[ale] IE for Linux

[Jason Boyles]

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,
> [ think it sucks, and besmirch Linux's reputation --Ed. ] 

	True. Linux's problem is not with the kernel. It's with user
space. Unfortunately not many folks seem interested in changing this
situation. I guess the most progress made toward this has been rpm and
RedHat Linux.

> [ . . . ]  I honestly think that M$ has the upper hand
> because they can produce products which are easy to set up. [ . . . ]

	If we had a team as dedicated and enthusiastic as the kernel folks
at the helm of user space this situation might be rectified. RedHat (and
the Debian crew, from what I understand) and their package tools have made
some things tons easier. But packaging of apps is just one facet
of the problem.

	Dealing with the unix community itself can be a major task.  No
one wants to depart too far from unix tradition, but if we don't we only
hasten the death of the unix paradigm. I suppose the answer is something
like Next/NextStep/Rhapsody (minus mach), where we keep all the Unix
functionality, but hide it beneath a facade which users never need look
behind unless they feel up to it.

	Sadly it seems that the diversity and power of *nix apps is what
makes them unappealing to the masses. Unices were the first computer
environment in which I felt completely unlimited. I felt any problem could
be addressed from this platform with the tools at hand. Unfortunately most
folks react to this freedom with either terror or disgust.
	I was enlisted recently to teach unix basics to a bunch of
Windows/Powerbuilder developers. Most of them *HATED* it. These were
semi-sophisticated Windows users, much more advanced than typical home PC
users. If they hate it, you can imagine how the masses would feel about
it. I might also mention that out of this group of ten or so folks, two
were highly enthused and, upon my recommendation, bought RedHat 4.2 and
love it. From experience it seems that Linux will continue to be the
domain of a few sophisticated users (which is cool with me) unless we see 
some major userspace changes. 

> 	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 
> vendor.

	Does Cygnus Support offer commercial Linux support? Something like
this could be the whipping boy Corporate America needs to make Linux a
realistic option.
	No matter how many management propaganda books anathematize "blame
oriented environments," don't be fooled; culpability is *very* important
to management. Somebody has to take responsibility for problems. No one
really wants to, so corporations must pay someone else to do it.

> [ chomp ] 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. :)

	I think we're on the same wavelength . . .


----
Jason Boyles <jason at alltel.net>
"As long as you are not reading me, the fourth word of this
sentence has no referent."