On Tue, Feb 27, 2001 at 08:44:20AM -0500, John C. Flohr wrote:
> Classic Microsoft bashing here - no idea what you're talking about!

I normally don't rise to such bait, but your obviously uninformed
confrontational tone really grated this morning.

I am a professional in the field, graduating and subsequently working
over a quarter-century, most of that as a consultant in software
engineering, security, network and systems design, and a slew of other
areas.  My clients have ranged from the largest Fortune 500 companies
to small businesses.  I wrote code for, and taught in-house classes in,
Unix internals while on contract at BTL.

I've lived through (and in some cases designed and written) various
mainframe and minicomputer operating systems, Multics, CP/M, MP/M,
numerous RTOS virtually all flavors of Unix, *all* of Redmond's systems
(I won't call all of them operating systems), and sundry other operating
systems.

I've been there and done that.  So I feel I _do_ have the right to
answer this.

> None, I repeat none, of us would have the extraordinary tools and
> capabilities we have today but for Microsoft's leadership.  Why must we
> constantly bash them.

With all due respect--this is balderdash.  The first 5 to 7 years after
the introduction of the PC with MS/DOS were spent catching up with where
CP/M already had gone; essentially, they killed a more mature OS with
marketing and hype.  I can't tell you how many hours of my life were
spent fixing screwups that originated in a combination of errors from
Microsoft and Intel.  Segmented architecture--what a crock.  Do you want
your program to be Tiny, Small, Compact, Medium, Large, or Huge model?
Windows--it wasn't even sensibly USABLE in any form until 3.1.  NETBEUI,
kept alive long after normal market pressures would have killed a protocol
that wasn't buoyed by millions of dollars.

How many millions of developer-hours have been lost by having to fight
the buggy and crash-prone MS operating systems and applications?  Worse,
that's become the de facto industry standard, as everyone scrambles to
get incomplete junk to market.

And do I really have to go into Microsoft's marketing practices?
The number of times it got into bed with another company, learned
that company's secrets, then kicked its partner out and claimed those
ideas as its own?  How often it crushed a competititor by turning out
an inferior retread of their product, rushed to market after throwing
money and developers at it; hiding the inferiority by often giving it
away free until the competition has had to fold?

Microsoft has never been innovative, and has been responsible for having
to re-invent applications and features that were on the way before
its advent.

Its one major strength is shrewd, ruthless marketing.  Yes, it put a
computer on everyone's desk.  One that is inferior to what it could
have been; with software that often corrupts data, encourages the
promulgation of viruses, and is foisted on both the lay public and
computer professionals alike with a stunning lack of documentation
and support.

> Remember UNIX predates Microsoft by many years and it
> never amounted to anything outside of the server environment.

If you mean that every Jack and Jane Doe didn't have it on their desks,
you could say that--very inaccurately.  The more accurate way to state
it is that despite the lunatic marketing practices of its original and
subsequent owners, it still managed to be the operating environment of
choice in virtually all laboratory and engineering settings.  You may
not have encountered it, but if you think it "never amounted to anything"
outside the server environment, you simply don't work in the field.

> Already Linux has moved way beyond traditional UNIX in general
> applicability.

Hmm...never really worked in Unix, have you?  Linux built on the GNU
tools--all Unix-based.  It's not "way beyond" traditional Unix yet in
many areas; I could enumerate if I cared to, but that's not the point.
It's growing at a great pace, and seems to be to be the clear successor
of the licensed Unix systems.

> Not by emulating UNIX's user interface and interoperability features
> I might add!

You reaffirm my belief you've never really worked in Unix.  Linux *is*
Unix--anyone who's ever worked in a Unix environment is immediately at
home in Linux.  There are no more variations in its implementation and
layout than I've had to deal with in the variants of Unix over the last
20 years.  I can directly port code and applications I've written for
other Unix variants to Linux with no more effort than I've had to expend
to move between, say, Solaris and BSD.

Linux is succeeding for three reasons:  First, it's unencumbered by
licensing restrictions; literally thousands of developers can see,
understand, and work on the system and its utilities.  Secondly,
its able to draw on the familiarity of a couple of decades of Unix
developers--there's really no significant learning curve to work on Linux.
Finally, there's a backlash against the predatory and monopolistic
practices of Microsoft.  Note that I rated this last of the three.
Microsoft will NOT just go away; and it's a hard sell at the corporate
level to move away from MS.  But 5 years ago, MS never considered the
possiblity that Linux would be a threat.  Today, I see that while MS has
42% of the server market, Linux has 21% and growing.  There *is* a choice.
-- 
        Dave Ihnat
        [EMAIL PROTECTED]



_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

Reply via email to