The Software Counter Culture(Linux goes mainstream)

Business Week ^ | Alex Salkever

[milestogo]

From upstate New York to Seattle, teenagers drop into a shop called Zumiez to find snowboarding and skateboarding hardware, clothes, and shoes. In a retail sector where "bleeding edge" threads and gear have driven rapid growth, this 89-store chain, based in Everett, Wash., can't open outlets fast enough. Given the anti-Establishment bent of some of its young customers, it's appropriate that Zumiez also has tapped into the anti-Establishment software trend by bringing Linux to the mall.

[RISU]

Windows usaers will reap great benefits by buying a program called "Partition Magic" and establishing three independent "Primary" partitions (to make drives "C", "D", and "E") then installing windows on "C", but applications on "D", and saving the "good stuff" to "E".

That way, when Windows "bombs out" you just wipe "C" and reinstall windows, and all your work picks up as you left it.

You may have to reinstall from disk any applications you had on "D" just to recreate the "shared files" linkages, but the advantage is that when you do that everythuing you had going before the "bomb out" picks up exactly where you left off.

No more need to be afraid that if windows "goes", then your work goes too. I ahev being doing this for the last year and let me tell you, it is such a relief to know that you won't lose your stuff when windows hiccups.

[jude24]

I've found just 2 partitions does the trick. C: has all OS and application data, D: all documents (and about 3.5 gigs worth of mp3's).

That way, when windows crashes (and it occasionally does...), I can have everything up and running in 3 hours, give or take.

[Common Tator]

Most of the world is using Windows. Gates is puting in new operating system licence plans. The are very anti customer. It is a splenid oportunity for Linux. But I doubt the Linux vendors are bright enough to take advantage. Gates is betting the LINUX folks are too dumb to do it. Gates is rarely wrong.

Red Had 7.3 is just out and it takes a computer genius to make it operate with windows. Even if you set it up to install Samba, it only copies the files to the Linux hard drive. You still have to know how to activate samba in a services window and configure it using terms and vocabulary no windows person knows. Most people who try it give up on LINUX. They are glad to pay Gates for software they can set up and run.

I have conducted an experiment with about a dozen people who work with computers and the Windows 2000 network every day. Not one of them has been able to install Linux and get it to to share files with a Windows machine.

The software is all there to do it. It is just very hard for the average person to set up. And with each version of LInux they change how you do it. So if someone did master the process with LINUX 6.x that does not work with Linux 7.x. I figure Red Hat and SuSe want to make bucks teaching people how to use each version of Linux. They won't have that many customers. They don't act lke they want them.

For smaller users where the cost of Microsoft is too high, their are zero reasons to go to Linux. For what it costs to get Linux expertise in your company, you can continue to buy Windows for less. Cost a complete change overs from Windows to Linux or a gradual transition and staying with windows is the cheapest thing you can do. Expensive Windows is cheaper than Free LINUX.

It is like having a choice to build a house. The choice is expensive lubmber that needs few carpenters or free lumber that requires lots of expenive carpenters. Plus people have to take a course on how to live in the free lumber house. The free lumber house costs more.. so people buy the expenxive lumber,... because it is cheaper.

The people that do Linux are not trying to overtake Gates. They are from a world where status comes from being a a superior computer guru. They intend to keep it that way. Unless they make Linux easy to integrate with Windows they are doomed ducks as a commercial success. They will remain a cult... not an alternative. A few outfits will go to Linux only and Web sites will continue to use Linux on the servers. But Linux won't make a dent in Gates.

Windows and Gates are vulnerable.. but not from the business amatuers that run the LINUX show.

Make linux so any boob can install it and use it on a windows network with no problems and no instructions required and Gates is in big trouble. Continue to produce the anti user Unix guru only system they are doing today and Linux will stay a minor cult product.

[HairOfTheDog]

the sporting-goods chain had used a decade-old Lotus 1-2-3 system, and some information was even being recorded by hand, Hudson says.

Imagine how productive they will be when they discover electric lighting!

[medved]

You obviously haven't had any sort of a look at LINUX distributions more recently than two or three years ago...

[medved]

I have conducted an experiment with about a dozen people who work with computers and the Windows 2000 network every day. Not one of them has been able to install Linux and get it to to share files with a Windows machine.

You need to start moving in better circles. I have no problem doing this (with RedHat 7.2) and I'm no LINUX guru. Simple English language reading skills appeared to suffice.

[Commie Basher]

A Mac user informs me that Apple's new OS is a UNIX variant. If true, one need only buy the latest Mac and thus have UNIX/LINUX as the main OS, and use its Windows emulator.

As someone who still prefers DOS programs (and is upset at how poorly Win 98 supports DOS), I wonder how well the new Apple OS runs DOS applications?

[TomServo]

Partition Magic is a good idea. I prefer an added HD and a copy of Ghost.

[Orangedog]

Windows and Gates are vulnerable.. but not from the business amatuers that run the LINUX show.

MS is nearing the point where they will begin to turn the "slightly above average" user will begin to turn to some type of Linux OS. I'm no Linux or programming guru, but if I had to, I could convert my 3 computer LAN w/broadband connection at home over to Linux within a couple of days. I really don't have any Windows-only software that I couldn't live without or replace with the Linux counterparts. I don't think that most users do, but FUD is the big boogy-man that keeps most in the MS camp.

The only issues that I would have would be getting Linux drivers for some of my hardware (new and old), and as you pointed out, the configuration. I could do it, but most of my friends couldn't, at least not without outside help. Eventually, someone will develope a one-size-fits-all install and configuration program like one you refered to. WHEN that happens, better make sure Microsoft stock isn't in your 401-K or IRA, because MS's days of dominance will be numbered. I imagine that the next home version of Windows will be subscription-based, requiring a yearly fee to MS in order to use the PC that Windows runs on. THAT will be the straw that breaks the camels back.

[remaininlight]

With today's huge drives (60gig +) 4 partitions is a good idea. However 20 gig, 256mb and 800mhz is mo' than enough for what I do. Children and teenagers have other ideas/pipedreams with burning CDs and editing movies etc.

[jude24]

College student on break, waiting till my shift at work starts....

My computer is about 2 years old now. 733 MHz, 384 MB RAM (added a 256 chip for 30 bucks), 20 gig HD.

I'm currently cleaning out my mp3's to conserve disk space, but I will probably eventually grab a 2nd HD. They're cheap enough....

[jude24]

Oh, and I do everything with the mp3/sound editing/CD burning thing on the system with few problems.

About the only thing I do that I wish I had a faster processor is run Photoshop. That eats up resources.

[Stentor]

For someone that uses their OS for surfing and emailing, Windows is unnecessary. Redhat 7.3 is very cheap: $0.00 to $39.99 depending on how you get it. It has a lot of other features for the casual user. Great idea for someone that has hardware around that started life as a W95 or W98 system.

[AppyPappy]

Make linux so any boob can install it

then it becomes just like Windows. Yet another crashing OS.

[balrog666]

Partition Magic is a good idea. I prefer an added HD and a copy of Ghost.

Damn good idea. But I'm surprised no one has bundled a good Partition Magic clone with their Linux setup software.

[Liberal Classic]

Apple's new operating system OS/X is not Linux, it is a BSD derivitive UNIX.

If you're looking to run Windows/Intel software on your Mac, might I suggest Connextix's Virtual PC for OS9 and OS/X. This software package allows you to run Intel-based software on your mac beside your Macintosh applications. It will run Windows 95, 98, ME, NT4, 2000 and the latest version supports XP. It also will run Linux if you want.

I am not sure what happened to Soft-Windows, its main compeditor. I think Insignia Solutions sold it to some other company. SoftWindows has been around longer, but it has a reputation of being harder to configure than VirtualPC. Also, SoftWindows only ran Windows, whereas VirtualPC emulates an entire Intel-based PC, so it can run Linux as well as Windows.

It's pretty neat. I've used it on occasion. When you want to browse web pages, it can go through your existing connection. You can copy and paste between Windows and Mac applications, exchange files, etc. I am not associate with the company in any way, I'm just a customer.

[Orangedog]

A Mac user informs me that Apple's new OS is a UNIX variant. If true, one need only buy the latest Mac and thus have UNIX/LINUX as the main OS, and use its Windows emulator.

First, let me state for the record that I'm not an MS fan, zellot, or cheerleader. With that said (and with my flame-retardant suit on), I have no love for Macs. IMHO, the Mac OS (at least the UI) is built for the lowest common denominator of users. Why do I have this opinion?...Example: a couple of weeks ago I helped put together a simple P2P LAN at a small business owned by a friend of mine. Four wintel boxes running 98. I would have preferred a Linux setup, but wintel is what he had. The cat5 wire that he had run to the offices wasn't the greatest and could not handle 100Mbps. In order to get all of the boxes to talk to each other, I had to slow down all of the NICs to 10 Mbps. No problem. Easy enough to do in 98. Then he buys a Mac laptop running OS-X for one guy in the office who had to have one. The built in auto-sensing NIC would only work at 100 Mbps. I called Apple and found out that (at least according to them) you cannot manually change the NIC settings. Not being able to do simple things like this is a major pain. Windows is bad enough in that regard, but from what I've seen, Macs are even worse. I'll be the first to admit that I don't really know much about the Mac platform or OS. My ignorance on that subject is abundant and obvious. I just hate having to deal with an OS (Apple or MS) that is dumbed-down to the point where you can't even make minor, behind the curtain changes in the hardware settings.

[ricer1]

Yeah... why waste disk space on any micro$oft OS? I've got a Linux firewall at home and a seperate Linux running Exim as my mail server for a domain... The firewall machine is a 350MHz. Pentium and the mail server is an old 90MHz. Pentium. It all purrs along just fine (and with a backup power supply, the spring thunderstorms are no bother, unless they directly strike the house!).

[dfrussell]

The software is all there to do it. It is just very hard for the average person to set up. And with each version of LInux they change how you do it. So if someone did master the process with LINUX 6.x that does not work with Linux 7.x. I figure Red Hat and SuSe want to make bucks teaching people how to use each version of Linux. They won't have that many customers. They don't act lke they want them.

I'll be blunt, you're an idiot.

It's easier to install linux than it is Windows... and I know what I'm talking about, I've been doing computer systems support for almost 20 years.

The changes between RH 6.? and 7.? are minimal and trivial for anyone who has "mastered" the process... or for that matter, for anyone who hasn't.

Please note that there is no Linux 6 or 7 -- you're probably talking about RedHat's versions numbers.

For smaller users where the cost of Microsoft is too high, their are zero reasons to go to Linux. For what it costs to get Linux expertise in your company, you can continue to buy Windows for less. Cost a complete change overs from Windows to Linux or a gradual transition and staying with windows is the cheapest thing you can do. Expensive Windows is cheaper than Free LINUX.

Last I looked, the manual for NT was larger than most linux manuals. If you choose the former in order to not have to learn something different, it is your right.

The people that do Linux are not trying to overtake Gates. They are from a world where status comes from being a a superior computer guru. They intend to keep it that way. Unless they make Linux easy to integrate with Windows they are doomed ducks as a commercial success. They will remain a cult... not an alternative. A few outfits will go to Linux only and Web sites will continue to use Linux on the servers. But Linux won't make a dent in Gates.

LOL :-) Were you beat up too much on the playground by science majors when you were younger or you just feeling a bit peckish today?

Linux is currently making a large dent in Mr. Gates revenue. Which is why IBM now offers linux support. One can hardly consider IBM to be a "cult" company, eh?

Windows and Gates are vulnerable.. but not from the business amatuers that run the LINUX show.

Right, like IBM :-))))

Make linux so any boob can install it and use it on a windows network with no problems and no instructions required and Gates is in big trouble. Continue to produce the anti user Unix guru only system they are doing today and Linux will stay a minor cult product

LOL :-) I can't decide if you're just trolling or you're serious. It really is difficult to take this seriously beceause you obviously don't know what you're talking about...

To install linux on a network, one needs roughly a 4th grade reading comprehension level and minor hand-eye coordination. You have to insert the CD into the system, power it on, select the language you want to use (defaults to US English), timezone, and a few other things which you would also have to answer to bring up NT or win. Both are done via a GUI interface.

Basically, if you're not sure, press [Enter].

If you're too incompetent to do that, you should probably pay someone to install anything you decide upon.

Oh, and have a nice day. :-)))