Unix at 40

Crypto said:

I still dont get this,

Linux is hard to use, although it is a good OS for the Pros, its damn hard for the majority.
Though its Open source, i dont get is why cant they develop something that is more user friendly ? How hard it is to update, install, etc
Look at Microsoft 4 an example, they do have a price, but we do buy them, why ?
and being Linux free why doesnt it been used ?

Im fed up of Linux/Fedora bla bla bla in terms of its Strict Non-User Friendlyness



Would like to know the reason from anyone.

OSX is proof it CAN be done. Though technically it's a tad ugly underneith, almost like two oses in one since they had to port over behavior from the previous OSes into the BSD/Nextstep OS which was fundimentally different in almost every way. Still they did it and it didn't even take very long for a decent first pass either.

If there is someone that cares enough to do it on Linux (Toss out X entirely, write a completely new UI on top of the Linux kernel/gnu base) and has a stomach strong enough to endure the slings and arrows from the fanatics that would try to drag them down every step of the way...

But it's a huge project... a huge gamble and a huge legal headache. Might take some independant multimillionaire to do it out of interest, just for fun. Or maybe a smaller but insanely hardcore group of hardheads. Dunno but, it hasn't happened so far. I'd love to see it though.

Well it's still used in specialized areas --in fact if it follows IBM mainframes it might even make something of a revival.

Old IBM Sysprogs -- start polishing your old manuals again - there's been quite a resurgence in the Mainframe area - even if your knowledge is limited to pre OS/390 (MVS, MVS/370, MVS/ESA) etc.

A lot of people are discovering the REAL cost of having huge networks with 1000's of distributed PC's all of which need to be maintained and upgraded with increasing regularity.

I'll bet most people using these forums thought the Mainframe was an idea whose time had been and gone - and look upon it as some old Industrial Dynosaur.

Cost wise and with the ability to handle HUMUNGOUS amounts of I/O in a fraction of the time of "distributed servers" these are getting very popular for large DB (Data Base) and search applications.

If an idea is good it won't go away.

Unix could be in that sort of position too as an ULTRA secure server or whatever.

(And I mean UNIX not the zillions of Linux distros out there).

Mind you with mainframes IBM is still very much in business. AT&T who were the initial instigators of Unix have long since ceased to be of any commercial value whatsoever so that Could be Unix's eventual downfall.


Cheers
jimbo

A wise man once told me, "Get hip to UNIX."

I took his advice a step further. I hired two more people who were hip to UNIX.

They found 15 million MOU in unbilled toll records. We only collected on a portion of the usage, but the processing error was trapped and corrected, preventing future occurences.

The wise man's wife also cooked her famous mac and cheese for me one day. When dinner was served, she had forgotten to add the cheese.

Nighthawk...

I like the picture of lots of PC's in racks. What do you think of this collection of a few hundred of my little Dell playthings...

Crypto said:

Linux is hard to use, although it is a good OS for the Pros, its damn hard for the majority.

Well, there certainly is a learning curve. At the same token, most of us learned to use DOS and Windows over a long period of time. So, it makes sense that if we switched to Linux we would not learn it overnight..or even in just a few days. I've been using both for years and supporting both professionally for years. I'm just about as comfortable with either system from getting something done at this point.

Crypto said:

Though its Open source, i dont get is why cant they develop something that is more user friendly ? How hard it is to update, install, etc

Generally speaking, installing and updating Linux can be very easy. However, where people run into problems is with the hardware that they have. Not all manufactures bother to provide drivers and information on their devices...so some are reverse engineered and others don't work at all. Contrast that to Windows, where Microsoft and the manufacturer work hand in hand....to install and support that device. You get the idea.

Second, there are tons of different linux distros and goals that each are trying to solve. So, there isn't a standard way of doing things. Windows is pretty simple in that regards, most versions since 95 have been more or less more of the same thing and you simply get what you get. This is not true at all with Linux which can be endlessly customized by whoever wants to put the time and effort into it. Therefore, things aren't going to look the same, run the same, install the same or work the same from distro to distro. It's a fact of life and something that isn't going to be changing anytime soon.

Crypto said:

Look at Microsoft 4 an example, they do have a price, but we do buy them, why ?

Well, for starters it's almost impossible to walk into any retail chain or any major online computer retailer and not get something with Windows pre-installed. And some vendors like Dell do offer Linux options, but they often cost as much if not more than Windows as they aren't getting kick-backs from the software vendors who pay to have their crapware pre-installed.

Crypto said:

and being Linux free why doesnt it been used ?

Lots of people stick to what came on the computer. Lots of people are used to using what they have always used. Lots of people like to use the same thing that they use at work. Lot's of people have hardware which more or less ties them into having to use Windows. Lots of people like to game and an overwhelming majority of the mainstream games are Windows only. Lots of people go into retail stores and only see software for Windows. Lots of people are unwilling to learn something else. Lots of people just settle for what everybody else is doing.