are you saying that this expansion will
suddenly stop?
/Christer, cant see the whole picture cause I'm only human :o)
snip
> There's another one nearly as nice:
> "This is Linux country. On a quiet night, you can hear
> Windows NT reboot." ;-)
Cool, another one for my growing "Cool Signature Database"(tm)...
Thinking about it I just invented another one:
"What to do when you break your PCs reset button?"
"Well, now you HAVE to install Linux..."
l8er
ronny
--
How to get rid of censorship in German game releases
<http://www.gamesmania.com/german/maniac/freedom/freedom.htm>
|\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather,
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep.
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car,
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!
The world isn't black and white. There is no such thing as a mainstream and not
a mainstream, but a great big grey area in the middle. I believe that the more
user friendly Linux becomes, the more users in the grey area will start to use
it.
Suppose this "plug and pray" thingy isn't such a good idea, but instead you get
a CD-Rom with a setup program included with every thing you connect to the
mainboard of your computer. Is that such a big difference from todays "plug and
pray", where you still get questions from the computer where the drivers are
located.
Here's a scenario. Nowadays there's no reason to NOT run an Oracle database on a
Linux. There's also already a lot of server applications (CORBA servers) written
in 100% pure Java and I see no reason to why not more of them will be run on
Linux, when they see that the database runs fine on it. Now you have the
developers of the Java code which makes up the CORBA server starting to want a
dual boot on their NT workstation, so they can have Linux on their local
machines to more effectively test and develop their code. They start to run
their web-browser and mail-clients on Linux and only reboot to write a word
document now and a again. Soon they would probably like to write all technical
document in either html or xml, so they dont have to switch to NT at all during
their working day. Already at this time all the file servers, web-servers and
mail-servers in the company are running on Linux. This is a couple of years into
the future, but it isn't really that hard to imagine, or is it :o).
Now, just take the next step :o).
/Christer
--
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/ (Read all about the "Global online
racing"-proposal under "For developers". Read it a couple of times, cause noone
has understood it the first time they've read it yet :o)).
http://home.swipnet.se/~w-41236/GplLadder/SOGL/index.html (Join one of the
online GPL ladders)
Quoted text (25 lines)
> >> Anecdotal successes don't mean squat, either, so please don't bother > using > >> them as a defense. Look at the whole reality, human nature and the > modern > >> marketplace included, and you will see that there is no possibility Linux > >> will ever be substantially more than what it is. > >But it has been "more than what it is" for the last five years, since the > number > >of users has doubled every year. Are you saying that this expansion will > >suddenly stop? > Yes. When it runs into the mainstream market where it's growth will stop > dead. Its popularity is growing in areas where it is understood and can be > put to good use. > For an analogy: Lots of autoX / road racing folks are suddenly buying BF > Goodrich G-Force tires for their cars, but I really don't think The G-force > tires are going to become the #1 tire in popularity on all cars. > daxe > -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- > http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World! > -----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==---------->The world isn't black and white. There is no such thing as a mainstream and not
>a mainstream, but a great big grey area in the middle. I believe that the more
>user friendly Linux becomes, the more users in the grey area will start to use
>it.
You can't step out of the little world you live in and see that the HUGE
VAST ENORMOUS COLOSSAL majority of computer users don't run webservers or
mailservers or databases or develop Java code (or any other kind)?
Mainstream users, the rank and file home computer users, don't do this stuff
and have no connection to this scenario, so Linux' proliferation in this
corner of the market isn't going to affect what they run at home on their
desktops.
*Sigh*. And tell me, please, why CD-ROMs are going to start coming with all
this cool stuff when there is no profit in it for anyone to bother making
the effort to include any of it? People could make money doing this now and
they don't. There is something called 'economic reality'. People who have
spent their entire lives in school tend to run on unrealistic ideals and
ignore that fact that nothing is going to succeed in this world unless it
plays a role in the world economy.
"Hi, I'm John Q. Homecomputeruser. What the hell is an Oracle database and
why do I need to know or care about it? Do I need to understand this? No?
Well then why are you bothering me with it?"
Me neither. I guess my Mother-in-law is going to be able to get on AOL
better because of that, huh? If not, then it doesn't matter to her or the
10,000,000 other customers of AOL. Are there 10,000,000 CORBA server
administators in the world?
I have news for you. Despite what your surroundings have apparently led you
to believe, the world is not full of programmers.
Nope. And none of it has ANYTHING to do with home computer users who make
up the most populated and cash-fluent segment of the market, the one that
Windows has near complete control of, and the one where Linux has NO CHANCE
of making a meaningful dent.
I know it's impossible for you to understand, but millions and millions and
millions of people run Windows and are perfectly, blissfully happy with it.
They have no incentive to change to something else, no matter how much
better you feel it is, and no matter how many developers and network
professionals adopt it and think Bill Gates is the Antichrist. Until a
MAJORITY of those people switch to LINUX, there is no incentive for
companies to begin porting their software _en masse_ to that platform.
Without the software support, people aren't going to switch.
Read that paragraph a couple times and see if you can grasp what I have been
saying. The arguments you offer have nothing to do with what I am talking
about and you haven't answered any of my questions, either.
:o)
daxe
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
I have now stepped out of my little world and I now suddenly realize how right
you are and how wrong I am :o). Thank you for providing the light and I'm sorry
if I have upset you with my stupidity :o).
I will also try to further educate myself in business economics, to decrease the
possibility of me making a fool of myself in this area.
/Christer, will try to be more careful about what I think about the future and
see too it that I have all the facts before I do so in the future :o)
>I have now stepped out of my little world and I now suddenly realize how right
>you are and how wrong I am :o). Thank you for providing the light and I'm sorry
>if I have upset you with my stupidity :o).
>I will also try to further educate myself in business economics, to decrease the
>possibility of me making a fool of myself in this area.
>/Christer, will try to be more careful about what I think about the future and
>see too it that I have all the facts before I do so in the future :o)
Well..
I am glad you have finally come to your senses and realize that I know
everything and am always right. That said, keep fighting the good fight and
don't let any blustery know-it-alls get you down, they are all full of poop.
;o)
daxe (smugly savoring his obvious superiority)
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
-----------== Over 66,000 Groups, Plus a Dedicated Binaries Server ==----------
