Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 16:41:30 05/26/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 26, 2002 at 17:54:32, Allen Lake wrote:
>On May 26, 2002 at 15:06:35, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>I think one thing that can be learned from this is that people develop a
>>passionate relationship with the OS they use.
>>
>>In my opinion it makes it more unlikely that somebody used to an OS will switch
>>to another one, even with strong incentive.
>
>
>I agree with you 100 percent on these two points. The learning curve for most
>operating systems is much too steep for the beginning user. Given how much time
>and effort it takes for the beginner to get comfortable with what they need and
>want to do with their computer, it is unreasonable to expect that they would
>want to go through the same thing with another OS. It's the job of IT
>professionals, like you and me, to make that change as painless as possible.
Yes and in the case of Linux it can be achieved by making the GUI as close as
possible to Windows. KDE is doing approximately that, but they should stick even
more to the "Windows-like" idea.
But it's not enough and I believe that even some more technical aspects should
be made more Windows-like. It would attract people like me, and we are many. And
we are opinion leader, somehow. At least to some modest extend.
>Unfortunately, the economics of the IT business obstruct us at every turn. To
>make money, we have to lock our users into using our stuff and _only_ our stuff.
> And, no matter how much we know about what our users want from our products,
>there's never enough time nor money for us to build all of those things into our
>products.
>
>So, the users struggle along with what they have until we get the time and money
>to make things better for them. If we're lucky, our product will be popular
>enough that a user community springs up around it and the new users can get the
>information they need from the long-time users (the "network effect"). If not
>-- heaven help the new users. Then we need to spend a lot more time and money
>for technical support, which takes those resources from our development effort.
>And the cycle continues, over and over and over....
>
>
>>For example I have a strong incentive to switch to Linux because I can't stand
>>anymore the Microsoft dominance and above all the way they use it.
>>
>>But it's difficult for me to switch. I have plenty of tools under Windows and
>>DOS, and I have either to port them or to abandon them and find other ones in
>>order to start being productive under Linux.
>>
>>That's a *LOT* of work (I estimate it could take me several weeks, maybe months,
>>to get back to the same productivity level) and I am a very busy guy.
>
>
>Don't you just hate it when your heart tells you one thing and your head tells
>you exactly the opposite. But, you are handling things the smart way -- stick
>with the stuff that helps you get your work done and keep looking for something
>that can help you get where your heart leads you.
>
>By the way, did you write those Windows and DOS tools yourself, or are they bits
>and pieces that you've picked up from other people over the years?
Both. I have some DOS utilities like the find (or grep) -like utility I
discussed somewhere else in this thread. For these I have the source code and I
am the author. So I could port them (in say one week or so).
I use tons of DOS utilities every day, but I guess it is possible to find
approximate replacements for them in Linux. But that takes time (I have to
search the Internet and tries lots of them, probably more than one week (not
full time however).
Then there are applications that I have not written but are essential for me.
For example I have an IDE to create Palm applications. The compiler itself is
GCC so I guess it would work under Linux (but how much time will I have to
invest before I get it to work?). The IDE is a Windows application, so here I
have a problem. KDEstudio could be used to some extend, but I would not be able
to create resources for Palm applications from inside the KDEstudio.
Finally I have the universal problem to be able to use Word and Excel documents.
It would be possible to convert all my existing documents one by one to the
Koffice applications, maybe, but I find these applications to be in an early
state of developpement at that time. And naturally I would have a problem every
time someone sends me an MSOffice document by email.
>>Maybe I'm also now too old to be able to adapt to something else (though I
>>strongly hope that it is not the case because adaptability is a key quality in
>>IT and I'm only 37).
>
>
>If you're too old at 37, I must be positively ancient at 44 ;)
>
>
>>Also, if I succeed in switching to Linux I'll have managed to cut myself from
>>the thousands of people using Windows.
>
>
>I wish that weren't true, but I'd be dishonest if I said it wasn't true. Right
>now, it would be economic suicide to leave the Windows platform completely. The
>best I'd expect to do would be to try to make my code as cross-platform as I
>could, so that I could start making a Linux/Unix version of my product, while
>maintaining and improving the Windows version. Even then, if I found a way to
>do all of my development work in a cross-platform way, I'd still have to compile
>and test my product on Windows, so I wouldn't really be switching 100 percent.
>If I use the "1 month development = 2 months testing" rule of thumb, I'd only be
>60 percent switched ( 1 month development on Linux + 2 months testing on Linux +
>2 months testing on Windows = 5 months with only 3 months spent on Linux). The
>more time I spend testing, the closer to 50 percent that my ratio moves.
>
>Twice as much test work, with a big question mark concerning the financial
>returns from a new platform -- sounds scary to me. I'd be as hesitant as you
>are before I'd bet my business on it.
This is not really the problem.
1 month dev, 2 months testing does not apply for me.
Testing is done for the biggest part in an automatic way on separate computers
running 24/7 (and under DOS...). So it is done for the biggest part in parallel
with developpement.
At this time I use the DJGPP compiler (GCC) under DOS for my daily developpement
tasks. I use the MSVC very seldomly, usually before the releases of the product.
So for me it would be developping under Linux instead of developping under DOS.
It does not change fundamentaly my way of developping and would not have to add
a lot of work.
It's just that I have to get used to the system and find replacements for all my
tools. Just that would take an incredible amount of time (and energy).
>>There is also the rampant question of the licence model under Linux. I read that
>>developping an application with the KDE tools means that the developper will
>>have to pay for the QT licence. More generally I do not even know when I am
>>using some libraries if it is legal to use them to sell commercial applications.
>
>
>A very valid concern, and you are wise to stay out of the commercial fray until
>some of these things have been sorted out. I know you remember the early PC
>software days and the arguments over whether programming libraries should be
>royalty-free or not. The commercial Linux arena seems to be at that stage now
>-- what libraries can you use with commercial products and which ones you can't.
> As more companies get into commercial Linux, the issues will sort themselves
>out. Go slow and be safe -- a wise choice indeed.
Actually my first step would not be to go Linux in order to sell Linux apps.
There is no market for Linux apps at this time. At least not for me, I fear. 1%
of the people visiting www.chesstiger.com are using Linux. Worse: I'm afraid
that people using Linux are not willing to pay for software for now.
My first step would be to switch to Linux for everyday use (developpement,
internet browsing and emailing, whatever), while keeping on selling a Windows
version of my product.
However I can't stay away of Windows, for the very same reason. You have to use
the system on which your products are running, because you have to share your
customers experiences, somehow.
It is not an economical suicide for me to switch to Linux, but I would have to
keep on using Windows, a little bit.
>>By saying that it is difficult for me to switch to Linux, I'm actually just
>>emphasing my own shortcomings. However I believe that many people will have
>>exactly the same problems. That's not related to the quality of the OS itself,
>>but it will have a strong influence on its acceptance.
>
>
>Once again, I agree with you 100 percent. And I know you've seen a lot of
>progress since the first time you tried Linux. There's still a long way to go,
>but at least there is progress.
But Linux has a target, and it is Windows. If nothing is done to try to catch up
with Windows, Linux will slowly die. It will not die abruptly like BeOS, but it
will vanish little by little.
The problem is that Windows is a fast target. If at the time of release of WINE
1.0 Microsoft and the whole industry is prepared to launch 64 bits computers and
OS, all the great effort invested in WINE will be as useful as the great effort
IBM invested in making OS/2 Warp a perfect Windows 3.1 clone. OS/2 Warp worked,
but too late.
Microsoft is very good at rendering its own products obsolete in a very short
period of time, and that is the reason why just "progress" in Linux is not
enough. It must be progress at the right pace. And it is far from being the
case, as I have been able to see 3 years after my initial attempt.
>>So I believe that the people behind the developpement of Linux should really
>>care a lot about Windows users wanting to make the switch. That would be a
>>really good thing for everybody. But I do not see this attitude. By reading the
>>various sites dedicated to Linux (those often ending in .org) I never see the
>>little paragraph that is badly needed: "special note for former Windows
>>users...".
>
>
>I've discovered that there is a huge difference between the Internet Linux
>community and the commercial Linux community. The Internet Linux community has
>a disproportionate share of loud and obnoxious zealots who think everything has
>to work one way -- their way.
That's right. That's why I was calling for "new blood".
>The commercial Linux companies -- e.g. RedHat,
>SuSE, TurboLinux, etc. -- are thinking more along the lines that you are. Right
>now, those companies are pushing hard into the server market because they
>already have products that fit that market. Those products have been in the
>works for the past five years or so. Their push into the desktop market is in
>the planning and development stage right now, and I'm seeing more and more focus
>on easier migration strategies. Five years from now, I hope you and I will be
>looking back on this discussion and laughing about how hard we thought it was
>going to be and how easy it actually was.
Five years?
Who knows where Microsoft will have dragged all its customers to in 5 years.
>>I have seen really good moves in the right direction lately, however. For
>>example WINE is becoming better and better (even though they are still far away
>>from reaching the mythical version 1.0). It is now possible with WINE and the
>>help of a product from CodeWeaver to run Microsoft Office under Linux (only
>>choice until a good native office package is produced for Linux).
>>
>>Lindows.com is trying to integrate these tools so Linux really looks like a free
>>Windows.
>>
>>All of this is still under construction, but goes in the right direction.
>
>
>Once again, a commercial company (CodeWeavers) adds the missing pieces. I think
>that the US dot-com stock market implosion set Linux migration efforts back at
>least a couple of years, if not longer. Companies like CodeWeavers are finding
>it very difficult to get financing for their businesses. Some of these
>companies have good people with the right ideas, but how do they pay for
>development and testing? Maybe the pace will pick up again when the US tech
>economy starts recovering.
>
>Seven years ago, I had to install Linux from a box full of floppies and never
>could get an X Windows GUI running on my machine. Four years ago, I could use
>a CD to install Linux, but it took me two days (and a lot of manual file
>editing) to get a 256 color X Windows GUI running on my newer machine. Four
>months ago, a co-worker of mine and I spent half a week getting a couple of
>dozen Linux servers (with 24-bit color X Windows) up and running in my company's
>test lab, without editing a single text file and using a network-based install.
>
>It's definitely going in the right direction! Not as fast as you and I would
>like, but definitely the right direction.
But I hope you understand why faster is necessary. It is necessary to release
your product before the equivalent product of your competitor is considered
obsolete.
Christophe
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.