Slashdot Mirror

Dude...paragraphs,use them. Second I got customers using PCs I built a decade ago running Win2K that have ZERO infections. That's right-zip zero zilch nada squat. Any builder worth their salt can set up Windows with a little common sense to stay clean and solid. You just can't do it with the built in tools before Windows 7, because Anti-Trust makes sure MSFT can't bundle squat. A self updating AV, autoupdates, a good reliable reg cleaner, and it all runs smooth as butter.

You wanna know the REAL reason why Windows gets infected, and why putting users on Linux wouldn't do jack shit? I call it "The Velma Problem" after a customer who with me sitting there telling her not to, went ahead and opened a password protected .zip after following the instructions to TURN OFF HER AV!!! All for a screensaver! I tried putting a similar style of customer on Linux and he boned it completely in under 3 days. How? By refusing to use the package manager, and instead getting programs off fresh meat and putting himself into dependency hell.

And finally lets be honest here dude,Linux drivers? They suck big hairy balls, if you can even FIND drivers for the damned thing! Want proof? Then take the "Hairyfeet challenge" and prepare to get your ass handed to you. Go to Walmart, Staples, and Best Buy, the three biggest retailers, either online or in person, and write down the devices you see there for PC. Now go to...lets say Ubuntu forums since Ubuntu is the big cheese ATM, and see how many of those devices are supported. You will find MAYBE 30% support, and that is if you count "support" as 14 pages of Bash bullshit that may work if you are lucky and the moon is full, otherwise fail city. Yeah, nice OS you have there.

You keep bragging about how Linux runs old shit....NEWS FLASH...Nobody wants your old shit, which is why you could dumpster dive it in the first place!!!The average PC is chunked at 3-5 years of age, and nobody wants you old shit,okay? That is like bragging your OS runs DOS games, nobody fricking cares anymore. Support for NEW hardware, you know the shit folks actually want and is being sold in stores right now? Yeah Linux sucks balls when it comes to having drivers for that. So keep your old shit, hell I just tossed a bunch of 300-650Mhz boxes because nobody wants them even for free, meanwhile when you actually have drivers come on CDs with the hardware being sold today let me know. If RMS and his SCoN! brigade have their way that'll be when hell freezes over.

This should give some insight into the problems with Linux and how it could be addressed: for all it's strengths, it's not something people want. They want Windows, despite it's weaknesses. Make Linux wantable, watch market share change dramatically.

The problem with Linux's market share is that few PCs sold in stores come with Linux installed. And not many people have heard of Linux. Sure geeks and hackers on Slashdot have but they are not the typical computer user. Also most people do not necessarily want Window but think they need it. Talking with others about computers I've heard a lot of complaints about their PCs, and almost every tyme the problem is Windows. When I ask them if they thought of trying Linux or a Mac I'm asked if they can run MS Office, they say they have to have Office. When asked why they can not give an example of what only Office can do except Office macros, while Open Office can use Excel macros macros for Word have to be rewritten. There is also WordPerfect Office, Lotus SmartSuite, and other office suites.

Simply many people have the perception they need Windows because they need MS Office.

Make Linux wantable, watch market share change dramatically.

Fact is is no one knows what Linux's market share is. Estimates are Linux has a market share in the single digits on desktops with Linux, and Apache, having large shares of servers. Even with internal servers though it's hard to know how many MS Windows servers there are because IT departments of businesses and other users of servers switch from Windows and IIS to Linux and Apache without telling others. There have been articles linked to on Slashdot about how the London and New York Stock Exchanges have moved from MS Windows and .net to Linux and other open source platforms. The London Stock Exchange not only switched to Linux but actually bought the company that developed the trading system the exchange will use.

Falcon

People on the internet called you names? It happens. Who are these people? Probably random pigs the internet has no shortage of.

This. The word "Vocal Minority" comes to mind.

I was asked to comment on this issue, and I think I delivered a calm, measured response -- certainly not "denial". (Look for "Locker-Room Culture.")

I think we can do better, but I think someone is taking the trolls too seriously. If big names like Linus, RMS, or Mark Shuttleworth are involved, that might say something -- and both RMS and Shuttleworth have said some things that could be considered sexist, which is probably what the original article was about.

But if it's random Anonymous Cowards, welcome to the Internet. Have a look around bash.org, 4chan, or even Slashdot at -1 -- this is neither new nor specifically attacking women.

It's not really the first time, but it may be the first time they've put in an official filing. Here's a article from 5 years ago:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35697.html?wlc=1249446360

But, I think you're absolutely right that this is a ploy. And, they can play the marketing and political game like no other IT company.

Hi! I'm the guy that says "Linux needs a Runas" and YES I know about Sudo. I also know Sudo equals fail. Why? Now this will get me modded troll, but fuck it, Linux guys really need to hear this. Ready? Most users will NEVER EVER use a fucking command line!!!!! Okay, got that? Is that really so hard to understand?

You may think CLI is the best thing since sliced fucking bread, but home users HATE it, okay? They look at the PC as an appliance and can't fucking stand that arcane command CLI bullshit. You start talking "sudo" or answer a problem with "open up bash and type" please follow that sentence with "Get someone to put Windows on it because this OS sucks" because that is EXACTLY what the home users will be thinking.

If you would like to read the article where I am supposed to be a shill here you go. Notice how the article is about what I need(yes I wrote it) to help sell Linux to home and SMB clients. If I was getting paid by MSFT(I wish!) they would be getting lousy return on their investment. But the simple fact that you and the above poster can sit here and seriously believe that Sudo from the CLI equals "Runas" just shows what is wrong with Linux. Geeks like CLI, IT admins like CLI, home users and SMBs fucking hate it with a passion.

There is a good reason why Apple and MSFT rule the desktop-it is because as far as their users are concerned there is NO CLI at all in their OS. It is all "clicky clicky" and GUI everything. Just the fact that you honestly think Sudo is equal to the easy of right clicking in a GUI and choosing "Runas" just shows how far Linux needs to go for the home users. I predict Win7 will be a hit, and Linux fanboys will still be here saying it is all because of shills and marketing while they run Bash for just about everything. But if Linux is ever gonna make a dent against Win7 and OSX CLI has to die. Period, full stop. You may think it's great, but the home users simply won't have it. Sorry if that makes you unhappy or makes you think I'm a shill for daring to point that out, but that's reality.

I'll start at the back and work my way up. To answer your question what is toe cheese, it is that funky shit that builds up between your toes, usually made of lint, old skin cells, and other funk. The fact that RMS thought it was okay to pull off his socks on stage and eat that shit should be a pretty good indicator of how batshit the guy is. This is also the guy that uses a Loongson ARM Netbook because the OLPC wasn't "open" enough because the BIOS and wifi chips weren't GPL'd. Which puts him at a fringe of less than 0.0001% of PC users, if that. so his opinion on anything other than GPL is automatically suspect to me.

And I personally think the "cult of RMS" and the going overboard with GPL is what is hurting Linux adoption more than anything else. With Windows a hardware manufacturer can write just 4 drivers and have the entire Windows ecosystem covered for a 14 YEAR stretch. There is no reason why Linux couldn't have the same functionality, which would make it easy for every device manufacturer to put a "Linux 32/64" folder on every CD and give MSFT a real run for their money, but RMS and his GPL hoarde would never allow it. Even Linus won't use GPL3 for the kernel! That should tell you something about how far GPL has gone from mainstream. And according to Wikipedia you aren't allowed to even interview him unless you agree to use "his words" for everything, and according to him "He is a "squatter" on campus at MIT". And THAT is the guy they want to listen to? Really?

If there HAS to be a figurehead then let it be Linus. He always comes off as intelligent,intellectual, and has a smart answer for just about any question you can throw at him, and most importantly seems to have a grasp on reality. The entire world is NEVER gonna embrace GPL for all their code, no matter how much toe cheese RMS eats. in real life there is always room for compromises. In the world of RMS it is "GPL or nothing". Which is fine if you only want to use a Loongson ARM Netbook and "surf" by using email daemons, but the rest of the world doesn't work like that. If Linux would gain a stable ABI so device drivers could be "write once, use forever" like they are with Windows then there would be no reason why shops couldn't put Linux boxes right next to Windows and let the public decide, because everything would "just work".

But by insisting that the only way to play in Linux is "GPL or nothing" you have guaranteed that Linux will stay a tiny niche. Because all these home consumer manufacturers just don't want to play your GPL game. I wrote an article for Linux Insider pointing out ways that the problem can be partially negated, but in the end a stable ABI and "write once use forever" must be deployed. Because there simply isn't enough GPL coders out there to reverse engineer the millions of device coming to market, and if the only way to support Linux is to embrace GPL than those companies simply won't support you. In the end it is simple as that, no matter what RMS says.

Perhaps each should pay a fee to use the name "Linux?"

Linus tried this, and it hasn't gone over very well..

What is Apple going to do in response to inevitable arrival of social-engineering malware as it gains marketshare?
What is Linux going to if/when it acheives enough marketshare among joe-sixpacks for social engineering to be profitable?

I don't know. But when IS this going to happen? We've had predictions of an impending Linux malware plague since 2000. We had the same dire warnings for MacOS in mid-2006. Nothing yet.

Let's not be too cocky though. There has been malware showing up for Macs. And even Linux has had at least one successful virus (that seems to owe a lot of it's continued existence as a quick-and-dirty rootkit). The kicker is that these incidents do not make up the massive wave that's been predicted over the past years.

And sure - the market share isn't there yet. But keep in mind that if something is particularly vulnerable, there is someone willing to exploit it. So while MacOS X and Linux make up very small numbers, if they were so ripe for the plucking someone would be more than glad to do it (although apparently botnet herders like to use compromised Linux hosts as controls).

"As the MySQL fanbois are used to saying,

then how does the Shinsei Bank of Japan manage (US$118 million net income, first quarter 2008).

"the MySQL guys can cook single instance benchmarks"

Produce any evidence that the 'MySQL guys' faked benchmark results, produce a comparison benchmark of MySQL versus a 'commercial' database.

troll detect score 5+, keywords fanbois, cook, benchmark

All viruses require a reasonable level of market share to operate, because one of the principles they rely upon is a network effect, and you just plain cannot get a network effect without a decent market share. So marketshare is, very much, a pre-requisite for a successful virus. It's not the only one, but when people say "Mac OS X hasn't been attacked yet because it doesn't have enough marketshare", they're right. That's one fundamental reason. And unless you can show that any other reasons apply, it's likely to be the only reason.

Fair point. However, Mac OS X has far more market share than something like Aros. We're talking somewhere above 8% of the market right now. That's an appreciable install base and certainly worth targeting. By comparison, the Witty worm targeted (and infected) an install base of only 12,000 systems. So sure - install base might be a factor. But it is hardly the only one.

There's little reason to believe that Mac OS X is protected from viruses by anything other than its low market share at this point. There's not a large enough group of users for network effects to take over. It is not an inherently secure operating system. The default user is generally set up with administration privileges, and it just takes a buffer overflow or other ordinary vulnerability in a client application like a web browser plug-in for a virus or worm to have complete access to the user's files, and enough access to be able to modify many of the applications the user is likely to run.

Fundamentally, Mac OS X has the same problem as Windows, and the same problem the "run-everything-as-root" Unixes did in the eighties and early nineties: too much functionality available to the default user. To fix this, you need to change the model somewhat. The very least Apple could do is set Mac OS X up so that the installer actively discourages setting up the default user as an administrator.

Wait a minute here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that the "administrator" setting of an account allowed sudo access. That's a little different than running as root. Is there something else going on in the Mac userland?

It should also be noted that we've heard these warnings before. The doomsday scenario has yet to come to pass. And while I agree that some of the perception of imperviousness is misplaced, I am also inclined to believe there's a bit more at work here than some critics want to believe.

While IAAL and a law professor to boot, this isn't legal advice but general information .

Even if you don't take and use the code, you are facing some potential issues on a number of fronts:

1) Patent: Your (former) employer may have (or have filed for) a patent on the function and/or operation of the existing software. Even if you redesign from scratch, you could be infringing that patent once it is issued. Conversely, your ability to yourself obtain a patent on your new work (which adds to its potential commercial value) is probably limited or non-existent, given the "prior art" of your former employer's product.

2) Copyright: To the extent that your new product, independent code or otherwise, looks the same, you could face liability for copyright violations on the visuals of the old product. Beyond that, you would probably need to use "clean room" development techniques to create any new product, in order to be able to demonstrate that you did not utilize the old one in your work, since copyright infringement can be demonstrated by substantial similarity plus access; if your code too closely mirrors the old app, you could be deemed infringing even if you in fact rewrote it from scratch. "Clean room" methods help with that.

3) Beyond the non-compete (which may or may not be enforceable), you'll have to consider any non-disclosure agreements to which your team is subject, both from a contract perspective and to the extent your former employer brings a lawsuit alleging violation of its trade secrets (separate but related to intellectual property). Further, to the extent your work incorporates ideas arising out of projects done for your former employer's customers, there could be non-disclosures with those customers which you might be sued for violating.

Bottom line: if (or when) you get sued by your former employer, you will have to prove the negative, namely that you didn't steal any of its proprietary info. Beyond that effort, you may also be violating its general IP rights regardless of copying. {ProfJonathan}

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYfoCe6q28A

TRON: The Most Popular Operating System in the World

With the growing interest in Linux, I wonder if we'll see more parity of viruses between Windows and Linux.

This should sound familiar to most readers here. We've heard it before:

http://www.simson.net/clips/2000/2000.SecurityFocus.Linux_Viruses.html

http://web.archive.org/web/20000304004534/http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/3/ns-12862.html

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2120227/honeymoon-linux-users

And the same general theme has even been fitted for the MacOS crowd:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/mac%C2%AD-security/57811.html

It's not that the concept is all that unlikely. Oddly enough, WinNT set a historical precedence for adoption and exploitation. Yet Linux / Unix has yet to pan out the same way.

What we've got to keep in mind is that Linux (and Unix variants) have been in this arena for some time. They have had exposure and faced scrutiny. In fact, the hay-day so far for Unix and Linux malware was probably around 2002 - 2004.

Whether that is the last chapter for Linux malware is yet to be seen. I would expect it isn't. Linux users must remember that it is no silver bullet. But history has shown that it appears to be fairly resilient.

Yes - http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-6041804.html?hhTest=1
they - http://www.oreillynet.com/xml/blog/2006/03/windows_steals_top_server_os_s.html
actually - http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/32706.html
do - http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6041804.html

But thanks for coming out.

Oh, that one again? It's 2008 — time to re-tire that M$ talking point. I suppose that Ken Thompson's presentation from 24 years ago is also not an endorsement of Open Source? Re-read A5-0264/2001 and European Commission technology strategy They're quite clear and the 2001 resolution even pre-dates the main start of MS EU-level lobbying efforts.

If M$ wanted to play, it's executives could decide to release product code as open source, but the company hasn't. Further, it can't. M$ products just aren't engineered for security. In fact, M$ code is so bad that it threatens US national security. So, although ditching M$ products won't in and of itself make your site secure, it's a necessary first step.

It's about security and for that you need open source.

On another front, Vota said that the "Give 1, Get 1" program's distribution is " totally messed up."

http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id=0200021S1YOK

"Interestingly enough, I don't think OLPC has made Intel an enemy," Vota said. "I think it will essentially go back to May of this year, where we had a very strong, open competitive environment. And to some extent, I think having Intel as a competitor will improve OLPC,"

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/61061.html

He consistently uses what my mother used to call backhanded compliments.

and this doesn't give me confidence in the SM team

Then you should probably stay away from Debian, Sendmail, Apache, or...well, hell, just stay away from Open Source, period, if a server/distro compromise is the measuring stick you use to measure "confidence."

Haha!

(also PHP, Perl and Python runs seamlessly on Linux rather than on Mac, I mean PHP or Perl or Java is well TESTED on Linux rather than on Mac).

What the hell are you talking about?

PHP PERL PYTHON and all your linux and most Unix server software has been running perfectly in OSX since the day it was released.
every single mac install comes with apache, php, perl and python installed by default.
Mysql is one click away as well.

Furthermore most software that needed to be recompiled to run on the power architecture doesn't need to be anymore as an apple server is just another x86 server.

Most developers who I work with on major web projects using PHP/Mysql/postgres/Oracle/Python/Ruby do all their work in OSX, with some compatibility testing on windows, not much on Linux. (iVillage, BlackPlanet, VH1, MTV, Coke, L'oreal, Nickolodeon, Scolastic, etc) This is to their advantage because they can use all vi or emacs on the command line, they can use all opensource tools, as well as subetha, bbedit, etc, but then they can have MSword, excel and all the garbage that production managers/account execs send them as well, without using some clanky converter software.

further down your post:
How many really bother whether Linux is an OFFICIAL UNIX or not

Why should it matter if its an official Unix?
Well for starters because it means that most applications and application frameworks from any other Unix system can run on osx, either with a recompile or directly if from another x86 based Unix; again obviating your ignorant argument about Linux being the ONLY server.

Second because any Unix admin can open an osx command line and will feel at home, as he would on Solaris, AIX, IRIX, Unixware, etc.

All I care is it should be scalable, secure and supports major application frameworks and databases. Exactly, which is what OsX does. its scalable, you can form a grid system in a few clicks or command line commands, it supports every major framework as all the other Unix systems do, and it runs mySQL, Postgres, Oracle, DB2, and any other unix compatible open source database .

Nothing can replace Linux in the server market, but there is a great chance that Linux can exceed market share of Mac OS X
OsX might not be the most popular server for sure, but Linux market share in that market is DECLINING, not increasing:
http://enterpriselinuxlog.blogs.techtarget.com/2007/08/28/the-server-market-share-battle-microsoft-gains-2/
http://www.geekpedia.com/news193_Linux-server-market-share-plummeting.html
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/184429419
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/48999.html

on desktop (I think Linux already exceeds Mac OS X in market share)
Hugh, dood... come on alright:
http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/newsanalysis/techhardware/10385313.html
and the money is showing the opposite as well here:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/10/22/apple-q407-financials-triumph-of-the-steve


how did this post get a 5 -- are you kidding me? what is informative about it?

reminds me of the ol ITRON from Japan. a paragraph or two from a Linux News article (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/31855.html):

"Impact Deferred

The TRON Project is not new; in fact, it was poised to its mark more than a decade ago, in Japan's PC industry, but the U.S. government intervened. In 1989, Japanese electronics giant Matsushita introduced a BTRON PC, a machine that stunned the industry with its advanced capabilities. The BTRON PC had an 80286 Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) The HP ProLiant DL380 G5 Server with Systems Insight Manager (SIM). Latest News about Intel chip running at 8 MHz and a mere 2 MB of memory, but it could display moving video in color in a separate window. Also, it had a dual-booting system that could run both the BTRON OS and MS-DOS.

When the Japanese government announced it would install BTRON PC in Japanese schools, the U.S. government objected. It called the Japanese initiative "actual and potential market intervention" and threatened the move with sanctions. The Japanese, dependent on the U.S. export market, quickly dropped the plan. The U.S. government later withdrew its threat, but the damage had already been done. Nearly all Japanese companies involved in TRON-related activities had canceled their projects."

This is a little different situation, so what will Microsoft do now in order to seize the issue?

Actually, if you count installed copies of OSs, the overwhelming majority of them are open source. This is because the leader world wide, by a very wide margin, is the TRON real-time OS, which is installed in the majority of electronic devices manufactured in Asia. This OS started as a project at Tokyo University, led by Dr Ken Sakamura, and it was open source from the start. Of course, there are all sorts of proprietary packages added to it by various manufacturers. But as with linux, the core and the primary system libraries remain open-source, free software, developed in parallel at a large number of universities and corporations.

I've read that Microsoft predicts that Windows will reach a billion installations some time next year. TRON is installed in more (mostly tiny) computers than that each year. You probably have a number of them in your home, or in your pocket if you have certain models of cell phone.

Desktop and laptop computers may be the most noticable computers, but they're a rather small part of the computer market. The biggest part of the market went open-source several decades back. And it was done with full knowledge and approval of the manufacturers, who wanted a standard, portable real-time OS with a population of programmers who know how to use it effectively.

BTW, there is a linux-on-TRON project. Google for "MontaVista" or "T-Linux".

You might also read the article about TRON that Linux Insider just published.

It's sorta sad that the US government has cooperated with blocking widespread familiarity with this here in the US. It's keeping American software people from getting involved with what's probably the most significant development in the industry in recent decades. (I've read a few comments about similar blocking in Europe, but I don't know much about that.)

Since you haven't made much effort to persuade me otherwise, I maintain that there exists a design philosophy difference between Apple and the rest of the cell phone industry, and that this philosophy is a carry over from their PC design philosophy. Honestly, I didn't really expect the address book example to be contentious. Programmers (like bjourne) who understand the relative horse power requirements of different storage and search solutions should know that most phones on the market in the past several years had enough horse power to solve this problem, and there has been plenty of time. For crying out loud, iPhone was in development for three years. Apple designed a new phone from scratch. Surely Nokia or Motorola could have built a decent address book in all that time? The fact that they did not should tell you something. Furthermore, you don't need to be a programmer to get this. Anybody who has ever filled up their address book should know the frustration of being forced to pick which ones to carry with you on your phone. I chose this example, rather than others, because quite honestly it's not really controversial and it's pretty easy to understand.

There are counter examples, of course, perhaps there will soon be another, ring tones, which we are likely to discover next week will be absurdly restricted on iPhone: you'll be able to pay to use any section of a song you like as a ringtone, but you might not be able to use your own audio files as ringtones. If that happens, it will be an interesting counter example to my argument. Note, however, other music related restrictions that people didn't like about iTunes (e.g. DRM) turned out to be due to the requirements of industry partners, and Apple has been quietly working in the background to move the industry away from excessively restrictive DRM, at signifiant risk to Apple's own business model, I might add, as evidenced by today's announcement regarding NBC Universal. (DRM is only one factor in that negotiation, of course, but it is a factor.)

It would be amusing to run style (1) comparing a large sample of Anonymous Coward postings to those by logged in users. If you really think the words I use are too big, please consider that you came to Slashdot, not ZDNet, and presumably nobody forced you. Didn't you know that Paul Murphy uncovered the astounding truth that Slashdot posts have an average reading grade level higher than some other tech industry rag forums (see: Are Mac Users Smarter Than PC Users? )? The Macintouch crowd put us Slashdot geeks to shame, though, so we can't get too smug. Yeah, I'm perhaps a bit of a geek, since I really do read the dictionary for fun sometimes. And Dude... uh... like, did you fail to notice that I'm posting a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition, logged in using my real true name no less, while you are calling me names as an anonymous coward? I'm definitely not worried about being perceived as the friendless geek with no social skills in this conversation. Since I don't care what you think, try calling me a sociopath next. You'll still be wrong, but you'll get to use a big word and I won't be much affected by your tantrum. Heck, maybe you're not a pedant, you only play one on Slashdot. Perhaps I give you insufficient credit for a fine sarcastic wit.

--
For kicks, I ran

[citation needed]

It's pretty well accepted that OS X has ~3-5% of non-server market share. Let's say 3%, or 1 in 30 computers is a Mac. Linux's consumer penetration is nearly nothing... let's be charitable and say 1%.

Now, for servers, let's say Linux has 40% market share, the rest being Windows, Sun, etc. And let's just say that Mac has 0% penetration in this area.

If the number of servers is S and the number of desktops is D, and the number of Macs is M and the number of Linux boxes is L,
L = 0.01D+0.4S
and
M = 0.03D
Let's pretend that the number of Linux boxes and Mac boxes is equal. That gives us
0.01D+0.4S = 0.03D
0.4S = 0.02D
40S = 2D
20S = D
Now, in order for the number of Linux boxes to equal Macs, there would have to be one server for every 20 desktops. I don't know about you, but that sounds pretty high to me. Yes, there are a lot of companies and a lot of servers out there, and a lot of hosting companies, Google boxes, etc., but does it really sound correct to think that there's one server for every 20 desktops out there?

(If you, or anyone else, wants to dig up lots and lots of good numbers and prove me wrong, feel free.)

Even if that is correct--which I doubt--and even if I'm off by 100%--that there is 1 server for every 10 desktops out there, thus giving Linux a 2:1 lead over Macs... my main point still stands: for the author to totally dismiss Macs altogether is just... wrong. Didn't we all freak out just two months ago when Steve Jobs showed a slide showing IE and Safari, without Mozilla?

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/58070.html
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/17results. html

Apple made $1 billion profit on $7 billion in revenue in the last quarter of 2006. Red Hat, if I'm reading that correctly, made $34 million on $119 million in one quarter earlier this year. Again--the author just totally dismisses them?

In fact, if *any* OEM should be respected by OSS fans, it *should* be Apple. They've shown how you can take OSS, present it to the user in an attractive, easy-to-use manner, and make money. But no, what does he say? (I'm quoting TFA here, which didn't directly quote the author for this passage, so I'm assuming TFA is correct.) "Microsoft for instance has excelled in marketing the operating system, and has a good track record in fending off competition." So, he's saying that OSS users--a group who believes that good technology shoudl win over all--should respect MS becase a) they're good at ***marketing*** (which is the exact opposite of "the best technology should win") and b) for "fending off competition"--which, history has shown us, means "crushing" and "illegally abusing a monopoly" when it comes to MS.

Yeah. Good call. That's *exactly* whom we should hold up as role models.

Yes, if we widen what we count as a device, I bet Windows is irrelevant.

While you're being sarcastic, you might like to know that desktop Linux's share is comparable to or even exceeding Apple's share and as also reported desktop Linux's share will reach 7.5 percent by 2008. I'm not sure it is a positive step in a democracy for a 7.5% minority to be ignored by a quasi-state-sponsored broadcaster (anyone who owns television receiving equipment is required by law to buy a licence every year, even if they subscribe to pay-tv channels and never watch BBC).

When, exactly is it coming out? And where can I read about it? My girlfriend is getting ready to buy a new phone...

I don't know many details... "Many markets" in July, QVGA, up to 2GB MicroSD (earlier models go up to 1GB) and 500MHz, 2mm slimmer, that's all I really know.

• Motorola RAZR 2 hands-on
• Motorola Sharpens Its Razr

Try google, buddy. :)

Yeah. Right. Stellar track record. Never late for any reason.

There's another good article on this story on Linux Insider: http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/LRYJCeEv9bWdeY/I s-Wal-Marts-Support-for-Suse-Linux-a-Tipping-Point .xhtml. It could be that the customer is driving this.

I'm guessing Google knows what they are doing. They could have some good legal argument, they could be hoping that the date of any lawsuit gets pushed way out like in the print.google case. It seems by the time a lawsuit occurs the companies will realize the need for print.google. The same could happen with youtube by the time a few years down the road anything legal occurs the companies have changed so much that the case is mote. They may think that their Google biceps are big enough to force change. Seeing as TV is a starving industry,CBS anyone?, or Maybe a job at NBC They may be forced to see an opportunity instead of fighting. After if they can make money by posting what someone else will no doubt post why not beat crime to the punch.

Correct second link: Windows XP Service Pack 2: Install With Care

I don't believe I saw an example of one of "several of their mission critical apps".

And you won't. What those locations do, and what's wrong with them, is between them and their vendors, not for your leader in Redmond to interfere with. If they worked with XP SP1, why change? A security patch, if that's what it really is, shouldn't affect functionality. If it's not a security patch, but a functionality upgrade, then it's fraudulent to call it a security patch. If undesireable changes in configuration and functionality are pushed out by bundling them with security patches deemd essential, then that's illegal and unethical, though you'll have to ask a lawyer what that's actually called.

However, a quick check of any non-MSN search engine will bring up lots of articles about the troubles caused by XP SP2.

• Redmond, We Have a Problem Here: XP SP2
• Users Give XP SP2 Mixed Marks
• Windows XP SP2 and the Risk of a Linux Backlash
• WinXP SP2 = security placebo?
• Microsoft: DRM Trojan hole is not a vulnerability
• Programs "Seem" to Break Under Windows XP SP2, Microsoft Says

Given the problems SP2 has had with third party (and even MS' own) apps as well as falling on its face security-wise, it would appear that SP2 is more about rolling out unpopular configuration and functionality changes under the guise of "security". After most customers, politicians and even courts will simply roll over and close their eyes when the magic word, "security", is mentioned.

Like I said, get over it. And while you're at it, get out of the way. Like one of the reviewers says, "Unfortunately, Windows remains a quite dangerous system to connect to the Internet, and users are still very much on their own in terms of security solutions."

I'd like to know what was up with the Royal Bank of Canada in all this too.
They invested $30M in Baystar.
http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33529.html

Sun's DTrace trouble-shooting software won top prize in the Wall Street Journal's 2006 Technology Innovation Awards competition. It's the second time in three years that Sun took the top award.

Sounds like they've put those HP founders to work, instead of just parading them around in t-shirts.

Despite their link saying they are working on it, I'm a little skeptical about a Flash 9 player as well. At least until a beta is released anyway. Sun Microsystems helped develop Flash 7 for Linux, nearly 18 months after the Flash 7 IDE was released, so I don't think Adobe is doing what they could with this.

Is it a combination of WinCE and TRON - Oct 2003

Earlier this month, Japan, South Korea and China announced plans to band together to create a Linux-based alternative to Windows - Mary Jo Foley - Sep 2003

'When the Japanese government announced it would install BTRON PC in Japanese schools, the U.S. government objected. It called the Japanese initiative actual and potential market intervention and threatened the move with sanctions.`

"Microsoft's decision to join the T-Engine Forum is not without irony. The company was the main beneficiary of U.S. government actions against the TRON project in 1989."

Is it a combination of WinCE and TRON - Oct 2003

Earlier this month, Japan, South Korea and China announced plans to band together to create a Linux-based alternative to Windows - Mary Jo Foley - Sep 2003

'When the Japanese government announced it would install BTRON PC in Japanese schools, the U.S. government objected. It called the Japanese initiative actual and potential market intervention and threatened the move with sanctions.`

"Microsoft's decision to join the T-Engine Forum is not without irony. The company was the main beneficiary of U.S. government actions against the TRON project in 1989."

It won't end there, either. When the Playstation 3 is released, Linux will be used on 100 times more end user machines than OS X. Then when the OLPC (one laptop per child) is released, Linux will run on 100000 times more end user machines than OS X and will start to catching up, and eventually will overtake, Windows worldwide.

Windows message passing != Linux message passing

More on the point of being a modified microkernel:
"It is more or less true, for example, that both Windows NT 5.X and Unix variants like Mach and some BSD variants use a modified microkernel design"

More on memory management starting with NT 5.0:
'Windows NT 5.0 and its successors use clustered paging, a working set memory analogue and a free memory manager that fires up exactly once per second, while Unix uses an adaptive page specific algorithm -- often least-recently used -- to control paging. In Unix, there is no working set equivalent, and the free memory manager runs when needed.' ... 'the Windows kernel [...] runs nonthreaded internally. This choice avoids "object blockage" to trade off concurrency and context switching in favor of increased efficiency for, and better control of, a small number of key processes.' ... 'In contrast, the Unix approach generally has been to favor process creation and context switching at the cost of some efficiency for long-running processes.'

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/33089.html

That's kind of a weird comparison given the differences in innovation, demonstrated results and company attitudes.

IBM's Cell is a much more radical break from previous chips like Itanium, but the CES demo was reported to be very impressive. IBM has already released the SDK and openly published all specifications. The pace of development has been very rapid and people are predicting the replacement of Intel. The missing piece was a compiler to ease transition. It looks like that's coming along just fine.

The Itanium on the other hand was obsolete on it's launch. Even HP dumped it after killing their own better performing 64 bit processor for it and spending billions of dollars and ten years building it.

We can only wonder how things would have been if Intel had opened things up like IBM has, instead of making it so people have to figure things out on their own.

In contrast, the Unix approach generally has been to favor process creation and context switching at the cost of some efficiency for long-running processes, to favor multiprocessor memory management at the cost of increased hardware complexity, and to favor process or thread-level independence at the cost of making interprocess communication more difficult.

Same database version running the same version of our code, runs at LEAST 25% faster on Linux (RedHat Advanced Server 2.1) than Windows (XP). I don't think I'm allowed to give any numbers for 10g yet, but let's just say it's a whole lot faster than 9iR2 running the same code. 10g + Lniux = blazing speed (sorry for the marketing blurb, but our development team still can't get over how much faster it is).

"Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare."

The parent is indeed a troll. Linux passed Apple back in 2003, according to IDC. Here's the link to a recent article:

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/35688.html

Don't know why Slashdot missed this.

... that they use linux. =P

Linux Insider is running a couple of editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell'. The bold prediction? 'the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine.'

Linux Insider is running a couple of editorials speculating about running Linux on the 'Cell'. The bold prediction? 'the Linux developer community will, virtually en masse, abandon the x86 in favor of the new machine.'

The oxygen will last for 5 months, but what about the booze?

I imagine the morale of those aboard the station, and of those tapped to rotate onto the station is pretty low. The actual space station is a half assed effort at space colonization, and a money pit nobody wants. It was concieved in the Reagan era and in a spirit of Glasnost (or whatever the buzz word was at the time) as some kind of international gesture or that would herald in a great age of space exporation, or at least international cooperation. But there was no real goal or purpose in building it other than building it, and all the countries that began work lost interest in finishing it, but no one wants to be responsible for killing it off entirely. (I'm too lazy to look up references, but there are modules that were never completed, and perhaps were never even started)

The loss of the use of NASA's shuttle was the biggest blow, since resupply by soyuz is barely adequate for the current crew, and there is no hope of actually putting a working crew up there without it. Expect the station to be abandoned by the time the shuttle is finally retired, that is, if the shuttle ever flies again.

I suspect that the only way to get a permanent presence off planet is through private efforts--i.e. companies that hope to make a profit from space. If I weren't destined to die a virgin, I would like to honeymoon there.

Sun already have the necessary remote display technologies. See http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/124007Z6UVR8.xht ml

This acquisition was done because Tarantella have some number of Sun customers, and Sun had been recommending Tarantella. Tarantella would be bankrupt within a few months and that would seriously embarass Sun with those customers. This way Sun doesn't piss off or lose those customers. (While the deal is closing Sun will be paying life support to Tarantella.)

The management at Tarantella has always been pretty poor. In late 2003, a new executive team bought their way in. (Look up Frank Wilde). They specialise in flipping companies, making sure that they give themselves very generous golden parachutes (options that turn into shares on buys, change of control payments, various bonuses etc). This was no exception, except the company was about to go down the toilet. Who knows what they managed to convince Sun with, and quite why Sun is happy to be spending so much money paying off mangement I don't know.

Additionally this deal requires shareholder approval. There are many murmors of people voting no, and others of stripping the self serving management team of their very generous compensation and offering the company to others. It isn't over till the fat lady sings!

The same goes for basic corporate users, but since system skills can be acquired (by training, replacing, or hiring) there is also the option of linux or BSD.

That's sort of misleading. Modern combustion engines are only about 20% efficient at best, most of the energy is lost as heat, so using electricity from the utility company would be roughly FIVE times cheaper.

Power plants are much much more efficient than an engine that has to fit into a car and run at a wide range of RPMs. So even with coal this is a much better alternative.

Toshiba's new nano-battery should make this an even more attractive technology. A quote:

"For example, the battery's advantages in size, weight and safety highly suit it for a role as an alternative power source for hybrid electric vehicles."

Maybe Microsoft could offer some kind of discount?

I mean that's never happened before...

That's where my dad was born! Sweet (bitterly of course with IE's reputation).

What one should be scared of is the "IE 7.0 will feature international domain name (IDN) support" part -- can an IE user disable it like Firefox has (should he desire to use IE of course) before someone *ahem*rincóns them with a bad IDN?