Slashdot Mirror

Paul Murhpy's website is winface.com?

I sent him an email asking for the explanation - but I don't really expect a response.

Just seems rather out of step with being a so-called Unix guy.

Let's start with his argument that Linux didn't spring from nothing, which is the same bit you talk about. Uhhh, nobody claimed it did and by claiming that it didn't, he is being disenginious as to what it is people are claiming. Contradict something often enough, and you'll convince people that the thing you're contradicting must exist for it to be contradicted in the first place.

You're correct that there is a difference between UNIX the API (now defined by the POSIX and Unix98 standards), and UNIX the AT&T Operating System. APIs cannot be copyrighted, trademarked or patented, although they CAN be considered trade secrets. (This is why BSD can be clean of AT&T code, but yet implement a 100% AT&T-compatiable API, and why Microsoft won't publish a complete API for Windows.)

An API is merely a specification. A description of what goes into routines and what comes out. Nothing more. It does not define HOW things are done, nor how things are organized. The former can be patented, the latter can be copyrighted. As neither apply in this case, it is a fallacy to argue that IP is material.

When you look at his book, you begin to understand the guy better. He has zero understanding of the industry, but is excellent at producing technobabble. The Unix Guide to Defenestration is likely to be the No. #1 worst technical book of this decade.

He brags about his 20 years as an IT consultant. Well, I like to brag too. I have 25 years, as consultant, programmer, administrator, network architect, researcher, .... In other words, I'm not impressed by his resume/CV. Beside, his photo makes him look a bit like Bill Gates, and how can anyone take someone like that seriously?

Here is the link to the authors discussion board.

The messages look quite similar to the comments on /.

WINFACE

These types of situations make me wonder why anyone in their right mind would document so much stupidity!

From reading some of the columns on his website, http://winface.com/, he certainly seems very intellegent, not just some SCO goon. BUT he does seem to have an axe to grind against this lawsuit. Check out some of his regular linuxinsider columns. http://winface.com/insider.html/

From reading some of the columns on his website, http://winface.com/, he certainly seems very intellegent, not just some SCO goon. BUT he does seem to have an axe to grind against this lawsuit. Check out some of his regular linuxinsider columns. http://winface.com/insider.html/

He wrote an published his own book ("available only in PDF"). Tell me he didn't steal his cover layout from O'Reilly: The Unix Guide to Defenestration. Oh and by the way, I in no way encourage anyone to actually purchase it for any purpose other than defenestrating the book.

He's getting destroyed by readers on his very own forum.. Also, from his website, are a bunch of his other writings on the SCO case.

He's getting destroyed by readers on his very own forum.. Also, from his website, are a bunch of his other writings on the SCO case.

Before seeing some analysis of significance, I don't believe anything...

You realize that this is no place for calm, rational thinking, don't you? Maybe you're new to Slashdot. If so let me provide some assistance with your response:

1) Anything Microsoft does is bad
2) If you think they've done something good, or you can't tell whether something they've done is good or bad please review (1).

That should help you fit in around these parts a little better. There are some nuances that you'll learn over time, but I've covered the basics. If you have difficulty with these concepts, please visit room 101 for assistance.

-Adam

I recently came across this book, Business Information Technology. It is right on the spot, targeted at those CTOs with poor scientific or technical backgrounds. Highly recommended.

at first? It *still* says that.

The linked page links to a definition:

Defenestration Defined

"Defenestration" refers to the act of throwing out through, or of being thrown out of, windows. In this case it is used to describe a process I think of as data center defenestration in which people come to understand the technical background, costs, organizational structures, and behavioral imperatives that lead to institutionalized systems failure and then act on that knowledge to throw out the stuff that doesn't work and bring in systems and processes that do.

...also wrote The Unix Guide to Defenestration, which is an executive-level discussion of making a data center profitable.

He's been a Linux advocate for quite a while...

If the bighorkinmachine ever went down, you're SOL, EVERYONE is down.

You're absolutely right. But this doesn't really need to happen, except in case of a real catastrophe which will take down all the client-server stuff too. People, back in the '70 and '80 I used servers that had uptimes of 2 *YEARS* or more, and these were serving apps out to over 400 people. People are *so* used to the prophylactic reboot (Ooo-er, Missus!) on Windows machines, that they seem to accept machines going down regularly as normal. It currently IS, for Windows servers, but it doesn't NEED to be for other servers.

The real issue here is control: people don't feel happy about letting IT control the resources. I would urge everybody to read A Unix Guide to Defenestration before they comment on centralised vs client-server computing.

"Linux vendors only support their consumer releases (and free distributions) for a maximum of two years, Silver noted."

Sounds like the only research the Gartner Group did for this report was to call Microsoft, call RedHat, and find out what they do.

They don't even bother to say what the TCO issues are between Linux and Windows, they just say "If [enterprise complications result in high TCO] is true with Windows, "we see little reason to believe that the cultural or political issues will change just because the enterprise is now using Linux," he observes. They didn't even check. They didn't do a study of their own, they didn't talk to people who have done TCO studies of this, or talk to Businesses who have already made the jump. They looked at Windows, and they guessed.

And they charge $95 per copy for their uneducated guess.

At least they can do some work before charging people for it.

You might want to read "The Unix Guide to Defenestration" shown here.

I'm sure it's a best seller amongst the fans in Redmond.

Tony writes:

The secondary costs of installing and using MS-Windows is about the same (or perhaps more) than installing and using Linux. That, coupled with the primary costs of using MS-Windows (licensing and media fees) puts MS-Windows at a higher cost than Linux.
...
This idea that MS-Windows has no secondary cost because it has a primary cost is stupid.

Yes, and to add some figures behind your statements, Paul Murphy has done some extensive TCO studies of Windows vs Various unix systems, and found that in many cases, a sanely configured Solaris solution (far from the bargain basement of the *nix world) can often save over 60% compared to the comparable Windows solution. The real world numbers are likely even more slanted towards Unix, because he leaves out the expensive hardware replacement that Windows pushes on you to keep running their software.

A strategic comparison of Windows vs. Unix, LinuxWorld, October 2001

Definitely check this book out at its author's site. Plus the links to other articles that Murph has written for LinuxWorld on how to swap out costly and unproductive Windows setups for Unix-driven systems. I don't agree with him 100%, but he's got a lot of useful insights.

--Paul

I agree that what you say does happen. But, where then are the upper level managers? Are they not calling these "rotating bosses" to accountability?

Because it is in their best interests to let things continue as they are. A great book on this topic is "The Unix Guide to Defenestration". Here's a little blurb from the overview page:

"This book argues that the present mess, in which most systems expenditures produce frustration and unmet expectations rather then the quietly effective solutions promised, arose mainly because the incentives given systems people contradict their service mandate. The incentive is to grow by expanding the systems budget and you don't do that by being effective, you do that by balancing on the knife edge of continous near failure because that gets you executive attention and user presure to increase your budget. Someone whose living depends on fighting aligators is, after all, more likely to breed them than to drain the swamp."

I agree that what you say does happen. But, where then are the upper level managers? Are they not calling these "rotating bosses" to accountability?

Because it is in their best interests to let things continue as they are. A great book on this topic is "The Unix Guide to Defenestration". Here's a little blurb from the overview page:

"This book argues that the present mess, in which most systems expenditures produce frustration and unmet expectations rather then the quietly effective solutions promised, arose mainly because the incentives given systems people contradict their service mandate. The incentive is to grow by expanding the systems budget and you don't do that by being effective, you do that by balancing on the knife edge of continous near failure because that gets you executive attention and user presure to increase your budget. Someone whose living depends on fighting aligators is, after all, more likely to breed them than to drain the swamp."

He has a whole series of really great case studies here.

He has a whole series of really great case studies here.