Sent: 1/15/97; 3:33:42 PM
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Terry L. Ridder)
On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Dave Winer wrote:
> Uh huh. Yeah. So you may choose to discard the results. I saw them
> converging on a single answer. Unless you can explain why a whole group of
> people that strongly don't want to develop for Mac and Windows and strongly
> plan to develop for Unix and Next, all waited until after 7PM to vote, I'm
> going to view the results as interesting. You may choose to view them any
> way you want.
That is easy to answer. Most UNIX consultants that I know and most people who are running Linux tend by nature to be nightowls. This is true in my case and for most of the developers who work for me. We get more done at night programming, than during the day. We do a fair amount of international work over the internet, and nighttime hours are the best time.
Concerning at least Linux, there is the point that it runs on so many different hardware platforms. Please refer to http://www.linux.org for a complete list, below is a partial list.
X86, PowerPC, m68k, DEC Alpha, MIPS, Sparc, PA-RISC, ARM, Amiga, etc.
Given this broad range of hardware platform, we are coding for an OS, not for the hardware. In most cases we are able to use the clients existing hardware and just replace the OS, or make the hardware dual-boot. The clients are happy at saving money, and for having the same OS across all hardware platforms that they have in-house.
Concerning not developing for Windows, most UNIX programmers I know and come in contact with do not want anything to do with Windows, or anything Microsoft. The exceptions being the DOSEMU & WINE projects which is still in the development stages. Given that Caldera (a Linux Distributor), has purchased the source code of Digital Research & for Novell DOS and is planning on making the source available under the GNU GPL, would also explain the lack of support for MS Windows. Please refer to the following Web Page for further information.
http://www.caldera.com/ http://www.caldera.com/news/pr001.html http://www.caldera.com/news/pr002.html
Developing for the MacOS was the question that the survey asked. Most of our clients are not interested in future MacOS System 7.X development. Several have expressed interest in NeXTStep/OpenStep since the Apple-NeXT merger announcement. Several are interested in running Linux on their current PowerMac's. Several others are moving to the DEC Alpha platform running Linux. Several others have expressed interest in the BeBox, since it is able to run both the BeOS, and Linux. Granted not at the same time, but by dual-bootable. Given the demostration of VirtualMac from fredlabs at MacWorld, these clients are willing to move those Macintosh Applications to VirtualMac, new development to either the BeOS or Linux.
Judging by my clients, they are not all that thrilled about Windows 95 or Windows NT. Given their current hardware they are able to move to Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc for their needs. They are able to run one of these UNIX variants and have the ability to use the PC for an X-terminal. Since Star Divison has ported StarOffice to Linux, the clients are no longer tied to MS-Office. Please refer to the following web page for further information concerning StarOffice.
The PowerMac is more than just the MacOS. Apple started the MkLinux project with OSF. The LinuxPPC volunteers have taken that work and have a monolithic Linux for most PowerMac's. Therefore, we are able to answer the survey that we will be developing for UNIX (Linux) and not the MacOS.
Thinking more on it, I would not be surprised if some developers did lump Windows NT with UNIX, and viewed Windows as being Windows 3.11 and Windows 95. There is the school to thought that Windows NT is just another UNIX variant. Other than asking a single question on a survey specifically concerning Windows NT I see no way to avoid this variance in developer prespective.
I hope this helps toward clarifying the changes you saw.
> >On Wed, 15 Jan 1997, Dave Winer wrote:
> >> Somebody voted 500 times.
> >> Dave
> >Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but in re-reading the form that
> >you used for the survey there are two points which I observed.
> > > >1. There is the statement on the form itself, which I quote:
> >"We send back a cookie, but not to limit voting.
> >If you keep the cookie, we'll be able to track changes on an individual basis
> >if we do a third survey."
> >2. No where is there a statement concerning that a person/organization may
> >only an answer the survey once.
> >Given particularly the first item, why would you be surprised that people
> >would not an answer the survey more than once.
> >As a side note, when I checked the survey summary around 2300 PT, there were
> >approximately 3000+ "responses", now there are approximately 1800+
> >It would seem that you have "discarded" nearly 50% of the responses. That does
> >given the impression of "making the data fit the desired results."
> >Terry L. Ridder
> >Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
> >"We do not write software, we compose it."
> >"And every hour of every day I'm learning more
> >the more I learn, the less I know about before
> >the less I know, the more I want to look around
> >digging deep for clues on higher ground."
> >==Higher Ground== UB40
Terry L. Ridder
Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software)
"We do not write software, we compose it."
"And every hour of every day I'm learning more
the more I learn, the less I know about before
the less I know, the more I want to look around
digging deep for clues on higher ground."
==Higher Ground== UB40
This page was last built on Wed, Jan 15, 1997 at 2:16:00 PM. The messages in this site are responses to DaveNet essays.