[KLUG Advocacy] Linux tutor.

[Adam Williams]

> >Roughly the same thing here.  I'm not a developer, but I started out as a 
> >data-processor (if that is a job description).  Take data set A, B, and 
> >C, and make information.
> These are fairly vague specs. What did you have to do with these data sets?
> Merge? Sort? Produce reports? Something else/additional?

All the above.  Mostly these "catalogs", large files of part numbers,
descriptions, minimum order quantities, shipping charges, etc...  We
pull together catalogs from about 900 vendors.  Some vendors format the
numbers differently (leading zeroes, dashes, etc...) all those were
normalized to a certain form based upon a set of rules, then all of the
same parts (available from different vendors) were brought together
under a stocking code.  Output analyzed for most effective purchasing
policies, average lead times, etc...

Now imagine: A PC database (JLT-SQL), Borlands RAD tools, and Excel 5.0
(I think) running on an 80486 - OR - WingZ, awk, postgres, on an
RS/6000?

> >Windows didn't (and doesn't) out-of-the-box 
> >provide much in the way of useful tools.  The tools provided with the 
> >$300 Borland C compiler, $199 database, $200 Office suite weren't that 
> >impressive either.
> Right, everything is extra, and in general, it still is. Put another way,
> "Everything" is included in a Linux distribution (I'm thinking about the

Not to mention the TIME involved to bring a workstation to state of
readiness.  On Linux I (a) install RedHat, (b) install Ximian, (c)
install two Java apps (no reboot or logout required).  Thats about an
hour and a half.  The same task on XP is an entire workday of install,
reboot, install, reboot, install, reboot....

> "general purpose" distros). It would be a nice exercise to take each
> (major) component of a (really, any) Linux distro and value it based on
> (let's say, the average) price of comparable commercial components. I
> beleive you would get a number no one would consider credible, unless
> they were alrady familiar with Linux.

Back in the day AIX was $1,400,  a comparable Windows installation with
theoretically equivalent tools was about the same. (Early nineties, I've
actually done that math).  Linux was $199 - $10 for the CDs, and $189
for Word Perfect.  WingZ ran on either Linux or AIX, at no charge.  Now
Open Office is free (and better than WP ever was, and oocalc can pretty
much hold its own).  We only purchase one $89 per seat package
(DbVisualizer).

> >And on a 80386 you needed a program to run for *hours* 
> >in order to process any meaningful data - and the database + ODBC + 
> >Borlands data-aware widgets + that *SAD* excuse for an IP stack - running 
> >for hours under load was a bloody miracle.
> I managed to miss that era, mostly. I was on mainframes and UNIX workstations,
> which had their problems, but usually speed wasn't one of them. THere were a
> few exceptions, and they were doozies, but on the whole, I maanaged to avoid
> THIS particular nightmare.

Consider yourself lucky.

> >>To me, what is impressive is how robust the tools are, and how complete the 
> >>coverage of disciplines and functions are as well. I've come to notice the
> >>amount of extra effort that is required to maintain licence files and licence
> >>servers, and if it were broken out as a seperate cost people would be quite 
> >>surprised at that sum, IMO.
> >Fortunately for me,  most licensing stuff is handled by purchasing. SEP! 
> >(someone else's problem).
> Everywhere I've worked, Licensing on commercial UNIX networks has been 
> adminsitered by network or system admins, and it's simply amazing how much
> time it all took. Maybe it's a lot soother now, but with Linux-based and 
> GPL'ed (or similarly freely licenced stuff), there is NO admin cost for
> this (which is bound to beat ANY costs, for other schemes)...

We had/have an enterprise license for AIX, this no per seat charges,
just an $$$ amount per CPU.  Makes this much easier, we only have one
current app that uses a license manager (Goldmine) left.

> >...I think coming from a 8 bit CP/M home computer 
> >made UNIX easier.  With that old hardware you got pretty familiar with 
> >what was really going on,  every operation was a discrete step that 
> >involved intervention.  UNIX abstracted alot of that away, or had by the 
> >time I came to it - so it seemed easy.  Windows (or to some extent 
> >something like GNOME) buries that under another level.  I think starting 
> >at the bottom and evolving with the technology has been an advantage, 
> >where as someone coming from Windows who really wants to do net/sys-admin 
> >really needs to (in a sense) descend/devolve - which is probably harder 
> >since your bucking all kind of unconsious assumptions and preconcieved 
> >notions manifested not from how the system works but from the abstraction 
> >layer your familiar with.
> Yes, this is essentially so, and it's why a lot of Linux Novices (but folks 
> used to Windows in particular) have this feeling they're going "backwards"
> when they hit a need to use a command line interface.

I think alot of time spent at the Linux command line IS due to a lack of
really mature configuration tools.  But the perception of the command
line as a "bad" or even "primative" thing is often incorrect;  I can't
imagine a GUI replacement for awk, cut, sed, grep, etc.., chains.

> Old, slow, more "basic" environments are good training grounds. There is
> still a LOT of stuff that is best expressed and understood on a command
> line; this takes a long time to change....

Yep.

> >>>>  $1500 a year on a computer system?
> >>>Hey, but that part is fun.  At least I get something for my money.
> >>Right, and you can recycle the hardware after losing the toy software.
> >Right, the monetary value of the hardware may decline rapidly, but it 
> >retains alot of utility - unlike old proprietary software.
> I am part of an overseas joint venture that has a number of really old 
> (486 66mHz Dx2's) computers, with Linux installed, and 24 Mb of memory.
> what we see is kids coming out of schools used to P-II's or better and
> systems with RAM measuredin hundreds of MB. We start them off on the 486's
> becasue they have gotten very sloppy with memory use and so on, and that
> makes for really bad software development. As they get acclimatized. we
> REMOVE memory, but keep the demands for performance, etc. rather high.
> When we get down to about 6MB,  with good software coming out, we've got 
> a winner! Some people drop out, frustrated by the demands. Better to do
> so in training, rather than on a project....

That would be nice, there are way to many "declare a huge array" people
bouncing around out there.