Will Linux have the same fate as Java? 331
geophile writes "This Boston Globe article starts out talking about Java's failure to take over the world, and then questions whether Linux will suffer the same fate. " Interesting question, and perhaps I'm being partial, but I feel as though Java promised that it was going to change the world-right then and there. Linux has been building for quite sometime, and continues to develop.
Does sloppy editing imply sloppy thinking? (Score:1)
Microsoft on Linux.... (Score:1)
This article was strangely biased. The whole article was an "interview" about a competing product with a Microsoft product manager. Oh, that's a great way to get an opinion about a subject.
So the Boston Globe expects us to rely on Microsoft to determine how well we are doing? That's like asking the Democratic candidate for President if the Republican candidate could win the election.
Some people die kicking...
-Brent--
the pathetic Hawatha Bray (Score:1)
Java *has* changed the world (Score:1)
Because of companies like Microsoft we are led to believe that you have to totally dominate and destroy everything else to be successful. Java is a success and it has changed the world already.
In the same way, Linux doesn't have to dominate the corporate arena to be considered valid. Dominiation doesn't equate to validity or success.
Re:by getting my MCSE I'd makes "lots" of money (Score:1)
You may have misunderstood poor Microsoft. They may have actually said "Get your MCSE. There's lots of money to be made." Which was true.
Re:the pathetic Hawatha Bray (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
the pathetic Hawatha Bray (Score:1)
Java and Linux -- the business cases (Score:3)
What was the business case?
1) Idependence from Microsoft.
2) Access to non-microsoft desktops.
3) Low deployment costs to pure thin clients.
4) Powerful language has most important semantic capabilities of C++ without the most troublesome features.
What are the realities?
Idependence from Microsoft: Most PHBs aren't going to see dependence on Microsoft as a problem, because it occurs in a intellectual realm orthagonal to their daily experience. Also, if everyone is in the same boat, it's not a _competitive_ issue. Finally, the key MS monopoly is not in OS, but in office applications. Without destroying this, essentially everyone is going to have to have a copy of Windows around (leaving aside people who can happily live on the fringe and don't go blank when they hear words like "XML").
2) Access to non-microsoft desktops. The two significant segments are Mac and Unix. The Java VM isn't going to deliver the Mac users the native user experience they prize, so scratch the Mac.
3) Pure thin clients as a solution to deployment costs. Most internal MIS shops will find the retraining costs orders of magnitude higher than deployment costs. The download bandwidth requirements for non-trivial applications make java impractical in the applications where pure thin clients are the most desirable.
4) Powerful language has most important semantic capabilities of C++ without the most troublesome features. IMO, the strongest argument for java, and alas the least persuasive to any non-technical businessman.
Now, what is the business case for Linux?
1) It is free (beer).
2) It makes surplus hardware useful.
3) Service based business model.
4) Stable and faster on common hardware.
5) Open/free source.
What are the realities?
1) It is free (beer).
The usual response to an acquisition cost differential is to appeal to TCO. The biggest cost is going to be retraining existing staffs (who are often barely competent to begin with). On the other hand, the scalability problems, and increasing complexity of MS offerings may somewhat negate this. For many shops, TCO is going to be lower sticking with the status quo, but if they have a few people who know Unix and have a role in which Linux can play, it's going to be hard to say no except out of pure intransigence. Overall, this argument is a mixed bag.
2) It makes surplus hardware useful.
If you need a intranet discussion and web server, can buy a new NT box with the appropriate license packs etc., or you can press that 486 in the basement into service. This is pretty much a no-brainer, because most of the cost is going to be content related; you can always give MS your bucks later.
3) Service based business model. This is the strongest case to put to management. Microsoft's revenues are primarily from controlling the copying of their software, not service. Third parties have stepped into the breach, but only have the vaguest idea of how things really work internally, and so are limited in effectiveness. Everybody has been burned by this. On the other hand Linux and BSD are freely copyable by all, so that the only feasible source of revenue is to provide service. This is practical, because every internal detail of how things work is public knowledge. This has already produced a situation where the _free_ support of Linux is far superior than almost any commercial support you can buy for Windows, so the bar is high indeed for companies like Red Hat who intend to make money in the Linux service arena.
4) Stable and faster on common hardware.
Strong case for server software, weak for desktop use. The most important factor in desktop use is to provide an adequate suite of end-user tools. Again a place where the MS application suite monopoly is key. Users hate BSOD, but they would hate even more not getting fidelity in printed output or scaling fonts, or not being able to cut and paste between two apps they use. Koffice, where are you?
5) Open/free source.
Again, truly a strong case, but with little or no appeal to management.
Overall, the case for Linux is much stronger than the case for java. While it holds great promise, the most serious problem for Java is the issue of ownership. If java fails to meet the business goals of Sun, or at some future point undermines them, you can be sure that java will be no more. Linux boxes do many useful things well today, and will continue to do them forever no matter the fate or strategy of any one company, so long as even one person has the desire to keep it going.
This last point is critical for developers. Apple developers have been burned by about faces on Lisa Pascal, Open Transport, Open Doc, and Applescript. MS has been incomparably better, but far from perfect. They've done things like restrict the screen resolution of WinCE, which naturally is a result of the difference between their users' interests and their own.
In the free software model, the user's insterest always wins.
Java is dead??? (Score:1)
Will W2K Suffer the same fate as Java? (Score:2)
To judge by Microsoft Corp's red-hot stock price and press clipppings, one might conclude that software giant RedHat Software Inc. is in for trouble.
Microsoft is the gargantuan Redmond company that has run up a massive market capitilization by peddling a version of 'windows', the decreasingly popular high-cost computer operating system.
But mention Microsoft and Windows to Linus Torvalds, kernel manager for the upcoming Linix kernel, and he'd probably seem almost on the verge of stifling a yawn. He'd likely say something like, "when you look at the hype versus the reality today, there's a big disconnect, besides it doesn't really affect me"
Maybe he would be whistling in the dark. But then, Linux has been here before.
Remember Java? That was the radical new technoligy of four years ago, an upstart product that threatened to smash operating system dependance once and for all.
Born in the labs of Sun Microsystems Inc. and intended at first to run cable TV controller boxes... this reporter has just realized that Java and Linux and W2K are very different both in form, feature and implementation making the Java comparison utterly useless.
Java basically died for original purposes.
Talk to Linux developers and they'll tell you that a similar fate awaits W2K. Kevin Way, director of FUD at ThereIsNoLinux Inc., says that W2K hype has already peaked. "Cold hard reality is coming to bear," he says.
Kevin points to the desperation of almost laughable articles which make claims like W2K being ready for heavy-duty tasks even when industry groups like the gartner group are recommending against adoption for several years. Also, W2K is notoriously complex, expensive and unstable, making it a poor choice for anybody but the most overfunded and masochistic users.
"There certainly are categories where W2K is a strong competitor," Way admits. For example he says it makes a good gaming platform. But Kevin says W2K still isn't ready for heavy-duty tasks that Linux, *BSD and other such open-source projects are designed to perform.
"They're probably a toddler now, instead of an adolescent," Way says.
Still, the java experience is utterly unrelated, yet somehow suggests that it's too early to say what W2K will do assuming it ever grows up.
the difference is the implementation (Score:2)
Linux has the benefit of having evolved into its current state. Developers had specific itches to scratch and Linux grew accordingly. The result isn't always pretty, but it's always functional because no coder would develop Linux away from being functional.
Java, on the other hand, was designed too quickly in the wrong directions before developers could tell Sun where the problems were. It has a lot of nice features, but a lot of painful drawbacks that have hindered its growth.
- the AWT mess
- the applet nightmare
- the distribution method
I've used Java a lot. I like Java, especially for cross-platform GUIs, networking and database access. But it has a variety of little annoyances that Linux simply doesn't have - because Linux is written by Linux users who generally know what features work and what don't before the general public sees them.Sun decided that getting a cross-platform GUI functional wasn't working, so they gutted the AWT down to only a few classes to implement on each platform and build Swing on top of those. Not a bad idea (somewhat RISCy), but they could've spotted that earlier on in the testing phase.
Applets should've been handled in a browser plugin to begin with. Now Java has advanced so far and gone through so many revisions that writing Java1.0 applets (to be compatible with older Netscapes) is painful. If only they'd been thinking of how to upgrade, but at the time new browsers were coming a lot faster than they are now.
Sun spent very little time deciding just how to get Java apps on a platform sanely. Jar files were a start, but then one still has to type a long command to get the app going. Surely they could've come up with a cross-platform tool in the JRE to launch an app in a Jar file without the CLASSPATH nightmare.
Re:They're the same to M$ (Score:1)
For me, it was
that marked the start of the FUD, and
which merely continued it.
Die, evil micro%loth scum, and all that
~Tim
--
Java is dead??? (Score:1)
Now, I know most Linux hackers are C programmers or scripters, but Java is far from being dead, as is far from having failed. There are 1.7 million Java programmers, according to the Boston Globe artical, and 399,000 Linux hosts on the net, according to the April RIPE host count. You can double the Linux count and halve the Java count and still ask whether, if Java is dead, what is Linux?
Java wasn't intended to kill Windows; it still needs an OS to run on top of. As a result, it provides as much advantage to Windows as it does to any other OS. The hope was that Java would provide a mechanism for software houses to produce software that would run on any platform, and thereby give other OSes a chance to fight on a level playing field. It isn't up to Java to defeat MS; it is up to other OSes. Whether the Java language itself is better than any other language is a mostly matter of taste and is an issue of debate for computer theorists; however, many of the features of Java, which are lacking in C or C++, and many of the features that are lacking in Java which are present in C and C++, make developing Java applications easier.
Maybe Java isn't as popular among Linux users because we have the slowest virtual machines of any platform. At our development we use several Java applications in our development suite, and on the Windows NT machines these applications are scarcely slower than native apps. Most importantly, I can use the same apps on my Linux development machine; if it weren't for Java, I'd have to run Windows to be consistent with the other non-Linux developers, so I, for one, am grateful to Java for allowing me to use the OS of my own choice.
It is a mistake to claim that Java has failed or is dead, and a disservice to fail to recognize what opportunities the Java platform has provided anybody who wants freedom to choose their OS.
The only answer... (Score:1)
Get to it people!
Re:I have to step in now. (Score:2)
Did anyone read the words open-source, free, or stable anywhere in the article? Or perhaps the comparison of a corporate product (Java) to a community one (Linux), which BTW hasn't really existed before (at lest on this scale). This reporter needs a reprimand for shoddy work, with media competition going through the roof credibility is King, the Boston Globe has lost it with me. (if not for the article, for the fact that I couldn't find a quick and easy e-mail address for gosh sakes!, c'mon folks "Interactive Media" sheesh)
Re:Linux has a different set of challenges and ass (Score:2)
Dude, the problem is that (at least with SUN's VM) Java is so slow that it's painful to even use a Java *chat* program, not to mention anything that takes any actual computing power.
You can't just ignore performance, if performance is too bad, people just won't use your app. I've seen 3 or four sweet java apps which were awesome, except for being so upsettingly slow that they were unusable. If you want an example, here's one: WebRPG.
The difference is in the license. (Score:1)
Java and Linux vs. Microsoft (Score:1)
This paragraph from the article is telling:
Plainly there's no need to mourn for Java's fate. But its success as a sort of welding tool for computer networks is a long way from the early visions of Java partisans.
Java's use as a 'welding' tool was the death sentence for Microsoft's plans for taking over the world. For most companies, it's MUCH easier to operate an all-Windows network than a mixed network or all-anything-else network. The only thing that's probably keeping many companies from going 100% Windows is Java + Javascript + HTML interfaces to legacy systems. That is why IBM has thousands of Java programmers and is giving away Visual Age for Java for Linux. If everyone were programming in Visual Basic, IBM and Linux would be in very deep doo-doo.
Oh, and support Mozilla, too. It will probably be essential in a few years.
Re:Ah, but Java had a little problem... or two (Score:1)
>Exactly. And the world just isn't pure OO.
You can write procedural code in Java -- just use static fields and methods. Then all the O/O becomes a namespace resolution tool, and a damn better one than C++, for that matter.
(On the badness of manditory GC in Java)
>Try writing a guidance system for a missile.
>And try sleeping for two seconds while waiting for the GC to do it's job.
First built-in GC is, in all but the most trivial real world cases, considerably faster than doing it by hand. Second, the vast number of bugs introduced by dangling pointers and the like means I'd personally feel safer with a Java control chip than a C++ one.
Point missing here (Score:3)
You need to meet more programmers. (Score:1)
I've been in the biz for nearly 20 years now, I've used every language from assembler to FORTH, to C++, and I love Java. I've used it to deploy commercial financial services applications faster and more reliably than I could have in C++.
While the JVM will always be a performance issue, (I would never use Java for number crunching or high transaction rates), it's good enough for many business applications and the Java language is a huge improvement over C++.
People forget that C was around a long time before it began to make inroads against FORTRAN and COBOL. Sooner or later, Java will do the same to C.
--
Re:Ah, but Java had a little problem... or two (Score:1)
Oh, and by the way; arbitrary precision floating point numbers is in a "library" (Java has packages of different classes, and I guess you could call that a library). The Java "language" is like the syntax: for, while, etc. That's just like C++ with some keywords added, some keywords removed, and some things mixed around. All of the really great functionality is provided in the Java API (libraries I suppose). Therefore, it doesn't have threading and sockets built into the language per-se, but they are in the "libraries". The arbitrarily large and precice integers and floating point numbers are in the java.math "library".
Theoretically, you could write C++ like code by making one large class with a bunch of static methods. That way from main you can just call static functions of the class without using the class name, although I don't really see why you'd want to do that.
Re:I have to step in now. (Score:2)
Re:Ah, but Java had a little problem... or two (Score:1)
It is not object oriented like C++, where you can choose to use object orientation when it fits the task at hand. You are _forced_ to use object orientation, always, everywhere.
Um, the only real difference is that there is no global scope. What is problematic about that?
You can easily communicate datastructures over the network. But you cannot (AFAIK) communicate the code.
CORBA and RMI are well suited for the task, and class files have been loaded across the network for ages.
You have garbage collection always, everywhere. Not just when it's a benefit, but again you're locked into it.
This is bad how? You mean manual memory allocation and deallocation is better? No thanks, I would rather model the _application_ I am writing than having to think on the machine's premises.
To quote Bjarne Stroustrup:
Don't. As comp.lang.java.* discovered long ago: Bjarne is scared of Java. He's spreading the same level of FUD about it as Micros~1, SCO etc. are about Linux.
Meanwhile, the rest of us are rapidly developing applications in a far more elegant language than Stroustrup's hideous hybrid will ever hope to aspire to lick the shoes of.
the long-term view (Score:1)
JAVA Comeback? (Score:1)
Personally I think JAVA will make a comeback. A lot of languages wax and wane as time goes by (C++ for instance) and I think that one day in the not too distant future JAVA will come back in a big way.
LINUX will be around for good, I think. (Even though I don't have it, nor do I want it). But don't believe for a second that it can't be shut down by big business. Public support can only go so far.
Re:One company vs many programmers... (Score:2)
Heh (Score:1)
----------
Does it matter? (Score:1)
Re:The difference is in the license. (Score:1)
doug
Re:Just what we need, another Hiawatha Bray articl (Score:1)
At least he isn't _Simson_. Somebody otta whack that boy with a clue-stick.
One company vs many programmers... (Score:2)
Linux, on the other hand, is the effort of many many programmers all over the world, all with different wants and needs. Nobody can really kill Linux. Even if Linus were to be hit by a bus (pray it never happens), Linux would continue.
I'm not sure about all this talk of world domination anyway. Even if we don't take over the world, it isn't the end of the world. I use Linux because it works. Taking over the world is all nice and all, but if we fail, we at least still have a decent OS made better by the attempt.
Re:Huh (Score:1)
The threat of forking is a powerful motivator to keep projects open to outside ideas, and to merge well written developer patches.
There is one other large difference between control by Sun vs. control by Linus. Linus is not legally bound to make maximum profit for his shareholders as Sun is. He can base his decisions on how much he likes the code.
Re:The difference is in the license. (Score:1)
_Ken
Whatever (Score:1)
Thanks for using mine, too.
Re:more PR??? OK!!! (Score:1)
Spend it wisely. Take some Java classes.
(snicker)
You know you're reading a bad article when... (Score:1)
My $0.02Cdn...
I knew the article would dive into standard FUD and "misinformation" when I saw the first quote was from a Microsoft exec. Talk about your biased sources! It's like asking Lenin his opinion of capitalism. You can pretty much guess the kind of quote you're going to get.
I suppose we should apply the lessons we learned from the Bob Metcalfe/Win2K endorsement fiasco, though:
- Avoid flaming reactions
- Don't worry about articles like this; for every journalist who actually believes M$ press releases, there's another one who has a clue as to what's really going on.
- If you absolutely must reply to the author/editorial board, write an intelligent rebuttal; point-by-point analyses and calm language show you know what you're talking about.
- Just remember; for the second Mindcraft test, the Linux community sent programmers, while M$ sent marketers (is this just an urban legend? It still spells out the differences between the BorGates and the OS Federation)
Stay calm, concentrate on making one of the best operating systems even better, not on "beating Microsoft". Cooler heads shall prevail:)Re:The difference is in the license. (Score:1)
Mark Andriessen of Netscape supposedly said "client-side Java doesn't work" and I agree.
Re:The problems with Java that don't exist on Linu (Score:1)
The specs are there for all to implement at their leisure. Why would you want Sun's particular and buggy implementation? Get Kaffe [kaffe.org] and participate to your heart's content.
Re:well, no. (Score:1)
incompatible C/C++ libraries would disable the product-- preventing users from being able to use other binaries.
They don't even need to provide a compiler!
the gpl has never been legally tested
even if you could win, would you want to fight a legal battle with MS?
the idea is that you don't want/need OS community support--- you don't even have to distribute the (correct) source!
MS has plenty of money... a free CD in every trade magizine is likely to get a lot of people to try it... and get burned!
if you want to be really tricky, make it so that the only thing you can install on top of it is win2k!
Point being... if MS wants to... they could try something interesting.
Re:Except that no sane Linux user would use MS Lin (Score:1)
Re:Utterly false !! (Java support of Linux) (Score:1)
Re:Utterly false !! (Java support of Linux) (Score:1)
(Note, though, that "competing" VMs on Win32 are strangely absent, including Microsoft's fast and well-patched one based on 1.1.4, IBM's etc.)
Re:Java unlike Linux is cripled (Score:1)
Java is frequently compiled to native code. Where's the problem?
Also, a GUI application waiting for user input or for network information waits just as fast running on a VM or running natively on top of some C++ API on top of another API etc. The difference being the user with the Java application has been using the software for the three months the Java programmers didn't waste looking for the source of wild pointers and memory leaks. :-)
Re:How MS Can Kill Linux (Score:1)
the same way it killed MSIE and Microsoft's ripoff of javascript during the IE3.0 days?
Re:Linux should be so lucky as to "fail" like Java (Score:3)
Caterpillar. Cargill. Tennessee Valley Authority. American Airlines. Sabre. Tricon Restaurants (Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, KFC). These are not "mom 'n' pop" operations, they are huge corporations collectively dumping hundreds of millions into the Java industry. There are many, many more.
Good point. I'll look for one or maybe take a stab at one.
IBM did no such thing. Not only does IBM still sell and support OS/2, but it's sales are exceeding projections [zdnet.com]. OS/2 may serve as an example of a market failure, but it also serves as an example of how IBM does not abandon its customers.
What you didn't mention is the companies aligned against Java - Microsoft and HP to name two. Both are pushing HP's Chai.
This statement is really proof that you are way too ignorant to be criticizing Java. Chai can hardly be called anti-Java. Chai is a Java Virtual Machine. Chai supports Java, albeit not necessarily Sun's strict definition. And I did mention HP -- it's another company investing in Java technology (you did read my post, right?).
Beta is dead, and I'm sure Sony can't be too pleased to see DAT relegated to a tiny market of recording enthusiasts.
ROTFLMAO. Anyone who could dismiss ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, HBO, BBC, CBC, Univision and who knows how many global networks both broadcast and cable as a "tiny market of recording enthusiasts" is irretreivably stupid. I challenge you to find a broadcast production facility (among thousands) in the civilized world that does not feature a Beta SP deck and a DAT.
Re:How MS Can Kill Linux (Score:4)
Java exists to attack Microsoft. Everybody knows this. Java is a top-down marketing strategy to hit 'em where it hurts. In a way, Java is just another closed product that claims to fit needs that Microsoft has missed. Java is essentially fighting fire with fire.
People think that Linux is just Anything But Microsoft, but it's not really. It's an organic, bottom-up movement. Linux grows into what people need and want, in a direction that provides a stable, useful tool.
This is exactly the opposite of the direction that Microsoft products take. Microsoft products grow in a direction that increases your hunger for more Microsoft products and new releases of the old ones.
Linux and GPL in general being so completely different than the MS-wares makes people believe that it's a directed attack on MS, but it's not. Linux users generally just have work to get done and Linux does it for them. I won't deny that some Linux users ALSO enjoy the Anything But Microsoft aspect of Linux, but this isn't the raison d'etre for Linux as it is for Java. Linux is like fighting fire with water.
Linux being completely different than Microsoft products, gives Microsoft little leverage to try and defeat it. The Holloween Memos show that they don't know what to do, and the "Labor Day Memo" [slashdot.org] pokes fun at the possibility of their using their standard tactics.
It should go without saying that they never support this product, fail to mention it on most of their web pages, remove all references to it from their Knowledge Base, charge exorbitant prices for it (while also distributing it free in computer books) and include the 49.7 day bug.
The obvious problem with L++ is that there would be no community support for it. If MS didn't support it heavily (as you suggest), and the Linux community wouldn't touch it (as I would guess) then it would be stillborn. Anyone who tried to make it work would give up on it almost immediately when they found they couldn't get any support for their problems.
Then, after dividing the market, there's no way Linux could sue them.
Dividing the market just isn't a problem with Linux the way it would be with Java. Java only works at all if it works exactly the same everywhere. Something called Linux works if it works anywhere. People who were interested in getting work done with a stable platform that has rich functionality (love those MS buzzwords!) in Internet applications just use some version of Linux. It doesn't hurt Linux that there are branches. If somebody sees things from two different branches that could productively brought together into one, this can be done fairly easily.
Once you've used Linux somewhere for an application it's just dirt cheap to clone that success N times. The incremental costs are often near 0 as you can use old computers that have long since been amortized down to nothing and just happen to be laying around. As MS knows from their experience of marginalizing Netscape, you just can't compete with free.
Re:LInux is not Java (Score:1)
So your contention is that Linux -- one OS with a
very small share of that market -- is more widespread
than Java, a language that spans practically every
OS, and is used by both the developers, and the
people that run the Java programs?
In short, HUH?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:Linux should be so lucky as to "fail" like Java (Score:1)
Industry chatterboxes, including the media, are fixated on the idea of a winner take all, head to head battle between M$ and some imagined direct competitor. These folks are without a clue. These folks are actively failing to see the internet -- failing to see how significant it is that M$ is a marginal force in the web.
Java may not be fulfilling its promise as a Windows killer. It may not have augured in the anticipated network computer. But Java is playing an integral, pivotal role in the maturation of the web. It is healthy and it is maturing nicely. Pity the fools that can't see or understand this.
Re:Nah.... (Score:1)
I suppose I wrote this story as much for my own edification as anybody else's. I'm worried that people like myself are getting a little too eager to see Linux as our liberation from a Microsoft-dominated world. I found myself remembering how we'd heard the same predictions about Java, and it got me to thinking--how are Linux and Java similar, and how are they different? And will Linux succeed where Java has so far failed? Should we even expect this of Linux?
So I took a stab at answering these questions. While the result may not have been entirely satisfactory, it sure set you guys to thinking, and I'm enjoying the heck out of your responses.
By the way, you can track me down at bray@globe.com. I may not be able to respond to all messages, but I'll do what I can...
media has limited attention span (Score:2)
Java has been spectacularly successful. Its most important use is probably server side development. Java's run-time safety, reflection, and dynamic loading are crucial features, and its libraries have become more complete and comfortable than those of OpenStep and other applications development platforms. Of course, Java isn't without warts, but it's a lot better than any other widely used platform out there. Java 2 also has made lots of progress on the client side, and apparently will be included with an upcoming browser release by AOL.
I'd expect that Linux, just like Java, will fall from media favor sooner or later. We'll get articles about how Windows 2000 is the best thing since sliced bread and how it will wipe every other operating system from the face of the earth, or about the rebirth of OS/2, or about BeOS or whatever. Just like Java, Linux will continue to be enormously successful.
Now, if we could only get a complete, working Java 2 implementation on Linux; the Blackdown port is so close, yet not quite ready for production use.
Re:Classic M$ FUD (Score:1)
Just for the record, I run linux (debian) at home, with NT running in vmware. Linux crashes more often than NT.
Fear of Linux Desktops (Score:1)
The biggest seller of PCs in Britain selling machines with Linux and SO pre-installed, eh?
Well, now isn't THIS interesting.
Maybe this is yet an additional motivation for Sun to purchase Star Division?
Think about it. You work in a Solaris shop. All the technical staff are sold that Unix is the way and Windows is not to blight the desktops. Even the secretaries and non-technical management types must use Unix so as to be supportable. And, it's not just all bigotry really. For people to really work in that environment, they need solid X-Windows, NFS, SMTP/IMAP support that's not a toy, etc. etc.
Now, the computer store down the street is selling desktops with Linux and SO pre-installed for under $1,000. You've always bought $4,000-$5,000 Solaris workstations before. You've played with Solaris/X86 too, but it's quite a bit more expensive than Linux. Always requires someone to sit down and install and configure it Solaris and Star Office, too. A pre-installed Linux system sure starts to look attractive. A lot of the technical staff use it at home, and some of them have started using it at work for the odd job, so there's no fear of the unknown.
What does this do to Solaris desktop sales? And if the desktops all go to Linux, how long until they start to look at it for low-end servers and then...
The test will be if PCs with Linux/SO pre-installed will continue to be available, at the same prices, as before Sun purchased Star Division.
How MS can kill Linux - a realistic approach (Score:1)
MS will use open source against itself and do what it has always done, embrace and extend.
If MS put in the functionality to run linux binaries ala RPMS and made it easy for MS to compile sources or SRPMS, then it would use the open source software without needing the open source OS. It could then easily extend the libraries to 'enhance functionality'. A lot of developers will of course try and make it so that it only compiles on specific platforms, but because it's open source it won't belong before someone creates an MSRPM of the software.
They won't compete directly but allow windows to do the same things, although they will have a problem with multi-user stuff.
Re:FUD-laden article. (Score:2)
Linux Will Win, Because Vendors & Users Save Money (Score:1)
I love Hiawatha Bray's writings (http://www.monitortan.com/) and have read his columns for years, but what he fails to realize in regards to Linux is how many companies have a fundamental economic interest to ditch Windows in favor of Linux. Billions of dollars flow from PC manufacturers alone to Microsoft (Compaq paid Microsoft close to a billion dollars last year). That gives all the hardware manufacturers a powerful reason to want an alternative -- look at the vendors who invested in Red Hat when it was still private. Eliminating the "Windows tax", as Bob Frankenberg (then the head of HP's PC division) once called it, will make them all more profitable.
And of course its not just vendors who pay. Major corporations spend huge amounts of money with Microsoft for their users, and spend even more money maintaining Microsoft applications, and in the year 2000 you will see creative IT departments convince a few Fortune 1000 companies to standardize on Linux on the desktop. It will be less expensive to deploy and less expensive to maintain. By 2005, it will snowball into Linux on the business desktop, coexisting with Windows on dual-boot machines for a while, until Windows is superfluous.
Since there is no comparable economic motive for businesses to embrace Java, I think that Bray's analogy between the two technologies is fundamentally flawed. Linux *will* dominate the world, because it will save vendors and users money in the short term and the long term.
Not Right (Score:1)
Re:POSIX to the rescue (the Newton paradigm) (Score:1)
The X/Open standards from the Open Group which are used to determine which products can truly call themselves UNIX(tm) are more complete, but still would not ensure complete compatibility with all Linux apps. (Just look at the problems many apps written for Linux have when they are first ported to other Unixes.)
Re:Trolling for dollars (Score:1)
most one-sided battle of wits I've ever seen.
Red pen... don't waste your time any more.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:Linux AND Java could be the solution ! (Score:1)
As time passes, more and more Linux users will actually learn how to use Java properly and we will see good code come from them. Until then there are tons of good C coders around who will be happy to keep doing what they do best.
I write my java on Linux, test my EJBs on a 98 box against DB2 and finally deploy on an NT server with SQL7. The app is fully distributed across four seperate machines and the EJBs can be further scaled across multiple machines which do not even need to be aware of each other. Furthermore I stopped caring about the actual OS or even hardware a long time ago. I can mix and match any OS I like at any point in the Application.
I mention this because Java is the ONLY reason that my company has started to allow production use of Linux boxes. Linux fans need to start appreciating that fact. With Java I can silently replace NT boxes without making a headache for anybody.
Happy Java Programmer
Re:I got it! you work for Microsoft (Score:1)
rag on someone because they can speak more languages than you can?
C'mon, you can do better than that, right?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Re:Just More FUD, Here's the proof (and some more) (Score:2)
- And he says Linux is notoriously complex and hard to use, making it a poor choice for any but the most sophisticated users.
(emphasis mine)permit me a cruel chuckle.
Hehe, Permit me to join you.
Sometimes, Microsoft marvels me with the words they use. Only a choice for the most sophisticated users, eh? So all those Windows Admins are clueless? That figures.
But that's what Microsoft long says. They've before claimed that one of the reasons you should use Windows is because it costs a lot more to hire a Unix admin then it does a Windows Admin. Now they claim that Window Admins aren't "sophisticated" and can't "handle" Unix.
I used to be a gung-ho Windows Advocate. Yeah Baby!! Windows was going to take over the world!! But Microsoft didn't do a very good job in serving me. They were just concerned about their own profits. I was just a pawn in their hands. Patted on the head when it helped "them", and stomped to the side when they no longer "needed" me.
They told me that by getting my MCSE I'd makes "lots" of money. But then I found out that by getting my MCSE I'd be getting paid less then if I'd learn another OS. I was going to be the smartest Windows Admin. But now they say that Windows is focused to the less "sophisticated" Admins, and I find that there isn't a lot of opportunity to learn the internals of Windows.
No, sorry Microsoft. If you want *real* admins, then you need to think of those admins. You need an OS that requires more to be certified then just knowing how to install, configure those few options, and reboot. You need to see that they are paid in the same range as other admins. And you need to attract the most "sophiscated" admins.
I wish I could feel your pain, Microsoft. But for some reason it eludes me.
-Brent--
Re:Linux should be so lucky as to "fail" like Java (Score:2)
I currently am working for a company which is getting heavier into creating Java Applications and Applets to take care of core business logic. The management types are gladly willing to take a very slight performance hit to get the benefits of write once run anywhere. PC, Mainframe, Unix server, NT Server, WHATEVER. They also like hearing all about the benefits of object oriented re-use! I think Java is only going to get bigger and better as time passes. Eventually I can see that its originally intended use might come back around, but for now, businesses are seeing great value in its flexibility, and are only beginning to think of ways to use it.
-Diggem
Crusading Script Kiddies (Score:4)
Give me a break.
1. Java is alive and well. Script kiddies won't know it, but those in the industry certainly do. Java is rapidly expanding into corporate IS/IT, server-side startup software ventures, and embedded systems. Java talent earns somewhere around 50% more on average than equivalent C/C++ talent.
2. Java doesn't suck. You only think it sucks because either you haven't really tried implementing a significant project in it (since 1.1.x), or you're a script kiddie who can't handle complying with imposed methodology. The class libs in Java are very close to object-based systems like Smalltalk. Very nice, but very strict. It's not PERL, VB, or any other script interpreted thing. It's more on a par with C++, Smalltalk, CLOS, etc.
Crusading script kiddie zealots would be well advized to embrace Java, Delphi, Oracle, Informix, ODI, or anything else enterprise level which legitimizes Linux in the enterprise. I know you hate it, but the enterprise is important to your succeeding beyond "hobbyist" status. (And save your ISP args; witness FreeBSD q.e.d)
--
Re:Linux should be so lucky as to "fail" like Java (Score:2)
Actually, in many of the large IT shops I am familiar with, it already has, in that VB is already considered a "legacy" programming language and new projects are generally being done in Java. While it won't happen overnight (just like all the COBOL and C++ code out there won't go away), Java is already starting to replace VB, PowerBuilder and C++ for a lot of things.
buzzword bingo (Score:3)
Java was born as hype, remained hype, and fell from grace because it didn't live up to the hype. Among other things, the concepts of Java and Virtual Machines weren't exactly new; in a lot of ways, it was just an interpreted language like Lisp, excepting compiled into bytecode to make it more proprietary.
Regardless of anything Java has and has not done, Java has about jack shit to do with Linux, other than you can run Java under Linux.
Just my $.02.
LInux is not Java (Score:2)
This artical contains a lot of good points, and a lot of reasons why Linux may never become a contender to NT, but is this the point. It tries to draw a comparison between Java, a semi-open programming language, and Linux a fully open-sourced kernel/OS. Java has a t best a limited market, aimed at those who write programs. Consumers are not interested in what language a piece of software is written, but in how useable it is, how fast it is, and whether MS produce it. Everyone must use an OS, and the public is becoming a more advanced consumer in this respect. Normal (non-computing) people are questioning whether Windows is right for them. This is where Linux is different from Java. People want it and will, therfore, buy it.
How MS Can Kill Linux (Score:3)
They develop their own version, release it as L++, base it on C libraries that are incompatible with both libc5 and glibc2 and in various other ways make it flashier but impossible to implement next to real Linux, but claim it's the same.
It should go without saying that they never support this product, fail to mention it on most of their web pages, remove all references to it from their Knowledge Base, charge exorbitant prices for it (while also distributing it free in computer books) and include the 49.7 day bug.
Then, after dividing the market, there's no way Linux could sue them. I mean, Sun has hundreds of lawyers. The best we could do is throw a couple FSF volunteers at them.
In a matter of six months, MS could have Linux deader than OS/2 and be free to force Win2000 upon everyone (because we know Linux people aren't going to bite the bullet and use *BSD).
Conquering The World 101. They've done it before, they'll try it again. Unfortunately.
-Chris
Nah.... (Score:2)
1- Linux has developers already
2- Linux has open standards and source
Basically this means that the developers - who are actually using Linux can bend and twist it to fit their need. Sun needed to convince developers, and then jerked people around about the source code and license, then trying to get ISO certification (or was it IEEE?...whatever)
So I don't think the same fate applies. Linux will be around for a while and should do some great things. But then, I'm preaching to the choir - aren't I?
-m
Ah, but Java had a little problem... (Score:2)
With Linux, there's a performance gain (in server use, still a hit for desktop use). Linux's biggest problem is the trolls who think they're advocating. There's so many people out there posting flame and counterflame over some poor newbie's "how do I get X working?" that the newsgroups haven't got bandwidth for beyond-newbie questions any more (such as "how do I make my IDE CD-ROM and CD-RW work at the same time?").
my 2 cents
well, no. (Score:3)
But then you kind of run up against the fact that if it's released under the GPL, then it is trivial for, say, Redhat, to pull out all the nice features and incorporate it into redhat. Or for someone to hack together a compatible version of L++ and release it.
And if it isn't GPL, then, well, it doesn't have a gnat's chance in hell. Never mind for a second what exactly it is that wouldn't be GPLed; it sure isn't the kernel, cuz they'd have to rewrite it from the ground up to be free of the GPL virus. And if it's a replacement for GNU GCC/Make, well, it has to be compatible enough to still compile the kernel perfectly.
Whatever a non-GPLed L++ would hypothetically be, it would get no support from the open source community. Meanwhile the closed source community would consider it a waste of time to develop for, since they can reach a wider audience by writing for NT anyway.
FUD-laden article. (Score:3)
capabilities, such as the ability to run on computers with multiple
processor chips.' Linux runs on 4 different SMP platforms: Intel, Alpha, Sparc and PowerPC. On Sparc64 Linux has been demonstrated to boot/run with 64 CPUs. NT runs on one SMP platform (Intel). The biggest SMP box NT ever ran on is 12 CPUs. Draw your own conclusions about SMP capabilities and hardware/vendor independence.
Re:Heh (Score:2)
Sad, but true. At the moment Windows is the better platform in the consumer world. Everyone knows how to use it, the apps they know and curse run on it, and it's from a name they (dis-)trust. Yet Linux is getting better, and in a very short time will be able to present a real alternative to the most inbred of users. This can be readily seen by the fact the PC-World (the biggest retailer of systems in Britain) already offer Linux in theior software section (Red hat and one other I think) and have just introduced a PC with Linux and Star-Office pre-installed instead of Windows. No-one ever offered a Java compiler pre-installed.
No SMP Again? (Score:3)
In net media vs. old school media arugments, the old school guys are always arguing that the net media and forums like
Linux has a different set of challenges and assets (Score:5)
The possible key difference is open-sourcing. If all bugs really are shallow to a sufficient number of eyeballs, then we should continue to see far more robust software. That can impact the bottom line for lots of corporations, and thus gain substantial extra market/mind share. But as far as the individual desktop goes, Linux (while always a viable alternative) won't succeed purely on the basis of being more robust. Users need out-of-the-box hardware support and the ability to run the software they want to run, from productivity apps to home applications (read: Quicken) to, yes, games.
Java hasn't won primarily because Sun seems to have forgotten that while technologically superior doesn't always win, it is important. I carpool with a Java programmer, and whenever I make the point that Java is slow, he tells me to run a performance VM. There's the flaw: a "performance" anything should be for excellent results, not acceptable results.
Linux needs to build on its technological achievements, always improving, to win corporate share, and on its fundamental usability (HW support, apps) for individual use. That's the way to avoid the Java trap.
extending the logic (Score:2)
linux: a totally open and cross-platform server operating system. through GNOME/KDE is attempting to become a consumer OS.
java: a slightly dodgy, but relatively open and (kind of) cross-platform embedded applet system.
OK, meanwhile:
Windows NT: a totally closed and mostly hardware-propeitary server operating system. through the W2K bug is attempting to become a consumer OS.
ActiveX: a very dodgy, not very open, not very cross-platform embedded applet system.
alright, so basically java is to activex as linux is to windows nt. so following the logic of this article, and making similar wild indefensable assumptions.. if linux is destined to go the way of java, that means windows nt is destined to go the way of activex.
So let's look at which way java and activex have gone, and predict how linux and windows nt will go.
As they say, java has mostly failed for any user-end usage but is still being used for server type stuff. What's more, java is very versitile, still runs in a variety of situations (you can implement java code into mac os programs.. dunno about windows..), and it's still useful to have a java VM sitting around somewhere. Perhaps Linux will wind up the exact same way in a number of years --servers with little end-user status.
Meanwhile, activex has just kind of disappeared off the face of the planet because of its sheer uselessness. It has almost no support in anything, consumer-oriented or otherwise. but microsoft still tries to foist it on people. The only known thing anyone has ever written in activex that does something is a security exploit. (http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,23
This is all, of course, total BS. If anything even vaguely like this happens i'll be surprised.
Calm, people, calm (Score:5)
Everyone is missing one vital point.
Linux has its place
Java was and is a great idea. Sun saw it for what it is. They marketed it, they put it out there, they tried to take over the world with it.
They got it an image problem when they stuck it into buggy browsers on slow machines, but that's a discussion for another time.
Linux didn't start out like that. Linux wasn't some germ of an idea that needed incubation and careful marketing. Linus didn't make deals with $large_software_company to include it with every copy of $popular_application. He coded it and stuck it out there.
And it stuck.
Guys, Linux has nothing to prove. The mindset is already there. The people who need to trust it most, trust it. We know when it can be used. We know when it can't. We can prove it.
Once we have that, we can work on the PHBs, and no dodgy benchmarks [zdnet.com] are going to change that.
This is not some ivory-tower dismissive. It's a reminder: in an industry awash with false promises and vapourware, Linux delivered long ago. It will remain as long as it is useful.
Dave
--
The problems with Java that don't exist on Linux.. (Score:3)
First, Java was doomed as soon as Sun decided on a closed-source format that invited companies like HP and Microsoft to 'modify' it without incorporating the changes into the 'official' distribution. Sun should have followed the appropriate standards committee, and forfeited the ownership of Java to avoid the fragmentation of Java.
Java has yet to deliever the promise of Write Once, Run Anyway. The poor Java support of systems beyond Solaris and WinXX, the existence of inconsistant versions with the same major version number (1.0 and 1.2) are just some examples.
Finally, and most importantly, Java is still bug ridden. While the rest of their developement is closed, Sun fixed bugs in an open-source sort of way with the Bug Parade. The problem is, no release ever clears out all the bugs in the bug parade. Does that seem wrong to anyone else (and reminisent of a Gates statement a while back?)
Thus, Java is currently difficult to work with outside of an intranet environment. Sure, I think it's a great language, if the above problems were non-existant, and it won't die in any short time, but some of the hype on Java is long-dead. It is NOT the next Windows killer.
Now look at Linux. It's open sourced, no one owns it, and the key element, the kernel, is controlled by one man in the open source model. Sure, you could go off and make your own modifications, but that's got to be a lot of work to do those. It could conviecibly happen but I doubt anyone wants to undertake it.
The kernel works for nearly every system, and with the modularity of it, can be easily met to fit the needs of any system. And save for the libc5 to glibc2 switch, nearly every problem works under every version of the kernel. And this is true for multiple architectures as well.
And of course, Linux may have bugs, but once found, they are generally squashed and patched within a week, if not shorter. No other company on the planet can promise that.
Linux is here to stay (Score:2)
What makes Linux strong is not what it promises but what it _is_. Linux is an operating system that some people like to use. It also does well some things that people want done well.
Even if the masses stopped using linux because it wasn't trendy or whatever the code for everything that is linux is still there, If developers leave then new developers can step in.
Since Linux is not a commecial venture it is never in danger of having devopment stopped because it is no longer financialy viable.
Also, since the devopment of linux is not profit driven it isn't being pushed into fields, trying to find a home like sun is doing to java.
Linux doesn't get targeted at a market. People use it if it does things they want.
There will always be people that find that linux does what they want.
Linux will always be improved because there will always be people that want linux to do just one more thing and have the ability to add that thing.
Ok, did *I* miss something here? (Score:2)
Let's get to the facts.. or what they call it.
Let's mumble all to ourselves in the holey chant that we know so well. Windows(NT|9[58]|3.[0-1]) is an OS. Java is a language. Java was to eliminate the problems of cross-platform development. This is what C and C++ almost did. In MY eyes, java is where perl was a little while back. Its at that point whre people are writting and using it. People aren't writting OS's and the sort in it. Perl has its limitations and that's why its going its direction. Java will go another. Give it time. More people are using it. Just because its not written in java doesn't mean that java is bad. Just like I'm writting in English doesn't make Latin bad. (or does it...) Has anyone ever had a kernel panic under Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD and whatnot? If you have, you can easily raise your clue-bats and find this guy. Most any software is buggy even in its first month. Hell, I wrote a piece of code that reorders and groups things, and I had a major bug in it. I'll admit it. I'm not like MS. I don't write perfect code first try!I've lost all faith in the author and the news paper for running that article. It isn't a bad shot at Linux.. it's a person trying to gain his fame with bad journalism.
sporty
---
FreeBSD 4ever! well.. at least for the next 200 years...
I have to step in now. (Score:3)
Besides, Java was touted as a key tool in another heavily hyped movement toward ''network computers.'' Instead of keeping software on each machine, people would use small, cheap computers that would get all their software from a central server. Java is well-suited to this approach.
Java is well suited, and Sun came up with a good idea here. But surprise! Microsoft stole the idea, and their name is very similar to Sun's Name.
Charles Fitzgerald, director of business development in Microsoft's software development unit, says the Linux hype has already peaked.
Yep, that may be true. And the Windows hype peaked WHEN? Ohhhhh, about 1992.
Fitzgerald points to recent benchmark tests by the research firm Mindcraft Inc., which found Windows NT performs a variety of tasks faster than Linux.
I'm pretty sure I don't even need to comment here. Fitzgerald points to the Mindcraft bullshit because he's grasping for anything he can.
And Microsoft's Edwards says that Linux lacks many advanced capabilities, such as the ability to run on computers with multiple processor chips.
THAT pissed me off a lot. That part is very misleading. Linux contains Multi-Processor support (and has for a long time). It may not be the best it could be, but it's being worked on. (also, I think Linux has more advanced capabilites then Windows* ever did.)
But Fitgerald says Linux still isn't ready for the heavy-duty tasks that Windows 2000 is designed to perform.
Like Windows2000test.com, I suppose.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Look at the Economics (Score:2)
- long-term staying power, unlike companies who only produce software for the latest and greatest (due to inelastic demand, thus higher margins), open source can migrate with the platform and thus reduce transistional and maintenance costs
- diversity of hardware, because it is ported to a wide range of platforms, the code is more robust and resiliant to disruptions, a critical factor in stability
- efficiency of execution, because it was designed for lower-performance hardware, more thought has gone into the architecture which means that less money has to be spent on hardware
- due to the stability factor, the combined hardware+software service turns into a durable good and can thus be amortised over a longer time period, rather than a consumable item requiring regular upgrading and replacement
- rapid developmental feedback ensures greater responsitivity to the market as effectively the developers are also the consumers. Rather than bringing out a potential marketing lemon, the product evolves to completely fill an application niche and creating an absolute advantage (witness sendmail, bind, etc)
- wider pool of talent, because of its low-cost nature, any person can pick it up and extend. While not everyone may have the talent to be a hard core kernel hacker, the exposure will create a deeper pool of ideas to draw upon. Thus the marginal utility is higher than for a priced product
Note that not everything is roses, there are some structural problems with the OpenSource model, in particular the lack of pricing signals to indicate the software of greatest potential value. Thus it has the appearance of following commercial trends or personal pet projects (witness the significant freshmeat interest in 3D games against more mission critical functions such as support for wireless). This is not knocking the OpenSource model but just an observation where the commercial market is superior. Thus Linux will have a role in business just as closed applications have a different focus.
LL
Linux should be so lucky as to "fail" like Java (Score:3)
- Java is a huge success -- just not where it was originally hyped. People don't see Java applets on every server they visted et viola that must mean Java failed. Well, it didn't.
- Java is alive and well in corporate enterprise computing. In fact, it's probably the hottest thing in client/server programming going right now.
- Java isn't any slower than Perl or Visual Basic or any other wildly popular not-compiled-directly-to-native-code language. Sure, it was pretty slow two years ago, but that was half it's commercial lifetime ago.
- Sun is not the only major corporation pushing Java. There are IBM and HP, as well as open-source Kaffe. This is not Sun's "OS/2."
- Remember Sony's "failed" Beta technology? Remember the "failed" DAT format? Well, both are staples of professional production facilities.
In a way, the comparison of Linux and Java is fair. Linux may never overcome the drool factor needed to beat Windows, just as Java has yet to overcome the drool factor needed to beat Visual Basic (or PerlThere is a lesson here (Score:3)
--Shoeboy
Linux? This ain't about Linux (Score:2)
Notice also that the Mindcraft benchmarks? Anyway.
Thing is, if this is the angle of attack proferred against Linux in the media today, then I'm quite happy with it. They are attacking Linux exactly in the place it is best-suited to defend: they say its performance is bad, especially when compared against Windows 2000 (excuse me while I wipe a tear of laughter) and that it is too complicated to use.
However, it says nothing of the Open Source model. This is where it gets interesting.
We all read the Halloween memos. Microsoft identified clearly that the real battle was not MS vs Linux, but Closed Source vs Open Source models.
The most interesting point of this article is that the Open Source model is not mentioned at all. Considering the previous moves of Microsoft, this is very interesting. If you don't attack an adversary on a particular point, then it means that point is perfectly defended. It means Microsoft knows it cannot attack successfully the Open Source model.
And that, fellow Open Source fans, is really good news. They're failing to come up with proper attacks. So let them claim Windows 2000 will outgun Linux. Let them claim Linux is hard to use. The fact of the matter is, Microsoft is running scared.
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
A useless article (Score:3)
But Linux has characteristics that lift it into a category of its own. The most important one (IMHO) is that it started as a low key project and that it had a chance to surprise people in a positive way. By the time that the name Linux started to become widely known, thousands of people were already using it seriously for all sorts of purposes, and because it's essentially a reimplementation of Unix, there were a lot of experienced developers for it from day 0.
Java on the other hand was positioned as the second coming that is going to fix all your problems with portability and reusability and sex, and in retrospect how could it have done anything but fail to deliver on those promises? I'm not claiming that it is dead, mind you, but so far it definitely has not become what is was once made out to be.
But now I have customers asking me 'Do you really think this Linux thing is going to make it?' and by make it they mean 'beat Windows'. I simply respond that Linux doesn't need to beat Windows, that it can live in perfect harmony in a Windows network, that it has nothing left to prove for the purposes these customers are looking for, that I've been doing useful work with it for years and that for them to have a reliable and inexpensive server it doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not common people will decide to use it on their desktop as well. Sure, the current Linux 'hype' makes this an easier sell, but essentially the difference is that Linux is not just a promise, it's a working, proven technology.
Linux, Java, FUD, and Hype (Score:2)
Sadly the posts to regarding this article are falling along predictable lines.
1. "FUD!!!"
2. "Linux is open-source. Java is closed-source. enough said."
Let me first address the FUD agrument, afterall I did list it first. The article is not FUD. With the exception of the SMP reference (which was a Microsoft quote, and should have been corrected) There is nothing wrong with this article. To denouce the whole thing as FUD is simply wrong. All the Java commentary is pretty much on the mark. Java was hyped as the thing to displace Windows. It failed, and relatively speaking, became marginalized. Linux is being hyped to knock off Windows, so the comparisons are begged to be made.
Yes, the reporter should have fact-checked the Microsoft quote; but in all fairness Microsoft's Fitzgerald would be considered an authority. The reporter may have thought that Microsoft would shade the truth, but to out and out lie, that's somthing you just don't do in the reporter's world. (Sadly the Boston Globe's mailserver probably already has crashed twice due to "fuck you" mailings.)
Now on about the "Open-Source vs. Closed-Source" argument. (Please light your torches now.)
I'm sorry, but open-source is not some sort of silver bullet. An open-source project can fail just like any other project. An open-source project probably will never truly die since there isn't anyone to pull the plug on it, but instead it will continue to exist in some sort of Amiga-esque living-death. (The Amiga analogy isn't just applicable because of the living-death reference, but also because of the Amiga-persecution-syndrome that the failed project's die-hards will suffer from. (Damn Microsoft FUD! This really is the best thing out there!))
This doesn't mean that some other open-source project won't come along and challenge/clone the dominate proprietary system. I'm just saying that publishing the source doesn't magically make your technology/design better/chosen by God.
Antibiotic hype (Score:2)
various new fangled doctors.
But mention Penicillum to Phillipe Caas, product manager for "Leaches-R-us", and he seems almost on the verge of stifling a yawn. 'When you look at the hype versus the reality today,' says Caas, 'there is a big disconnect.
Maybe he is whistling in the dark. But then, Leeches-R-us has been here before.
Remember Electricity? That was the radical new treatment of four years ago, an upstart product that threatened to smash Leaches-R-us once and for all.
Born in the labs of Monsieur Volt this product raised high expectations, but people who tried using it to cure syphillus just ended up with smoking testicles. Most surgeons agree that leaches are the best modern treatment for STDs.
And yet, Electricity is far from dead.
On the contrary, there are still thousands of developers cobbling together Electricity products, but for purposes quite different than the overthrow of Leaches-R-us.
Talk to Leaches-R-us executives and they'll tell you that a similar fate awaits penicillum. Charles Whoever, director of business development in Leaches-R-us STD development unit, says the penicillum hype has already peaked. ''Cold hard reality is coming to bear,'' he says.
Versioning hurt Java. Linux can learn from this. (Score:3)
Sun's doing a fine job of killing Java all by itself - no help required from Microsoft. I've got 5 versions of Java source code for my product to run on 5 different versions of Java Virtual Machines used by my customers - from 1.02 through to 1.3 beta. And no, for practical reasons Sun and Java Lobbiers cannot appreciate - they cannot all simply upgrade to the latest version because they have Java software version dependencies of their own. Frankly, this "write once, run everywhere" thing just ain't what it's cracked up to be.
uhhhh... I don't get it? (Score:2)
It seems to me that reports of Java's death are greatly exaggerated...
Wasn't there a post on slashdot just last week that showed Java's continuing rise in popularity, at the expense of C++ and C, forcasting a landscape totally dominated by java and perl a few years out?
Every programmer that I know prefers java (where appropriate) to anything else. Java may not have lived up to its hype, but what has??
Re:How MS Can Kill Linux (Score:2)
It is still something that Microsoft does not understand, and cannot control. It is without a choke point.
Re:Linux has a different set of challenges and ass (Score:4)
As far as I'm concerned, the primary place one should look to improve the speed of an app is hardware. We always joke that if you want speed, don't write in Java, use C! Then some other yuckster says, "Be a real hacker, only write Assembly!"
Certainly, an experienced coder can avoid most of the common pitfalls associated with writing an app in a lower-level language. However, experienced coders are a scarce resource, and even they aren't perfect. And when you choose a language because you are optimizing _for_ performance in software, that programming style is more likely to result in buggy systems than optimizing for maintainability.
Higher-level languages generally come about to address deficiencies in the lower-level languages, and almost without exception, they carry with them a performance penalty. But, in Java's case, provided that you don't have a buggy JVM, you can be guaranteed that an app written in Java is immune to such problems as buffer overflows that are prolific in the C-application world.
So, when people tell me, "Don't use Java, it's slow," my immediate response usually starts with, "So What?"
Re:Heh (Score:2)
One of the side effects of having Linux hyped so much in the media lately is that people expect it to be the be-all, end-all, when in fact it's a work in progress. The technically savvy know that an operating system isn't the same as its GUI, or its browser, but when you're actually deploying Linux as a desktop OS, who cares? The bottom line is that the GUI, browser, apps, and underlying OS are all part of a system. Like it are not, some parts of the system just aren't as robust as the competing alternatives.
If development continues apace, I'd wager that Linux becomes a viable Windows alternative for the masses in less than two years (probably less than one). My fingers remain crossed.
This totally misses the point... (Score:2)
A decade of Microsoft domination has convinced people that there can only be one serious player in the desktop market. Microsoft has used this "natural monopoly" arguement in the anti-trust trial. The truth is that this is a massive market with room for lots of successful competitors.
Java is not dead, it just hasn't taken over the world. A lot of people and companies use and like it. Linux, *BSD, Unix, and OS/390 are alive and well with no signs of going away any time soon. Just because none of them dwarfs the competition doesn't mean they aren't successful.
Oddly enough, the only company that really NEEDs a dominant position in order to stay alive is Microsoft. NT doesn't really measure up technically and most people know it. It's "good enough" for a lot of companies, but I don't know anybody who thinks it's great. People use it because of the perception that everybody else uses it. If Windows became a niche OS (which is quite likely), who would form the core of supporters? SGI has high-end media, Apple has publishers, OS/390 has dinasaur handlers. But who will champion Windows?
Don't compare Linux to Java (Score:2)
Java was released with a blaze of hype and glory well before it was anywhere near ready for prime time, mainstream work. If Linux received the hype at kernel 0.99pl13 and XFree 1.x that Java had for JDK 1.0, it would have sunk without a bubble.
Instead, Linux sat quietly in the background for six years, evolving in the hands of capable technical people obsessed with turning it into the Right Thing.
Java will survive--is is oh-so-close to where it should be; most of the barriers between it and wild success at this point seem to be legal.
--
Uninformed, amateurish, FUD. (Score:2)
It's backdrop of opinion is not generally accepted nor is it strongly argued. (Java has failed, Network Computers have failed, Linux hype has peaked). In this industry, success ranges from days or weeks (games), months or years (new hardware architectures, applications, websites), and years to decades (programming languages, operating systems, CS theories). Java and Linux appear to be still climbing the success curve, even a bit faster than most successful languages and OS's.
And, last, perhaps the biggest journalistic offense of all: there is no article here, just a sampling of opinions and quotes from industry sources. By soliciting quotes from 10 or 15 well-selected sources I can produce an article to make any point I want just by throwing out the ones that I can't weave into the point I'm trying to make.
Sheesh. What a waste of bandwidth.
Why Linux Won't Fail (Score:2)
If you ask me, Linux has already succeeded. It provides my little home Windows network with disk space, printer sharing and Internet connectivity, gives me a forum to learn more about underlying computer technologies like TCP/IP and have a blast doing it, and gives me a place to use no-longer-hip-for-Windows hardware. It does all the things I want from it and more. That's succees. Do I care about world domination for Linux? Not really. I don't think it's a realistic goal. Do I think Linux would be the be-all and end-all for everyone? Not in this lifetime. Do I think it's a great server OS and has the capability of being a great desktop OS, and incidentally a thorn in Microsoft's side? You betcha. It does what I want, when I want it to. It succeeds. Your mileage may vary, especially if you think it's going to reduce Bill Gates to begging for quarters.
I have long maintained that Microsoft is 100% irrelevant for any success Linux may have. Linux will succeed on its own terms, and whether it captures 90% or 9% or any number in between of any market, if it does its job and does it well, it has succeeded. Giving Microsoft a good kick in the shins or worse is just a pleasant side benefit.
--
Re:Point missing here (Score:2)
Fail \Fail\v. i.
1. To be wanting; to fall short;
Linux doesn't want to dominate anyting, and therefore cannot fail in this task.
Java was hyped out to dominate the world, and for now it has failed.
It's incredible how reporters and others just can't seem to grasp that Linux doesn't have any need or desire to dominate, and therefore cannot fail in trying to do so.
``Total world domination'' was meant as a joke, but it's a lot more real that any of the hype surrounding Java. That is just a coincidence, not a goal.
Re:Java?! Hah! (Score:2)
mov ax, 013h
int 10h
with OpenGL. Try something a bit more fair, like Qt or GTK.
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.