[Info-vax] Unix on A DEC Vax?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <50fae09d$0$6092$e4fe514c at dreader36.news.xs4all.nl>,
	MG <marcogbNO at SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
> On 19-jan-2013 16:56, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> Huh??  I am playing with three different "Desktop Linux" distributions
>> now that install easier than Windows and have all the functionality
>> offered by a full-fledged (read after you buy a lot of extras) Windows
>> right out of the box!!
> 
> When was the last time you saw a piece of, say, Adobe software for
> Linux?

Isn't Flash from Adobe?  Got it on my Ubuntu box.  And what else is there
that an average user might actually need?  PDF Reader? There are
alternatives.  And Windows doesn't come with any Adobe out-of-the-box
either.

> 
> 
>> I doubt anyone here evert hought VMS was tsargeted for or even
>> reasonbly considerable for a desktop.
> 
> Many say the same about Linux, like it or not.

Sorry, I have not seen anyone saying that Linux won't work on the desktop.
Quite the opposite.  I am seeing lots of specific Desktop distributions.

> 
> 
>> Just because the frontend says WindowsXP doesn't mean the backend
>> is.
> 
> Many back-ends are Windows, too, nowadays.  (Also, I didn't say "XP";
> in fact, where did I say "XP"?!)

Well, I just chose XP as, at least at the moment, it is probably the
most common Windows Desktop.

> 
> 
>>> I've, over time and from optimistically to somewhat reluctantly,
>>> been using Linux for over ten to fifteen years (with breaks in-
>>> between) and the desktop has been consistently poor, in my own
>>> experience.
>>
>> In what way?  Don't get me wrong, I am no Linux fanboy.  I think
>> it is the poorer of equivalent OSes.  But, like DEC missed the PC
>> reolution completely, the better choice in the Unix (or Unix-like)
>> World is also missing the boat.  But if your primary desktop
>> experience is, like most people, Windows, I would really like to
>> hear what it is that you think current Linux Desktop software can't
>> do.
> 
> I use Windows 7, mostly for the software library: the available,
> quality, 'industry standard' software.  Things like "the GIMP" are
> no substitute for Photoshop (for instance) and simply not going to
> cut it, sorry!

Well, if you are of the opinion that if it doesn't run on Windows it
isn't serious enough, I am not going to convince you otehrwise.

> 
> 
>> Funny, I have no problem with it.  I can watch YouTube, which is very
>> graphic, with no problems at all.
> 
> Do you have to resort to using "gnash" or something like it, or did
> you actually manage to install a (knock-off) Flash/AIR plug-in of
> some sort?  (On what kind of hardware, if I may ask?)

I just installed Ubuntu 12.04.1 on a coupel of different PC platforms
(including, believe it or not, an old Gateway Solo laptop) and on a
VirtualBox guest system.  It worked out of the box on all of them.

> 
> 
>> Of course. if you are talking about gaming, all bets are off.  But
>> then, if I want to game I use a game machine, not a PC running
>> linux or Windows.  :-)
> 
> Some people want a bit more than 6~8 year-old outdated graphics on
> old PowerPC systems, from what I hear...  I don't see Linux being
> anything of a competitor to Windows, even while some industry
> bigs wouldn't mind switching to Linux (especially since Windows
> 8, think of Gabe Newell).  But, it just isn't happening.

I still don't see what is wrong with the graphics?  maybe my eyes are
getting old but stuff looks just as good as it does under Windows.
Maybe I need to hook my computer up to my 47" HDTV using HDMI and see
what I am missing.  :-)

> 
> 
>> Back to this desktop thing.  Linux does Desktop just fine.
> 
> Is that so?  The supposedly 'strong' Linux desktop distributions
> (most which I hate, but that's besides the point), like "Ubuntu",
> are horrid 

You keep saying this but other than your personal dislike I still
have not heard what is wrong with it.

>            and whilst supposedly on the cutting edge for hardware
> support, barely usable still.  

Same thing here.  I find it every bit as usable as Windows or my
MacBook.

>                                Especially for laptop/notebook
> usage, Linux power management is still extremely poor!

Well, I haven't actually tested it but I do know that Ubuntu detected
that  a laptop I was using had APM and did some additional setup to
support it.  I will be doing some more testing with laptops in the
very near future (I am waiting for delivery of a few extra disks so
I don't have to trash what I already have running in order to test
things) si I guess I will see.

> 
> 
>> What di you think is missing?  The Office suite is even MS
>> compatable. :-)
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

Well, webbrowsing and Office tasks are probably the most common things
down by people with their laptops.  Linux can do these perfectly well.
Now, if your primary use is developing VMS software I can see where
a Linux system might not be a good fit, but then, neither would Windows. :-)

> 
> 
>> That is more a marketing problem.  Is the Windows world any
>> different?
> 
> No, the Windows world is quite different.  I hate Windows, but
> for all its faults, it can provide decent software and drivers
> are good overall.  As much as I dislike and not prefer Windows,
> the Windows 95/98 days are over and for purely desktop/work-
> station-oriented usage, it works well and for games it's the
> cutting edge de facto standard.

Like I said, for games I have a gaming console.  It's what it was
designed for.  I haven't played games on a PC since DOOM and Wolfenstein
and even those are on my gaming console. :-)  Everything that the
average computer user does can be done equally well on either Windows
or Linux.  (and BSD, but admittedly with more work.  but not something
out of reach of the average corporate IT department.)

> 
> 
>> XP, Windows7, now Windows8.  Which one is the right one?
> 
> I personally use 7, but I don't truly 'prefer' any Windows.  I
> actually prefer IRIX, for a desktop experience and my hardware
> is recent enough to still handle uncompressed high-resolution
> graphics and digitized video in real-time.  But, there are many
> things I can't run under IRIX anymore and thus am forced to use
> Windows.  (No, I don't consider OS X a viable alternative and I
> don't plan to spend twice or even more for plain Intel hardware,
> just because it has Apple logos all over the place with a glossy/
> brushed aluminum finish.)

You think the average user can't use Linux to do things that he does
on Windows now and your prefernce is IRIX!!!   Somehow I don't see the
world flocking n that direction.

> 
> 
>> I am typing this on a Vista box and still have at least one laptop
>> running Vista.
> 
> Gee, why aren't you running Linux on it... could it perhaps have to
> do with the fact that power management, firmware, etc. isn't
> available?

I have other boxes running Linux.  To be honest, this box dates back to
my DOD days and I need to use things like a CAC reader so I could do
PKI.  Not saying it can't be done on Linux, but DOD has their own set
of rules and requirements.  The box works, why would I trash it?  When
it eventually dies it is very unlikely to be replaced with another
system running Vista.  Between my research and the periodic actual
work I do I maintain a lot of systems running a lot of different OSes
(including VMS).

> 
> 
>> And yet, OS x is nothing but BSD packaged by a third party who
> 
> Yes, but, /so what/?  How many people are aware of that?  Not many,
> especially not the average user.

So what?  It runs contrary to what you said immediately before what I
said.  And yet, apparently the rest of the world doesn't really see
things the same way you do.

> 
> 
>> If nothing else, the current state of Linux (or BSD) is an excellent
>> business opportunity but like most, it will be ignored because we
>> all know noone can compete with MS.  :-)
> 
> Only because it's cheap, just like outsourcing; it's essentially the
> same 'dynamic', really.

Well, like it or not, the primary function of any company is to make
money.  Cheaper operation is good for that.

> 
> You berate people for thinking VMS was/is in no trouble, but you're
> doing the same with regard to Linux and BSD.

Berate people?  Not that I know of.  And again, like it or not, Linux
and, yes, even BSD, have more marketshare than VMS. 

> 
> Linux is hardly used on desktops and it certainly is nowhere near as
> proliferated as Windows and OS X are.  

True.

>                                       Most people run Windows or OS
> X.  

True.

>     Especially people who rely on their computers for graphics or
> otherwise graphically-oriented software.

Ah.  Now we get to the crux of the matter.  Explains your love of SGI and
IRIX.  But how many of the millions and millions of PC users do any kind
of graphics with their PC that require that kind of power?  They browse
the web.  They send email.  They share photos with gramma.  They are not
creating the next "Toy Story".  They are not publishing "National Geographic".
For what the AVERAGE PC users does Linux can easily do as good a job as
Windows.  And at a fraction of the price.  And in that AVERAGE category
I include the majority of business users and pretty much all of the
government users I have ever had contact with.
 
bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>