Re: I was just wondering



"imhotep" <imhotep@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1p-dneyrZ7BZt2bZnZ2dnUVZ_tOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Robert Moir wrote:

Joe Richards [MVP] wrote:

The biggest issues I see with Linux at the moment are GNU which many
corporations are afraid to go near (I work in the Enterprise space and
hear this directly) and the fragmentation in the Linux world which
also scares many people.

The fragmentation issue is a good point. Many of the very senior people
in
corporate IT shops can remember getting caught out by the way the UNIX
world fragmented the first time around and (rightly or wrongly) look at
all the distros and arguments over things like KDE vs. Gnome and see it
all happening again.

Hold on now. You are confussing many issues. The first is "fragmentation".
Is there fragmentation between Windows 200 and Windows 2003? Sure.
However,
because you know Windows 2000 it does not take you long to adjust to
Windows 2003. It is no different in Linux.

Second, you actually made a point against so called "fragmentation" with
the
comment about Gnome and Kde. Now, a technologically advanced person would
understand that both Gnome and Kde are window managers. You really don't
have this in the Windows World. Well, you do but it is integrated into the
platform and as such can not be changed.


Actually, one can change the shell that gets started, and there are a number
of alternative shells available (including shared source efforts).

A window manager, simply put, is a layer that sits on top of the OS
(really
X11) and provides functionality to give the user a common GUI (and
programming APIs). In Unix (Linux/BSD/Apple) you are free to use ANY
window
manager you like. Gnome and Kde are two of many.

This fact does not cause fragmentation but instead provides unification.
How? Because you can take any favor of Linux and run the *SAME* window
manager without the user knowing what specific favor of Linux they are
using underneath. You see, all windows managers run the same no matter
what
flavor of linux it is running on.

Thanks Roger you brought up a good point, although you got the argument
wrong. Maybe this will be a good motivation tool for you to learn
(re-learn) Linux...


Hey Im . . . can we trust you will keep the names straight now ??


And telling me "LINUX is not UNIX" as some have done in the past when
I've
raised the point is all well and good, but when I can open up a terminal
in Ubuntu and type in 'top' to see which process has hung and then stop
it with 'kill -9' just the same as I can on my Mac, just the same as I
learnt to do on AIX 15 years ago now, I'm thinking it does a good enough
impression of UNIX to bring back those bad memories.

First, I am NOT one of those Linux is not Unix idiots. I view UNIX as a
philosophy. Clearly, believe it or not, we agree here.

Roger, you use a Mac? I am getting a little more impressed by you...After
all Apple is also Unix :-)

(Can't wait to hear your reply on that one)

Imhotep




.