Subject: Re: Linux vs WindowsNT vs Windows95

From: Jan Labanowski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:03:25 -0500 (EST)

On Wed, 30 Dec 1998, Michael Nolan wrote:

> >Dear CCL community,
> ---snip---
> 
> >Worrying too is the move being made by SGI (who have hitherto been
> >the providers of high-end hardware for computational chemistry) to adopt
> >WindowsNT  as an OS (I think that I am reminded of the Blackwidow spider
> >which eats its mate after mating).
> 
> It's not just SGI. HP have also done and are doing the same thing. I would assume that DEC will go the same way, if they haven't already. This leaves, and correct me if I am wrong, SUN as the only company manufacturing workstations with their own proces

sors and OS
> Will we be all using Windows based OSs in the future?
> 
> regards
> 
> Michael
> 

The problem from my perspective is threefold, and it really does not matter
that UNIX is a better computational environment for science (you may
disagree, if you are a user, and do not actually develop software. This is
my perspective -- I hope I will meet some day a programmer who thinks
that Windows is a better development platform for scientific applications
than UNIX).

1) UNIX people could not agree on the standard and desktop environment...
   We are getting some CDE lately, but it is too late. Decisions are not
   made by computer professionals but by managers. Obviously, they like 
   the system which they can use rather than the system (UNIX) which
   requires ultimate involvement. In windoz you will get there after
   20 wrong clicks, in UNIX, if you do not know, you will not get there
   at all. 

2) Microsoft makes hardware manufactures happy -- Linux can run in 16 Mbytes
   of RAM on 486 with acceptable speed. Windows NT needs 64 MBytes of memory
   minimum, and on  anything less than 200 MHz pentium is a hog. Moreover,
   it is a black box, so the hardware vendors do not need to deal with
   support: "It is not our fault... Ask MS...". From the business perspective
   you cannot loose. Please, be reminded that scientific computing is not
   a business for hardware manufacturers, but a charity...

3) The important consideration is the jobs for computer professionals.
   If we could choose the standard, make software releases every 3 years
   rather than every 3 months, many people would loose their jobs. Thousands
   of people who fix Y2k problem need jobs in the next century. Reinventing
   UNIX under windoz banner (people who know the evolution path of NT 3.x,
   4.0, and 5.0 know what I am talking about) is a good thing, and people
   will pay, since they have no choice...

So do not blame HPs and SGIs for doing the right thing, since they are not
in the business of making computers, but in the business of making their
shareholders happy, i.e., making money... The product is always a secondary
consideration...

Happy New Year!!!

Jan Labanowski's private views at this moment...
My employer does not even know what I wrote...

[email-masked]