A good article about Linux culture.

[Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar.daithankar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BEE423.FD500260
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



  Hello  everyone

  I found this article on linuxtoday.com It's worth reading.


 Also few days back, when Atul invited suggestions for new  PC Quest CD, =
I posted few suggestions for Siag Office(From linuxberg.com), JDK 2, =
AnyJ(from blackdown.org),Kdevelop,Qt 2.0(from troll.no)  etc. I don't =
know whether they were received by the mail, but at least I did not =
receive the copy for them. So posting them once more. Atul, please give =
them a look. I think it's worth of freeware for developers & office =
users.

  Bye
    Shridhar


=20
     
- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BEE423.FD500260
Content-Type: text/plain; name="A Good Article.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Microsoft is a Y2K problem. Here's why.=20

Some people have speculated that Microsoft may finally 'get it right' =
with Windows 2000, which would have dire consequences for the Linux =
phenomenon. In other words, if Windows 2000 turns out to be a reliable =
high quality operating system (unlike its predecessors Windows 3.1, =
Windows 95, and Windows 98), then Linux will fade in importance, since =
it will no longer have weak prey.=20

These people are operating under a fallacious assumption. In this =
writers opinion, Microsoft does not know how to get it right, so never =
will. It is a question of culture -- the myriad intertwined set of human =
activities behind any technological or social movement.=20

I'm 45 years and have been programming for thirty of those years. I have =
been programming professionally using Microsoft products for the last =
nine years (since Windows 3.0) and have programmed on UNIX more or less =
continuously since 1976, when UNIX was entering its seventh year of =
evolution. I think Linux is the archetype quality UNIX of our times, but =
my comments apply equally to FreeBSD and to the culture of UNIX in =
general.=20

The main difference I see between Linux and Windows is that with =
Windows, one is always having to deal with poorly specified APIs =
(Application Programming Interfaces), poorly written documentation that =
mixes marketing hype with fact and which is always always incomplete.=20

Open a page to technical documentation in Windows, and you will see =
statements like: "When you open a form bound to a record set, the fields =
on the form will display the values in the current record." OK, fine, =
what if the record set is empty and there is no current record? (I.e., =
no antecedent for the anaphoric reference 'the current record'.) Well, =
good luck. The documentation was mute on the subject. This example is a =
distilled stylized example from a case I experienced using Microsoft =
Access. It is typical, not rare. Always, without exception with =
Microsoft specs, one is forced to play a guessing game and do what could =
be dubbed 'programming by experimentation'. True, with any system, some =
degree of learning is accomplished by guessing and experimenting. And =
any specification ever written always contains some fine elements which =
are subject to interpretation, i.e., guessing. But with Microsoft =
products, one has to guess all the time.=20

When I first broke open the shrink wrap to Visual Basic 5, I was not =
prepared for the fact that the language had been modified, was not =
backward compatible with VB4, and that once I recompiled my current VB4 =
projects under VB5, the system would convert my code to the new language =
and I would be unable to run my existing code in VB4! But that actually =
happened. There is no published specification of the Visual Basic =
Language, as far as I can tell.=20

Recently I needed to apply the Microsoft Index Server for a client. My =
workstation is NT server, so I clicked on the Index Server Help menu to =
remind myself about what the Index Server does. Nothing happened. Click. =
Nothing. (Or maybe it complained that some help file was missing, I =
don't remember.) I was not surprised. My NT system was, in Microsoft =
time, rather ripe, having been installed about one year earlier. And I =
am used to things not working in Windows, aren't you? So I was facing =
the standard 'do I reinstall from scratch or do I upgrade' dilemma that =
all Windows users experience every year or so. I chose to upgrade, from =
NT Service Pack 3 to Service Pack 4. I went out to the Microsoft Web =
site and tried to decipher the marketing hype in order to determine just =
what the Index Server consists of and how to upgrade it. It was a like a =
Chinese puzzle trying to figure out which option pack and/or service =
pack to install first. I will spare you the details of my ensuing pain, =
but a couple iterations of 80MB downloads and four or five iterations =
through the installation script later, the process actually converged. I =
had my Index Server back. The user interface for web server =
administration was completely different than before and Index Server =
itself had (and has) obnoxious bugs (c.f. dejanews, search on ["Index =
Server" problem]). But the help menu did now work. A day gone by.=20

It is a question of feel. What the system 'feels like' when you try to =
perform system administration, when you want to program it, even when =
you want to use it.=20

Of course, it is not just the documentation. Basic design mistakes =
abound. Let me give you a simple example which has been with us since =
DOS. And note that even the newest Microsoft operating system, Windows =
NT, ('New' Technology -- gag), has a DOS command prompt window. On a DOS =
command line, when you type in a command and then back up with the left =
arrow and then start typing to make your correction, you overwrite your =
previous characters, clobbering characters which were previously there. =
With UNIX, you insert new characters at the insertion point, and the =
characters which were there are shifted to the right. The DOS decision =
is wrong because typically when you make a typo you wish to go back and =
replace N characters by M different characters where M is not equal to =
N. Hence, you want to go back, delete the mistake and enter the new =
characters. With UNIX you do that. With DOS, you have to always hit the =
INSERT key to get into INSERT mode before you start typing, otherwise =
you end up typing over good stuff before you remember that your command =
line editor was designed by Bill Gates and Company and you have just =
clobbered some good part of the line you are correcting. All all all =
Microsoft design is permeated with such slightly off-kilter conceptions. =


It gets old.=20

After years of this, I realized something one day. DOS was invented by =
BASIC programmers. The company Microsoft was founded by BASIC =
programmers. They were programming with BASIC and foisting 8 character =
file name length limits on the world starting in 1980. In 1980, UNIX was =
already 10 years old, already had introduced effectively unlimited file =
name lengths and directory hierarchies, had multitasking, worked on 16 =
bit computers, did not have an idiotic 1MB memory limit, etc. etc. etc. =
What we have here is that some guys in Albuquerque got lucky, were good =
hackers (with BASIC interpretors), were great marketers, and took over =
the planet.=20

Now, I don't have anything in particular against BASIC, per se. It was =
my first programming language in High School. It is good for doing lots =
of stuff. It dominated as it has because it is an interpreter and (like =
LISP and like Perl), an interpreter is a very convenient thing to have =
around to write small programs fast. OK, fine, BASIC has its place and =
there is a reason that non-computer-scientists took to it like ducks to =
water.=20

But still, why are we stuck with Visual Basic in 1999? Well, same =
reason. It is easy to program the first 90% of a task and Microsoft, =
over the years, has managed to hack in enough semblance of modern =
programming constructs that one can manage, via programming by =
experimentation techniques, to cobble together a solution.=20

Entire industries were born to remedy mistakes embedded within DOS: =
memory managers, file system administration tools, and myriad utilities =
were provided by a host of third party companies who owed their very =
existence to design mistakes in DOS. People who installed Windows are =
constantly asking their mechanically-inclined or engineering-savvy =
friends to help them reformat disks, reinstall programs, and help find =
their way through the maze that is Windows, all as a favor, and at no =
cost to Bill Gates and Company. It could be argued that the cost to the =
economy in lost time in circumventing and working around the =
frustratingly bad design of DOS and Windows far exceeds the personal =
fortune of Bill Gates.=20

We have left unanswered the question of why Microsoft has succeeded so =
well in spite of these design flaws. Although that is a separate =
subject, it deserves comment. Did Microsoft succeed because they got =
product to market faster by cutting corners? Maybe sometimes, but, in =
general, putting out a bad piece of software actually increases the cost =
to the producer in the long run. I think the real reason behind the =
success of Microsoft is what one friend of mine calls 'survival of the =
adequate'. If you can put something out which has glitches but works, if =
it runs on the Industry Standard Architecture (ISA bus), if it costs =
less than products by and for yuppies (the Macintosh), if some genuinely =
good applications are somehow made to run on it, then the cost-conscious =
public buys it, naively (and understandably) expecting it to work. =
Finally, by fiat you draft the community of programmers to be in a =
constant state of beta-testing your products, get them all to do =
programming by experimentation to figure out how to use your products =
and develop further genuinely good applications for it, much like a rat =
figures out how to get through a maze, and voila, world domination.=20

It used to work that way. Linux is here now. Linux is a better operating =
system and, if my thesis is correct, will always be better. Linux costs =
even less so the public will like that. Many programmers have awoken to =
the con job which was pulled on them. Coordinated efforts to produce a =
good looking GUI desktop with standards-based application =
interoperability are rapidly being deployed on Linux. If the =
applications start to come around, good bye system crashes, welcome =
Linux.=20

Will Windows 2000 solve the problem? I can only speak from personal =
experience. I use both NT Server 4.0 (build 1381, Service Pack 4) and =
Linux (Redhat 5.2, kernel 2.0.36). I mostly use NT Server as my =
workstation, but do run it as a server to test some development. I run =
one Linux box both as a workstation and as a file, web, database, and =
setiathome server. I am typing this very document into an emacs running =
on Linux but which is being displayed on an X server running in NT.=20

I have seen numerous situations where Internet Explorer or the File =
Explorer crashes and takes NT down with it. Happened under Service Pack =
3. Happens under Service Pack 4.=20

In contrast, I have seen Netscape crash many times in Linux, yes, but =
never did a program which crashed in Linux take down the operating =
system with it. My Linux machine has been up for over six months across =
multiple reconfigurations of virtual IPs, installation of new versions =
of basic server software, and switching from an analog dedicated modem =
connection to a DSL connection, without once needing to be rebooted.=20

If Windows 2000 really is Windows NT, then I'm not optimistic that =
Microsoft is about to 'get it right'.=20

I urge you to view Microsoft kind of like you view the Y2K problem. A =
bunch of hacks were made many many years ago which, through time, have =
been patched and grown over. Under it all, there is the corporate =
identity which, after all, comes from the originators of the =
corporation. Time buries the clunky designs, the inability to write good =
English, the seeming utter ignorance of the concept of a complete =
specification, and the arrogance of either ignoring, not caring about, =
or trying to out do standards. But the corporate identity, the corporate =
culture fostered by Microsoft remains. The players change but the game =
stays the same.=20

UNIX came out of the Universities and corporate research labs. =
Originated by the brilliance of the likes of Ken Thompson at Bell Labs, =
extended by the U.C. Berkeley Computer Science department and Bill Joy =
later, and with a cast of hundreds, if not thousands, augmented and =
improved up through today. Stallman, Torvalds, Gosling and so many, so =
many good artist scientist engineers have made Linux, Free BSD, Apache =
and all the open source efforts the new paradigm -- a different culture =
has coexisted along side the commercial hacks of DOS.=20

The 'feel' one has when one is programming, using, reading about UNIX is =
different than with Windows because it is a question of that culture. =
All of the myriad underlying skills, computer science background, design =
decisions. Hard to pin it down to any one thing or even a finite list.=20

Windows 2000 will be a Y2K problem which cannot be fixed because it has =
with it all the trappings of the culture which has produced it over the =
past twenty years.=20

Linux, open source, Internet standards, and just plain good science, may =
yet change the rules. Then, finally, we will be playing a new game, and =
the referee won't be Bill Gates.=20

- ------ =_NextPart_000_01BEE423.FD500260--

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on Linux in India visit http://www.linux-india.org/
The Linux India mailing list does not accept postings in HTML format.

------------------------------