Linux so far no software hare (fwd)

Tue Jan 27 10:08:27 UTC 2004

I just sent this to the Star.  I sent it as an article to the Business
section.  I don't really know the best place.  Perhaps their
Ombudsman.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 05:06:26 -0500 (EST)
From: D. Hugh Redelmeier <hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org>
To: business-4aHm7/Ykixuw5LPnMra/2Q at public.gmane.org
Subject: Linux so far no software hare

I read your article "Linux so far no software hare" in Monday's Star.

As Wolfgang Pauli once said: "This paper is so bad it is not even
wrong."

The article is very misleading to the uninitiated, the apparent target
audience.  It keeps claiming weaknesses in Linux without actually
specifying what they are.

I've used Linux for perhaps 8 years.  It is what I run on my desktop.
On the other hand, I don't recommend it to my father.  The decision
whether to use Linux on a desktop involves a number of aspects and
this article addresses none of them.

In the computer business, we call this spreading FUD: Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt (implicitly: with insufficient technical
basis).

I'd be happy to write an article on this topic with some actual
content.

" Linux so far no software hare
" System is making slow progress into mainstream Keeners admit its
" shortcomings

[This appears to need punctuation.  Your printed copy gets this
right but your web site (quoted above) gets it wrong.]

Linux has made fast progress into the mainstream of many markets.  The
article means "desktop" but does not say so.

" at N.Y. trade show

Which one?  Why not say "LinuxWorld" here?

" ERIC AUCHARD
" REUTERS NEWS AGENCY
" 
" NEW YORK As never before, corporate customers are turning to Linux
" software instead of Microsoft Windows to run big business operations.

Many corporate customers have never used MS Windows for server tasks.
Most are turning from UNIX to Linux (MS Windows has historically been
weak as a server OS).

If the paragraph had said "desktop", then it would be more clearly
communicating what I infer that it intended to.

" Now, if only they could get the word processor's basic "cut and paste"
" feature to work.

This comment seems to be precise, but I don't know what it refers to.
There are many word processors on LINUX and none that I've tried has
had a problem with basic cut and paste.

" At the LinuxWorld trade show here last week, advocates said the next
" big challenge for the loose-knit "free software" movement is to create
" a reliable way to run desktop computers and perform mainstream office
" tasks.

What does that mean?  What isn't reliable?  Who said it?  Linux
Advocates are not of one mind.  Many have their own agendas.

It is widely believed that Linux is more reliable than MS Windows.
The hard statistics I've seen have been about server installations so
they might not apply.

" "It works 98 per cent of the time. But it's the 2 per cent of the time
" it doesn't that kills you," Jeremy White, a leading developer of Linux
" applications, told an audience of network administrators.

Jeremy White isn't a leading developer of Linux applications, as far as
I know.  He is the CEO of CodeWeavers, a company whose product is
designed to run MS Windows applications on Linux.  This is not an
unbiased viewpoint.

" Even some of its biggest proponents admit that Linux has a long way to
" go before it can mount a credible alternative to Microsoft Windows,
" the world's dominant software operating system.

Credible in what sense?  This is a vague, hand-waving statement.
So vague as to be useless.  Except as FUD.

" "Linux desktops need a little more work to be consistent," said Jack
" Messman, chairman and chief executive of Novell Inc.

Consistent in what way?  (I think that I understand why he said that
but the article would not convey this to a reader.)

" "I don't know how much of that will come about this year."

If we don't know what "that" is, we won't even recognize when it has
arrived.

" His 20-year-old network software company, with two acquisitions of
" high-profile Linux companies in the past year, has become the No. 2
" independent supplier of Linux software.
" 
" "It's a big pile of lumber with no agreed-upon standards," complained
" White, president of St. Paul, Minn.-based software company
" CodeWeavers.

Same CodeWeavers CEO with a product to push.

As Andy Tannenbaum once said, "the great thing about standards is that
there are so many to choose from."  Linux certainly follows more
standards than does MS Windows.

" Linux relies on a network of independent programmers to improve its
" software. Its users are required to share the computer code they
" create.

This is false: Linux users are not required to share the computer code
they create.

" This is a dramatic shift from traditional secretive software
" development.

Not really.  The way Linux has developed is an evolution from the way
software used to be developed.  The commercial production of software
as a product (the way Microsoft does development) is something that
only developed historically recently.

" But it has won a wide and growing fan base among computer programmers,
" academics, corporate customers and government agencies in developing
" countries.

That is true.  But there is also a wide and growing base of users.
The paragraph implicitly puts down Linux without justifying the
put-down.

" The trouble for Linux is that it must move quickly to create a
" credible alternative to Windows. Analysts say Linux has a window of
" opportunity before Microsoft's next major operating system is released
" sometime around 2006.

There are many "troubles" with Linux, not just one.

There is no reason that Linux must do anything.  Some folks may want
it to "move quickly to create a credible alternative to Windows".
There is no "must" about this.

Linux is quite credible.  Why must it be judged as an immitation MS
Windows?  Trying to play catchup is a rather unimaginative game.

" Open Source Development Labs, a corporate-customer-backed consortium
" that employs Linux inventor Linus Torvalds, said last week it would
" lead a drive for standards to make Linux work smoothly on desktop PCs.

The word "smoothly" does not convey any actual information.  Except
possibly that Linux must be rough in some way.  What way?  More FUD.

" Stuart Cohen, chief executive of Beaverton, Ore.-based OSDL, said its
" Desktop Linux Working Group will be backed by many of the world's
" biggest computer companies as well as key corporate customers.
" 
" The strategy is to nibble away at the edges of the Windows world and
" target computers that run primarily one or two applications, such as
" retail check-out terminals, customer call centres and centrally
" managed office worker terminals.

Nibbling certainly sounds like a bold strategy.  Microsoft must be
quaking in its boots.

One great thing about Linux is that it can accommodate many different
goals.  Mine certainly isn't nibbling.

" LinuxWorld is a showcase of where the Linux desktop is headed.

And a showcase of many other things.  The desktop is not the primary
focus of LinuxWorld.

" CodeWeavers has created an innovative program called CrossOver Office.
" It allows users to run standard Windows programs like Office, Internet
" Explorer, Lotus Notes and Photoshop on Linux PCs with no special
" effort and few if any detectable glitches.

I think that this paragraph is mostly true.  But it is misleading:
CrossOver Office doesn't run all MS Windows programs -- only some have
been tested.  So this paragraph appears to make too broad a claim for
CrossOver Office.

" Office documents created using Microsoft Windows PCs can be saved and
" reopened on Linux PCs without suffering the sort of software conflicts
" that cause programs to crash. This mundane compatibility is a crucial
" test of Linux's viability as a potential replacement for Windows.

This fails to mention that a copy of MS Office must be purchased to do
this.

I've not found that OpenOffice (available on Linux and MS Windows at
no charge) crashed on the few MS Office documents that I've fed it.
What "software conflicts" could he be referring to?

MS Office itself is unlikely to be more stable on Linux than on MS
Windows.

It would be good to mention that Microsoft has interlocking
monopolies.  The operating system, the word processor, the spread
sheet, and so on are all locked together in a defensive phalanx.  The
point of this article is really that it is hard to penetrate this
defense because of these mutually supportive monopolies.

" Xandros Inc. of Ottawa recently introduced Version 2 of its
" Windows-like desktop operating system that combines the stability of
" Linux with the look-and-feel of Windows. It boasts easy installation
" in just four clicks, simpler than installing Windows 2000 on a new
" machine.

This seems out of place in an article about Linux in general.  There
are several other Linux desktops that are much more popular.

" Market research company International Data Corp., of Framingham,
" Mass., estimates that paid shipments of Linux rose to 2.8 per cent of
" desktop operating systems in 2002, up from 1.7 per cent two years
" earlier.

I'm not sure why "paid shipments" of a free system are a reasonable
measure.  Certainly not in comparison with non-free systems (MS
Windows or MacOS).

" But that is still below the approximately 3 per cent share of No. 2
" ranked Apple Computer Inc., which more than a decade ago gave up
" trying to compete directly with Microsoft.

In what sense don't they compete directly with Microsoft?  What event
happened more than a decade ago?

This article does a disservice to the Star readers.

Hugh Redelmeier
hugh-pmF8o41NoarQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org  voice: +1 416 482-8253

--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml