[Info-vax] Unix on A DEC Vax?

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <50fb3662$0$6358$e4fe514c at dreader35.news.xs4all.nl>,
	MG <marcogbNO at SPAMxs4all.nl> writes:
> On 19-jan-2013 21:09, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> Isn't Flash from Adobe?Got it on my Ubuntu box.
> 
> So, what about Photoshop?  That's hardly an uncommon and
> insigificant piece of software, now is it?

Sorry, it is to me.  While I know it exists and people use it, I have
never kown anyone personally who I knew used it.  It is not on the
standard DOD desktop.  I doubt it's on the common government desktop.
I even doubt it is on the standard corporate desktop.  I would guess
it is on maybe 1% of the Windows systems in use today.  i am talking
about a desktop that contains the things used by greater than 75% of
PC users today.  I would list theat as webbrowser, email, office suite.

> 
> 
>> 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'm not talking about sub-standard 'alternatives', I'm talking
> about quality software.  Does Linux provide it?  No.

Your bias is showing.  Windows is considered the "standard" (not sub-
standard) and to the majority of users it is quality software.  And
what do people here think of it?  The software available on Linux that
the majority of users need is every bit as "quality" as the equivalent
on Windows.

> 
> The only quality desktop software for Linux is the occasionally
> decent F/OSS or ironically the super-expensive, fully customized,
> proprietary software (like the aforementioned IFFFS 'turn-key'
> suites, which used to run exclusively on IRIX once upon a time).
> 
> 
>> Sorry, I have not seen anyone saying that Linux won't work on the
>> desktop.
> 
> It's not /just me/, it's simply a fact that Linux is frankly a
> bit of a deadbeat operating system on the desktop for _serious_
> (i.e. professional) usage.

OK, you have your opinion and I have mine.

> 
> Like others have also pointed out, the only real headway and large
> scale Linux made on the desktop is via its Android incarnation.
> 
> 
>> Quite the opposite.  I am seeing lots of specific Desktop
>> distributions.
> 
> So what?  A tiny, insignificant, percentage compared to Windows and
> OS X.

Well duh....  But what I am saying is if an effort was made, that could
change because the reasons are not technical.  It's the marketing.  Sound
familiar?  What other far superior product that we know of suffers the
same malaise because of a lack of marketing?

> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Beware, I never said that.  There's some very serious and competent
> software for Linux, but it's the exact opposite of 'free' and 'open
> source', of which many people have never heard and is out of reach
> (too expensive and specialized, in setup).

Your right.  Oracle runs on Linux.  As a matter of fact, 11g runs on
Linux (and what is still available on VMS?)  Now, let's look at what
that could mean to a business.  My last two jobs (shortterm, with DOD
entities) both ran Oracle.  One ran it on AIX and one ran it on HPUX.
Hmmm..  How much do they pay for AIX or HPUX?  They could accomplish
the same thing while only paying for the Oracle Database (and I am
not saying there is no replaccement for that, only that running the
database on Linux is cheaper than running the same DB on AIX or HPUX
and the change would have minimal affect on the user base, if any at
all.  And that doesn't even touch the difference in hardware costs or
do you think that Power or PA-Risc are somehow cheaper than your
average server class Intel box.

> 
> I think of the truly high-end graphics software, somewhat accessible
> to smaller parties and even private individuals, is Houdini by SESI
> (Side Effects Software, Inc.).  Another former IRIX software house,
> which saw more similarities between IRIX and Linux and therefore
> found it a good idea to port to.

And how many PC users are actuially doing that?

> 
> But, they've also been eying OS X a lot and they've been promoting
> that a lot, since the last few years, so the writing is on the wall
> ...
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> It's hardly going to be fast enough to do anything useful.

Huh?  How fast does the average user type an email?  Or a resume
in Word?  You are arguing that because there is really high end
capabilities then anything less is useless. I am saying LinuX and
the associated packages are way more than adequate for 90% of the
PC world.

> 
> I've done never visualized anything, it's not like I'm unfamiliar
> with it.  In fact, I installed VirtualBox on a more desktop-
> oriented (or, that was the plan) Debian Linux Athlon64 X2 (dual-
> core) PC and I found the virtualized speed of Windows XP to be
> rather poor.  

Well, I can't unde4rsand what the purpose of a virtualized desktop
would be and, again, that wouldn't affect 90% of the PC world who
are not virtualizing anything.  Virtualization is great for the
backroom where it belongs.

>              Not to mention my overall gripes with the 'non-
> stable' releases of Debian (with the overall broken-'ness of
> packages, which got on my nerves and forced me to downgrade to
> 'stable').

So, what, you were trying to run the bleeding-edge version?  Again,
how many real PC users will be chasing that?  My father ran Windows
95 until the day he died (long after NT, 2000, Vista and XP were in
common use.)  
> 
> 
>> I still don't see what is wrong with the graphics?
> 
> There's nothing 'wrong' with it, there's nothing wrong with
> 1980s arcade games, so to say.

Oh, I understand now.  You do high-end graphics and seem to have this
expectation that the rest of the world must also.  Kinda like HDTV.
I got one.  Funny, football looks exactly the same wether I watch it
in HD or regular TV.  And then there is the audio world.  I have heard
$10,000 stereo systems.  Don't sound any different to me than the
radio in my truck.  So, who is more common?  the audiophile or people
just like me?

> 
> The thing is, people have seen what modern PC graphics can
> look like and even the next-generation so-called "gaming
> consoles" are reportedly not going to pack a much greater
> punch than some of the 'current-generation' PCs do!

So?  just what percentage of PC users do you really think are spending
all their time playing World of Warcraft as opposed to surfing the web?
How will SGI quality graphics help them?

> 
> 
>> maybe my eyes are getting old but stuff looks just as good
>> as it does under Windows.
> 
> I'm talking about raw specifications, measured performance
> and graphical resolution/definiton and quality.  You can't deny
> that a graphics adapter with a gigantic, multi-core, graphics
> processing unit and a gigabyte or more of high-speed GDDR5 memory
> is going to under-perform a relatively 'old' embedded graphics
> sub-system of a (largely) passively-cooled gaming console.  Not
> to mention, many 'current-generation' "video game consoles" only
> support "HD-ready" (= 1280 by 720 pixels) resolutions, instead
> of the aforementioned "full HD".
> 
> It may not matter to you, but some of the die-hard gamers do care
> for it.  Plus, the whole game industry is massive nowadays.  From
> what I've read, it's a multi-billion dollar industry.

But I am not talking about Linux taking over the gamers or the graphics
kings (although the use of Linux by peol elike Pixar says something). I
am talking about corporate america (and the world) which is paying a
real premium to use MS software that comes off the bottom line when it
is not really buying them anything.  And, the government (at least the
US government who can no longer afford to spend money that has an
insufficient ROI).  They are not gaming and they are not photoshopping.
They are writting documents and making spreadsheets and killing people
with powerpoint.  And a Linux desktop can do that just as good as a
Windows desktop.  Who knows, maybe all this touchscreen crap will be
the incentive needed for people to finally take a serious look at what
it takes to get the job done and they will opt to stop paying for fluff
that does nothing for their bottomline.

> 
> 
>> Maybe I need to hook my computer up to my 47" HDTV using HDMI and see
>> what I am missing.  :-)
> 
> Many HDTVs sadly 'cheat', in terms of the provided resolution (e.g.
> many supposedly 'full HD' screens aren't actually 1920 by 1200
> pixels).  Best is to hook it up to a 23", 24", 27" or higher IPS
> panel LCD screen, to get that the 'definition' you desire.
> 
> 
>> Same thing here.  I find it every bit as usable as Windows or my
>> MacBook.
> 
> What do you typically use your Linux desktop for, then?  I doubt
> it's for graphic/web design, illustration, desktop-publishing,
> post-production, computer-aided technical drawing, electrical
> engineering, architectural/environmental planning and the like?

Of course not.  And, you know what, neither do 90% of the other
desktop users.

> 
> 
>> Well, webbrowsing and Office tasks are probably the most common
>> things down by people with their laptops.  Linux can do these
>> perfectly well.
> 
> I remember, back in school, that those using {Open/Libre}Office
> ran into trouble, especially because most were using the MS
> Office software.

I did all my papers last semester (that's 4 a week with a 2 big research
papers for the end of the term) with Open Office.  I know for a fact that
all the professors are using MS Office and being Theology Professors they
are definitely not "Power Users" and none of them had any problem with any
of my papers.  I move spreadsheets back and forth between Open Office
and MS Office all the time.  No problems.  Just how long ago was "back
in shcool"?   I suspect long before Libre Office.  Most of the problems
with document interchange went away when MS changed to XML as a file
format rather than the proprietary (and undocumented) .doc and .xls
formats.

> 
> 
>> Like I said, for games I have a gaming console.  It's what it
>> was designed for.
> 
> Not really, but I don't want to be too hurtful by telling you
> what they were truly designed for.  (Especially since the
> mid-2000s.)

Well, they were designed to make money for the company, but isn't everything?

> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> Where did I say or suggest that the world is 'flocking' in '[the]
> direction' of IRIX, or anything really?

You didn't, but you seem to think they should.  After all, didn't you just
say noone else can do graphics like they do and everybody needs that level
of graphics?

> 
> You appeared to have asked me what I preferred (in terms of a
> desktop-type system), by the sound of it, I then answered you.
> 
> Or would you've preferred an insincere answer?

Oh, I can see what you prefer.  But my original comment was about Linux
being able to take over the desktop if it actually tried.  You seem to
think because it doesn't meet your needs that can't happen.  You are
obviously not the average user.  And you are far above the average
corporate user when it comes to requirements.

> 
> 
>> So what?  It runs contrary to what you said immediately before
>> what I said.
> 
> No, not at all.  How does it?  Or are you claiming that OS X
> is really just '[a] BSD'?  If so, that's a bit delusional, if
> you ask me.  Or, wishful thinking in the least.
> 
> 
>> And yet, apparently the rest of the world doesn't really see
>> things the same way you do.
> 
> It has nothing to do with seeing, what don't you get about:
> Windows and OS X are most used, not Linux?!  The statistics
> are there.

Of course they are.  And my point is that there is no TECHNICAL
reason for this.  For 90% of the PC user world a Linux desktop
has all the same tools with all the same capabilities.  And at
a very reduced pricetag. :-)

> 
> 
>> Well, like it or not, the primary function of any company is to
>> make money.  Cheaper operation is good for that.
> 
> Well, guess what: Linux is not cheaper on the desktop, mostly/
> only as a server platform.

How is it  not cheaper on the desktop?  What does Windows (any version)
cost?  What does MS Office cost?  Those are the two pieces most used in
the PC desktop world.


> 
> For a viable Linux desktop, it requires a costly overhaul:
> custom drivers, custom(ized) kernel, custom software and other
> custom(ized)/special userland changes and additions.  I mean, if
> you don't want to be mucking around with absolutely terrible
> audio subsystems, graphics drivers and so forth.  For people
> with standards and qualitative demands.  I know, that's rapidly
> becoming rare, just saying though!

None of which means anything or would even be understood by the
average PC user.  Just how much graphics power does Word require?

> 
> 
>> And again, like it or not,Linux and, yes, even BSD, have more
>> marketshare than VMS.
> 
> You really think so?!  Thanks, I didn't know that yet!

Even assuming the "VMS Constant" was still valid every other OS I
know of has more market share at this point. 

> 
> What about the vibrant IBM "z" internet-browsing user community?

Huh?

> Let's not forget them either...

Or, are you hinting there are more VMS systems than Z-systems?  I doubt
it.

> 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> (So, it finally sank in?)

I never said there were more Linux systems.  I said there was no TECHNICAL
reason why that should be.

> 
> 
>> Ah.  Now we get to the crux of the matter.  Explains your love of
>> SGI and IRIX.
> 
> ... How does it 'explain' /what/?

You have a need/desire for far greater graphics capabilities than the
average PC user.  Stock Linux can't deliver that.  But then, 90% of the
PC world doesn't need, want or even understand that.

> 
> 
>> 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?
> 
> There are many typesetters/(desktop) publishers, illustrators,
> graphic designers, people involved with post-production (e.g.
> matte painters, compositors, video editors, etc.), 

What are they?  Maybe 1% (if that) of the PC user world.

>                                                    web designers

Why would a web designer need higher level graphics than his audience?
Oh, wait, that probablty explains why so many web pages look like crap
or are often unviewable on the average PC.  :-)


> and so forth, they require one or few programs and most of the
> time, it's not available for Linux, only for Windows and Apple.

And yet companies like Pixar used Linux.  Go figure.  last movie
I know of that used SGI was Jurrasic Park.

> 
> Same most of the time applies for professional audio disciplines.
> Most so-called "digital audio workstations" are Windows or OS X
> based, rarely (if ever) on Linux.

Well, first, this is also in the 1% of users range.  Secondly, if
the market is Windows where do you think the software is going to
get targeted.  Kind of like VMS.  Why is there no common software
being developed or sold for VMS?  because the average user doesn't
use it.

> 
> These are hardly rare professions, in a world full of web
> designers (relying on Photoshop) and other software.

See above.  With the exception of web designers they are rare.  I
doubt they make up 1% of the PC user world.  And I fail to see why
a web designer would need any better graphics than the system he
expected his pages to be viewed on.  As a matter of fact, tha last
place I worked that required us to create web pages for users to
view provided us with an extra monitor and required us to set it
up exactly as the real users were setup so we could develop our
web pages to be viewable by them.

> 
> 
>> They browse the web.  They send email.  They share photos with
>> gramma.
> 
> What about people who wish to do a /slight/ bit more than that?

1%.  They can buy something else.  But the majority don't need it.
And a Linux desktop can deliver all they need and more.

> I think people who are content with the above functionality are
> actually more likely to get a (slightly bigger) 'smartphone'
> and/or 'tablet'.  They certainly aren't the types who desire to
> mess around with Linux, or figure out which of the countless
> distributions and forks would best 'work out' for them!

You are still trying to live in a world where Linux is a hackers OS
used in mom's basement by prepubescent dweebs.  I am saying there is
nothing TECHNICAL keeping from being mainstream.  The average corporate
user doesn't "mess around" with anythig on their PC's.  They don't
have to deal with  countless distributions and forks".  What "would
best 'work out' for them" is decided by and provided by their employer.
And, guess what, the odds are pretty good that the guy who works in
the IT department is a geek and he already knows all about Liunx,
distributions and forks.

> 
> 
>> They are not creating the next "Toy Story".
> 
> The irony is, Pixar used IRIX and Solaris extensively and nowadays
> uses mostly Linux (as they must've considered it relatively closer
> to the former two).  But, do you even realize how far removed from
> 'vanilla' Linux it is, what they run?!  

Do you realize how far removed from a vanilla PC an SGI runnning IRIX
is?  But, once again, 1%.  Why should the 99% suffer because the 1%
don't think Linux can do their jobs?

>                                          In fact, most of their
> software isn't retailed, it's in large part in-house/proprietary
> software.  Only "RenderMan" is retailed and likely not exactly the
> same as what they are using themselves (for obvious reasons).

And therefore would have no effect on the 99% who need Word.  Vanilla
Linux installed in minutes from a CD/DVD meets their requirements
every bit as much as OS X or Windows.

> 
> 
>> They are not publishing "National Geographic".
> 
> Even if they wanted to, Linux is a dead-end for publishing.  There
> is nothing like, say, FrameMaker (for IRIX, Solaris, nowadays
> Windows and undoubtedly OS X) and the 'open source' alternatives
> are not used, not for anything significant, as far as I know.
> 
> 
>> For what the AVERAGE PC users does Linux can easily do as good
>> ajob as Windows.
> 
> What is "the average PC user"?  I don't think there's one, unless
> you mean the 'PC user about to get a smartphone/tablet'.

Sorry, but that college kid is not going to be doing his term papers
on his smart phone.  He is still going to require a desktop, probably
a laptop.  And all those corporate desktops.  They are not moving to
"smart phones" or even tablets.

> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> How many use Linux?  It's wishful thinking on your part, they
> mostly use Windows on their junk PC 'workstations' and laptops
> and to a lesser degree OS X.  The statistics are there.

What part of "It doesn't have to be this way!" are you missing?  I
have never said that Linux owns the desktop, quite the opposite.
But there is no TECHNICAL reason why that is so.  From a standpoint
of functionality, from install to end user, Linux and the Open
Source world have more than caught up.

> 
> Such organizations don't want to be dealing with (re)installing
> Linux and the frequently broken packages, 

Sorry, I have not seen these supposed failures in years.  Don't
know what you run but maybe you need to be more selective.  And,
anyway, isn't reboot-reinstall the Windows mantra?  I have never
had a case where a re-install of Linux was the solution and I have
been using Linux since the Slackware/Ygdrasil days in an academic
environment where screwiong with the OS is the norm rather than
the exception.

>                                            they just want
> Windows pre-installed and when they're too broken down, ridden
> with malware and so forth, they just swap them out for the
> latest Windows PCs.  They certainly don't have any standards
> or preferences, they just want something they're used to and
> that is /plug-'n'-play/ and /ready to go/.

Never worked int he corporate IT world, have you?  And they will be
"used to" whatever is put in front of them.  Most corporate users
(and that goes triple for government users) don't pick what is on
their PC's.  They find it on their desks and they learn to use it.
The standard applications work the same on Linux as they do on
Windows.  There is very little learning curve at the userlevel.
Not that it matters.  My daughter just went to work for a local
hospital.  they made her sit thru a week of classes on how to use
their corporate PC's.  Running Windows, Office and one corporate app.
The University I worked at for over 20 years constantly runs Windows
classes for employees.  The transition could be a lot easier than
you seem willing to accept.  Will it happen?  I am certain it will
at some point.  And I expect the first is likely to be the government.
Followed closely by all the major corporations who do business with
the government.  And then who knows.  

I would like to be on the side pushing things forward rather than the
side holding them back.

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>