[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ale] IE for Linux
- Subject: [ale] IE for Linux
- From: root at spork.777.net (Dave Brooks)
- Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:57:45 -0500 (EST)
Ahh, this could be sooner off than expected. Check out www.microsoft.com.
It's thouroughly depressing =:>
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, Mike Kachline wrote:
> > > Not that I'm
> > > against M$ building IE for linux, maybe more ignorant IS managers will say
> > > "what's this -linux- thing? I see that M$ supprts it, it must be good"
> This might be bad for Linux folks. If M$ produces an MSIE for
> Linux, then we will see a lot of first time Linux users jump on board,
> run Linux's IE, get either slow, kludgy performance, or at best, a
> product which only does *some* of the things that the Windows xx versions
> do. Consequently, after a few days of using a clipped MSIE, and fiddling
> around with trying to compile kernels s.t. they can dial into their PPP
> provider, these folks will say "this sucks", double click the "The
> Internet" icon on their desktop, then email their friends that the Linux
> MSIE version just isn't worth the effort.
> > Several times I've spoken to managers at my place of employment
> > who, upon reading Microsoft's NT white papers, were aglow with excitement
> > about all these new technologies MS is putting in NT. Like demand paging
> > of executables, virtual memory, memory mapped files, dynamic linking,
> > pre-emptive multi-tasking, &c.
> I agree with this. It's sad how M$ hypes up features in their
> OS's which have been around forever in *nix. The scary part is, for every
> *nix like feature which NT gains, it is one more reason why not to run *nix.
> > database runs, namely UNIX. "If our server were on NT we wouldn't have
> > these problems!" has become their mantra. Their management believes them,
> > despite lack of evidence. The hype is working.
> One word, ignorance. I honestly think that M$ has the upper hand
> because they can produce products which are easy to set up. Take for
> example, the learning curve associated with setting up a web browser.
> With almost anything running on an M$ machine, setting up browsers are as
> easy as dropping a CD in the drive, then pushing the big, flashing "Set Up
> Microsoft Internet Explorer" button (I even got music and sounds when I
> popped in my CD). From there, maybe you have to tell it which drive to set
> up on. At *absolute* worst case, one must download a self-extracting
> executable, then, once it is downloaded, double click the "setup.exe"
> icon. Click "Next", "Next", "Next", then "Ok", wait a while, then you are
> ready to go.
> Now, what about a Linux box? To get Netscape, for instance,
> usually I have to d/l a ".tar.gz" or ".tgz" file from netscape. *THEN*,
> I've got to know how to use tar to "untar" the file (granted that I, or
> anyone else in the office knows that "tar" must be used at all. Oh! And
> I've got to use what? "gunzip" too?). THEN, if I'm somewhat concerned about
> the filing method on my box, I've got to decide where to put this thing.
> There are 3 "/foo/bar/bin" directories that I can think of which reside on
> most Linux boxes (ie, /bin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/bin). Where do I put
> netscape? Does it matter? Why are there three "/foo/bar/bin/" directories
> anyways? Finally, once this is all said and done, hopefully we don't have
> to do anything like delete old ".jar" files or such.
> My main point is that, compared to an app which runs on an M$ box,
> there is usually an enormous learning curve associated with simply
> installing just about any app on a *nux box. Most IS folks just don't have
> the time, especially at work, to sit down and have to "screw around with
> it" long enough to get anything working on a *nux box. They need
> solutions today, not just an installed app.
> Hence, the "We wouldn't have this problem if we were running NT"
> syndrome. IS folks know that if they run into a problem, they can either:
> A. Surf the net for answers, where, if they are running a "popular"
> package, they are more likely to find an answer. Or, B. Call the software
> Since the "Next","Next","Next" approach to software is a helluva
> lot easier than the "tar? gunzip? /foo/bar/bin?" approach, chances are,
> M$ software is going to be the most popular. Likewise, with M$ products,
> there is always someone to call and bitch out and, once you are done,
> write a check to for your answers. :)
> Just my $.02,
> - Mike
> Michael Kachline - CS, Georgia Tech
> kachline at cc.gatech.edu
spork at chefmike.com