RE: LINUX Workstations

Speaking of old saws...;-)  Saw a bumper sticker that may apply in the case
of my reply:  "I'm the person your mother warned you about".

But the saying that first came to my mind was "Practice what you preach."
See inline, if all y'all wanna...:-D


| -----Original Message-----
| [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Hans Boldt


| But after loading Linux on my home computer, the sheer pleasure of
| programming came back to me. Not only do you get all the development
| tools you need, and not only does it run on machines that weren't
| made obsolete two months ago, but it's all graciously provided at
| little or no cost, and support is no further away than the internet.
|


| Like with many things in life, there can be great rewards in
| breaking out of your "comfort zone".

Hans and James, your comfort zone is *nix.  Trying breaking outta THAT one.
Because *nix is pure, unadultered bull manure.

http://www.midrangeserver.com/mgo/mgo100103-readers.html
http://www.midrangeserver.com/mgo/mgo082203-readers.html

| Sure, it's not always easy to learn. But everyone here on this list
| is a technical geek of some sort or other, and there's absolutely
| nothing in Linux that's beyond the abilities of anyone here. In many
| ways it's just different.

See above.  Linux isn't just different, it's more-a-the-same bull manure.
It's primary strength is not technical innovation, it's mindshare.  There
sure IS a lotta development on Linux because of that, which gives it a very
big, tangible, advantage.

| For me, Linux brought me back to my early experiences of computing
| back in university where all software was readily and willingly
| shared, and writing programs was easy. All that changed in the
| 1980's when one particular entrepreneur made it fashionable to
| charge money for software, and when the tools for software
| development always seemed just beyond either the capabilities of my
| home computer or my willingness to pay for them.

And the mindshare is largely because of the above.  It's emotionally-based,
not technically-based.  So I apologize, but I feel obligated to point out
the obvious, Hans and James, which is that you charge money for the software
you develop.  And when I say this, I'm misunderstood to be saying I'm in
favor of Windows, when nothing could be further from the truth (although I
do use it) for the reasons Mike Wills posted a bit ago.  I'm not going to
defend Bill Gates' greed, because there IS little defense.

But the greed is inherent in Linux, as well...  It's just greed for power as
opposed to money.  The philosophy of "Linux is gonna DOMINATE the WORLD" is
born of the same mindset that Bill Gates has.  And what is fashionable, ie
having more to do with mindshare and less to do with sound fundamental
logic, is the notion that Free="Open" Source has some merit other than being
in opposition to Windows (which IS fair bit of merit, but is JUST as
responsible for killing OS/2 as Windows was).

I've posted many times that Free="Open" Source is NOT a development
methodology, but perhaps I've not posted why that is a fact:

>From OSI site:  "The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When
programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece
of software, the software evolves."  Take out the word "redistribute", and
how does the sentence read...???  Likewise "Open source promotes software
reliability and quality by supporting independent peer review and rapid
evolution of source code."  Funny... I've been using peer review and rapid
evolution developing RPG code for 20 years.  How are these inherently
dependent on software being free...???  (Hint:  they're not.)

I wish I had more time to debunk the myths revolving around Free="Open"
Source "methodology", but I don't and that would take a lotta people on this
list out of their comfort zone.. so perhaps is just as well.

If you're interested in learning some new things (and people on this list
sometimes are, and sometimes aren't), some interesting reading is Dave Winer
and others on how the customer has been left outta the loop and software
suffers as a result (last Spring?).


| Makes sense. Makes a lot of sense.
|
| IMO, learning new things can never be "elitist".

No, but what IS elitist is framing the question in these terms:  "Your
problem isn't that Linux is a grand pile of bull manure, although it sure IS
a marketing success.. your problem is that you don't wanna learn new
things."  And this is a familiar refrain throughout the M-L lists.

Well, let me give you an example of new is always (and is frequently NOT)
better, even though new SURE is FASHIONABLE:
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200310/msg00087.html  What kind-a
bull manure is THIS.  Feed an API XML, when there has been an (relatively)
easy, consistent method of coding APIs that's worked well for decades.
Since when is making an API a lot MORE difficult to use a step in the right
direction for OS/400??  (Well, about the time fashionable became a basis for
making technical decisions, I s'pose.)  For some interesting views on XML,
trying learning some-a this (and I sure AM still learning in these areas,
rather than learning Linux, this past year.  Nobody can learn everything):

http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/03/16/XML-Prog
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2003/03/24/XMLisOK


| James Rich wrote:
| > ...
| > I want people to use linux because it has brought me a lot of
| > satisfaction, enjoyment, and made me very productive (and made
| me money).
| > It has saved me a lot of headaches, too.  I've also been frustrated with
| > it.  And I have enjoyed learning - and linux gives me the
| chance to learn
| > like no other computer related endeavor that I've undertaken.  It is all
| > there, open to view and try and experiment and change.  I want others to
| > have the same positive experience.  I don't want you to read the manuals
| > or the HOWTO or the README out of some elitist attitude, but because
| > learning is the fun part.

I still recall your reply to Joe Pluta (last winter?), James, that you
wanted to learn a particular way of doing things in SQL rather than a 5-line
RPG program "For the same reason Edmund Hillary climbed the mountain,
because it is there."  And you've made the ludicrous claim that *nix is
easier to admin than OS/400.  While that may be the case, in your case
James, that is laregly more unfounded bull manure based on the fact that
most-all programmers have been educated (I would say brainwashed) on the
efficacy of *nix, and have never been exposed to the design principles of
the S/38/400/i (which is getting more and MORE junked up, imo, by looking
more and more like *nix).

Again, if you get out of the "comfort zone" that *nix is a better
programming methodology (and that Free="Open" Source even IS a programming
methodology), then things look a LOT different.

| >
| > I hope that makes sense.
| >

If it makes sense to you and your employer, then YES it makes sense in your
environment!  However, for businesses to pay technical people to play with
OS code, merely because it provides an intellectual challenge and the chance
to prove technical mastery and provides job satisfaction, by and large,
makes little economic sense (although it sure IS a fashionable concept these
days).

Not against learning new things, in case that isn't obvious, but am not a
big fan of learning how to use bull manure to build systems...  (APOLOGIZE
in advance for not re-reading this and trying to re-phrase in "nice" way,
but work has called twice and that pays the bills, not reading and replying
to this list.  Some-a you are part of an elite group (outta the hundreds of
thousands of 400 managers, admins, programmers) that gets paid to read these
lists, and I envy your good fortune...:-)