From: Russell Coker To: auscomp@ozemail.com.au Subject: Letter to the editor Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 17:45:17 +1000 X-Mailer: KMail [version 0.8.1] Content-Type: text/plain Cc: domj@ozemail.com.au MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <9809291900001D.32012@lyta> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-KMail-Mark: Bcc: Status: RO X-Status: S Reply-To: I felt compelled to respond to the article by Rolf Jester titled "Linux won't change the world" due to what I consider to be inaccuracies in the article. Firstly it was stated that "as Linux use grows multiple versions may diverge and consolidate around compting standards. I believe that this is both inaccurate and unfair. As Linux has been growing in popularity the divergence between different systems has decreased not increased. An example of this is the "Linux File system standard" which can be found at "ftp://tsx-11.mit.edu/pub/linux/docs/linux-standards/fsstnd/", this standards document explains where every file on a Linux system belongs to make it easier to install/uninstall software. The Debian and Red Hat packaging systems both comply with this document and therefore solve most problems you might otherwise experience when installing or uninstalling software. This is why when using Debian Linux or Red Hat Linux you should not expect to have any problems with multiple applications fighting over DLLs at install or uninstall time. Regarding the battles of the Open Software Foundation and Unix International, Linux follows the POSIX specs as much as possible. POSIX compliance is not perfect (mainly because they keep adding new functionality to the specifications), but it is always improving. POSIX specs cover all the base functionality of a UNIX OS, that and the Linux File System Standard ensure that all Linux systems will support running applications from different vendors. In recent news the Open Group has just made the next version of their X server display software available for free to the "XFree 86 team" to use freely on Linux systems. Previously they had adopted the policy of only making the software available to commercial organizations that have paid Open Group memberships. This is one area that had the potential to start a split in standards but has now been averted. You can see the full story at "http://www.opengroup.org/x/". This is not to say that all Linux systems are the same. Linux runs on pocket computers, laptops, server machines, and supercomputers (see "http://cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov/linux/beowulf/beowulf1.html"). Linux is used for word processing, running ISP servers, programming, and playing games. It is simply impossible to provide a single distribution of Linux that supports all these different hardware platforms and uses optimally. I believe that the mention of people considering them "defenders of the world against Microsoft" is unfair to the people who just use Linux because they like it and because it works. As Linux is free there is a huge variety of people using it, people in eastern Europe and Africa who can't afford commercial software (or the expensive computers required to run it), people who enjoy programming and like to have access to the source code, and people who have tried commercial software and found it to be inadequate. The variety of people using Linux is so great that it could hardly be fair to pick an individual and say that they are the typical Linux user. I strongly disagree with Rolf's opinion that Linux is not ready to supplant NT. Microsoft officials have apparently stated on official company reports that they consider Linux to be a threat to their business (I have not seen the reports just read about them in the media). I don't have more confidance in MS products than MS officials do... Regarding the real issue of TCO (total cost of ownership) I believe that this is an area where Linux is really ahead of the pack. People who use Linux and have Internet access are very happy with the level of free support that they can get. You could get the same level of support for Microsoft by paying for technical support, but this is not just an issue of the cost of phone calls, but for corporate users it's often an issue of beuracracy. If you are working in a department that hasn't ot a technical support agreement then you may have to wait days before you can even ask MS for technical support, wheras if you had a Linux problem you could just send an email to a mailing list. I often find that questions I ask about Linux are answered within 2 hours. Also as the source code to the complete Linux system is available you always have the option of paying someone to make it work. It is expensive to pay a programmer to fix bugs in software or add new features you request, but for a commercial organization it's often cheaper than not getting it done. Also when bugs are discovered in Linux the fix is always publically available immidiately. So if the bug impacts your business you can install the fix as soon as it's written (sometimes merely hours after the bug is discovered). With commercial software you don't have these choices, you get what you're given and you're expected to be happy with it. Probably the most significant statement in the article that I disagree with is the assertion that software which has freely available source code is unstable, could you please provide me with the evidence that caused you to come to that belief. It is my belief that commercial software is less stable and less reliable because no company can test all the operations that might be performed on a computer, and the people who find the bugs can't fix them. With Open Source Software this is not the case, anyone who finds a bug can fix it themselves if they are a programmer, they can get a friend to fix it for them, or they can pay someone to fix it if they need the fix badly enough. All such bug fixes are widely distributed and merged back into the main system, this causes free software to usually be more reliable than commercial software. In the advertising supplement from Harris Technologies that came with my copy of The Australian I saw adverts for Norton Crashguard and Crash Defender Deluxe which claim to reduce the incidence of data loss associated with system crashes. Open Source Software such as Linux and BSD Unix has no need for such add-ons. PS My email address is russell@coker.com.au, if any of the URLs I quoted don't work then I'd be happy to respond to email requests for alternatives or for any requests for further information on Linux. I am writing this letter representing only my own personal views, not other Linux users or any of my clients. Russell Coker