Slashdot Mirror
Linux Replacing Windows More Than Unix
LordNimon writes "Over the past couple years, we've been hearing several Linux migration stories, but they have been mostly migration from proprietary Unix systems rather than from Windows. Well, this story on News.com indicates otherwise: of the migrations, 24% were from Unix, but 31% were from Windows. Sounds promising."
maybe I need to read the article.
since Linux is looking more and more like Windows every day. I'm amazed at how much KDE tries to ape Windows rather than trying to adddress the problems of the Windows interface.
I fear that if Linux continues in this problem we may end the problem of being weighed down by a monopolistic regime but we will still not have bettered the PC computing environment.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
It's good, very good indeed, but I am still looking for a groupware solution. I am working with different startup companies from time to time and when i get the chance to get UNIX in from the start, it's great. :) And with *BSD, linux, whatever you can get a fileserver webserver, router, firewall up and running. So I need a groupware system with email, calendar etc, like you get with Notes, Exchange, GroupWise etc. You should also be able to get agents to sync with your PDA's. I remember seeing a Suse dist. with Notes once, but is it still available and Notes seems like a big mouthful when you are only 10 people. But then again there's room to grow with it.
my sig
...of the migrations, 24% were from Unix, but 31% were from Windows.
On first reading I was wondering what operating systems could possibly make up the missing 45%, but it's not 31% and 24% of the *migrations* but of the total new Linux servers:
"For those that have recently purchased new Linux servers, 31 percent were adding capacity, 31 percent were replacing Windows systems, 24 percent were replacing Unix and 14 percent were replacing other operating systems."
So as a percentage of migrations, nearly half are Linux replacing Windows (maybe over 50% replacing MS systems including DOS):
45% Windows to Linux
35% Unix to Linux
20% Other to Linux
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Maybe Redhat could get some mileage out of this.
How can you tell that it is near the end of the work day in my timezone and I desparately need to be entertained?
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
Purchasing a new (additional) server is not a migration, Thankyouverymuch. e.g. I was born June '82, I did not migrate. :)
Ali
Ph33r m3!!!
That is the REAL encoraging sign.
Sure there is the odd case of an incorectly sized server being put to a task it can't manage.
However most "Adding Capacity" is from satisfide customers who are moving other services to the platform in question or even better have grown the business so much that they need to buy more and/or biger machines.
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
Statistics are nice to look at, but often have glaring loopholes that some people choose to conveniently look over.
The biggest problem with this survey is that Unix usage has gone through the roof in the last two years with the advent of Mac OS X.
Since people who have Mac OS X are technically 'UNIX users', but are unlikely to uninstall OS X to run Yellow Dog Linux, it is fair to say that less UNIX users that ever are going over to Linux. Why? Because they're happy staying on BSD.
BSD classifies as 'UNIX'.. and we need to remember a LOT of people are going over to BSD from old style UNIX. Yet.. they aren't factored in here. Legacy UNIX to BSD is not taken into account, when really it's a pretty important shift.
mogorific carpentry experiments
This article seems to deal mostly with servers and corporations. What about desktop users and/or other home users.
While there are probably a lot of corps out there thinking about switching to linux from unix/windows, there are also an increasing amount of home users searching for an alternate desktop environment.
I wonder how this might tally if things such as linux firewalls, mp3 servers, and other more custom uses were considered?
"The remainder (46 percent) noted they didn't own and weren't considering Linux."
Somehow I can just picture the smug faces of managers answering this, like they're real proud to be MS-fanboys :-}
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Can you really imagine WinXP as a workstation tool?
... KDE as a workstation tool?" Get with the program, buddy, graphical is where technology is going. Just cause something doesn't boot to piss-poor console doesn't mean it's incapable.
Yes! By all means. Most Linux fanatics just don't understand how configurable XP is. You can disable all themeing quite easily. It looks just like Windows 2000 in every respect. It's more stable as well.
This is akin to saying "Can you really imagine GNOME as a workstation tool? Or
In fact, I find my WinXP box more stable than our Linux programming labs at school. No bullshitting, either. I can thoroughly freeze the console in our Linux labs with not so much as a keypress. XP has yet to crash on me (and so had Windows 2000 yet to, before I switched).
I think we'll also see a lot more Linux-loving fags openly declaring their love for other men's bowels.
Hmm, don't know about that one. IHBT.
Unless you're counting "Other" and "added capacity" as "well, they would have run Windows on them, so we'll count it as a steal" I don't see it.
Percentages mean nothing unless we have the numbers used to calculate the percentages. 31% of 10 is not such a big deal; 31% of 100 million, on the other hand, is significant.
Jamey Kirby
Ok here is the deal, If i have a kick-ass Solaris m/c which i bough 2 years ago (was kick-ass back then).
Solaris technology has not changed so much to force me to upgrade the hardware. I can always download the latest solaris OS and keep my m/c uptodate.
Same goes for other propritory *nix boxes.
Now on the other hand, I bought a WinNT Server two years ago. Somehow i have managed to work with it.
but now if i want to upgrade to XP, i have no choice but to buy the latest x86 based hardware.
Plus the trackrecord of M$ for security and stability is also at the back of my mind
Now if i dont want to upgarde my x86 based hardware every two years then a lean-mean version of linux makes more sence.
As in current economy I dont have the budget to buy a Solaris box.
If your company doesn't want to keep pace with the x86 based hardware upgrades, then LINUX is the BEST choice out there. Install it and forget about it.
for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
Evolution has really caught the attention of a lot of people in your position. It acts like Outlook and works with Exchange, but isnt filled with the M$ vuln. Plus it does a damn good job with pda compatibility. I know that there is a pilot conduit built in and they have it syncing with the zaurus pdas (not sure about pocket pc).
I really think that Evolution is one of the best products out there, I switched from kmail to it.
Plus, it's free (dont think its oss).
forget it.
Since there are way more Windows installations than Unix installations, the fact that 24% of the migrations are from Unix and 31% are from Windows means that Linux is hitting Unix WAY harder than it is hitting Windows.
Our company (admittedtly a small one - around 35 people) has done both migrations at the same time and have saved a ton of money in the process.
We are an engineering company, and used to have two computers on every desk - a UNIX workstation (combination of Suns and HPs) for the "real work", and a Windoze PC for things like email and documentation. Now, these have both been replaced by Athlon 2000+ machines running Linux. The main thing we were waiting for was the UNIX EDA software (from Mentor Graphics) to be ported to Linux. We now use mainly OpenOffice for documentation and Evolution/Kmail (depending on personal preference) for email.
The combination of ditching the expensive workstation hardware and the MS Office software has made the basic platform really cheap. The main cost, however, is still the EDA software, but even that is coming down. The added side benefit is less computer clutter and much simpler system administration.
"It looks just like Windows 2000 in every respect"
And that is a pro?
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
I can thoroughly freeze the console in our Linux labs with not so much as a keypress.
Yeah, Ctrl-S -- that's what's supposed to happen, stupid. Ctrl-Q to get it unstuck. It's called SCROLL LOCK, and just because Windows doesn't have this feature it doesn't mean you have to be so ignorant to assume it crashes.
And by the way, I can't imagine having no decent command line to do admin stuff on. Graphical tools are OK, but there's nothing like breaking out on a command line to quickly do your stuff, then writing scripts to do it all for you. Of course you have know what your doing, but if someone was hired as a sysadmin let's hope he'd know more than you.
When I came to my current job- the I.S. Director thought Linux was 'hacker junk'.
Well a lot of factors have come together and now he comes to me on a regular basis and says- "find me something open source that does such and such" We have 2 Linux servers up and running and we are looking to move a bunck of our desktops to Linux (using a browser for their apps)
The main driving reason has been cost.
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Free clues for BSD fans:
;P Every mac "server" I've seen so far in the "real world" is a lowend fileserver for a cluster macs hidden in some publishing office.
1. The percentages were for _servers_. Sorry, but apple's server market share is like 0.00001% right now
2. The only people (numerious enough to be of any statistical relevance) "migrating" to MacOS X are Mac desktop users upgrading from Macs and a small number of windows/linux/whatever converts (though judging from apple's sales figures those probably fall into "not statistically relevant")
3. I love when BSD fans latch onto Mac OS X and say stuff like "see! BSD is more used then Linux!" blah blah blah. Meanwhile most people don't give two hoots about any BSD parts of the OS (they don't see it, don't really program for it). And proprietary apple-only APIs are what developers use to get the most out of the hardware and operating system. Sorry, but your average well written native apple app is about as BSD as Windows NT is UNIX (tm) Photoshop for FreeBSD anyone? Yeah... I thought so...
Oh well... time to get mod'd ( -1, The Truth Hurts )
--- polarbear
Steven: Yeah, I used to tell people to buy Window based computers all the time.
[Camera pans around a bit]
Steven: Yeah, and um, down in Austin it would get like intense over those blue screens that would pop up and like, I just totally couldn't stand that freakin' paper clip. Then my comp sci professor introduced me to Star Office. Like whoa! No paper clip! And like, my buddies say I can play around with the kernal! Yeah, I think he does fried chicken and stuff.
[Camera cuts to close-up]
Steven: Uh, my name is Steven and dude, I got a Del... uh, Linux. Yeah, that's right! Linux.
It seemed to me that the story talked about conversions on a server level. My first thought was "Oh, that's only on the server level?" But then I realized something: Linux is best at the server level.
I don't mean to start another flame war...but I'm am one who firmly believes that what you want to do fully impacts what OS you use. I have three computers at home. One runs Linux full time. One runs Windows XP full time. The laptop runs both Windows 98 and Linux (Dual boot). If I want to write music and stuff, I sure as hell ain't going to be using linux. If I want to be doing some serious firewalling...I'm not going to use WinXP.
So in conclusion, I would have to say that the migration is nice...but I don't care where they migrate from. I'm not in the open source war to beat down what we already have. One of the faults of war is to blatently avoid everything associated with the enemy. There should be some middle ground. After all, Marketing aside, Microsoft does have something.
Win2K is much faster and much more stable than Windows XP. Yes, WinXP does bring up your desktop sooner, but is the syetm actually able to run your programs any sooner? No. They've just changed the order of some of the startup routines.
Actually, IIRC, there is a reserved area of the filesystem located at the beginning of the disk that is inaccessible to normal users unless you know the special API to access it. It caches pertinent information needed for boot there on the previous shutdown, and just loads it up on boot. That's why it boots so fast.
As for the Win2K > WXP argument, YMMV. I been accustomed to most of the handy new features, and can't live without some of them.
Just one datapoint: We just migrated some 60-odd desktop systems to Linux from HP-UX, and are happy campers. Other divisions of our company are now looking into doing the same. Overall, we're a (roughly) 1100 employee company, from which an estimated (by me, here and now) 300 can become Linux users without much problems.
Of course, we operate in the EDA research business (and related areas), so we're atypical and many people around here very much prefer anything UNIX-like over The Other Operating System. But still... Less than two years ago Linux was still a big No-No as far as the head of IT was concerned, even though several unofficial system already existed and the presure to officially support Linux was on already.
Linux user since early January 1992.
Yeah, Ctrl-S -- that's what's supposed to happen, stupid. Ctrl-Q to get it unstuck. It's called SCROLL LOCK, and just because Windows doesn't have this feature it doesn't mean you have to be so ignorant to assume it crashes.
Um, no. Who's calling who ignorant here? I'm talking virtual console switching while at the XDM logon screen. Switch to any text console, you're OK, switch to console 7 (X) and the console freezes, keyboard, screen, the whole kit'n'kaboodle. I haven't tried yet to see if you can't ssh into the box, but I'm telling you now, I'm not about to find another desktop workstation to do this from, hitting the power switch is a lot easier and quicker. Plus the box is dead till you reboot. Although that f**ks over all the other users that happen to be sshed into that box at that time.
And by the way, I can't imagine having no decent command line to do admin stuff on. Graphical tools are OK, but there's nothing like breaking out on a command line to quickly do your stuff, then writing scripts to do it all for you. Of course you have know what your doing, but if someone was hired as a sysadmin let's hope he'd know more than you.
There are powerful scripting tools available for the Windows platform. Of course, to know about them, and use them, you'd have to be more knowledgeable than say... you.
If you were running 3 heavyduty audio editing programs AND a big-overhead webserver like ColdFusion on a Mac, you would see just as many crashes as you do on a Win2K box. I mean, your talking about 4 major apps, all of which are designed to be the primary app on the machine. I had to build a top of the line multiproc machine at work because unforutneately I must run 3DStudio, Combustion, Dreamweaver, Flash, Photoshop, FormZ(another 3D app), AutoCAD, Filemaker, and MSOffice all on one workstation. If I could convince the powers that be that I should have multiple machines for everything I must run, I would. Take my advice, if you are using the audio tools for pro work, move ColdFusion to its own server, the performance cut isn't worth it when working with other highend programs.
:D )
(oh, and move your games to a different machine as well
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
There has always been an element of the growing linux userbase that decides to move to a *BSD for various reasons (most for real reasons, matters of preference, etc, other for less then admirable users but thats troll take). Some move back (quite a few users of new distros like Gentoo, etc are former *bsd users who moved back for some reason or another or run both happily)
Quite frankly I think BSD is enjoying the "wake" created by Linux much like migrating birds fly in the wake of others to make the trip easier, etc. The Linux camps attracts the bulk of new users to the Linux/BSD camp and some naturally spill over to the *BSDs. Is that a bad thing? Nope, its only natural. But it was the early Linux advocates and zealots who created the wake... It was their open and more inviting attitude and it was later the GPL and the growing wake produced by early Linux that attacted the corporate interest in Free Unix after the BSDs lost it due to lawsuits and attitude problems.
The Macs are a special case where you have loyal mac users who would quite frankly use anything Apple gave them as long as it got the job done. Your average mac user will probably see never even know the terminal window exists or if they do, they might mutter something like "oh its dos" or "wtf is this" and promptly close it.
Any "techies" moving to this form of BSD are greatly outnumbered by more "mainstream users" and I believe are stastically irrelevant. Also any "BSD developer" on Apple is either going to be using "non-BSD" apis or not doing anything involving GUIs or the nifty features that make Mac OS X different from Windows, KDE, etc.
As I said before, some BSD fans are overestimating the importance of BSD. I doubt it will ever make an appreciable dent in the server market compared to Linux, Windows, etc. Though it will be interesting to see how far the X-server servers go, the only reason I can see to buy one is the pretty case but its a server, so why pay for a proprietary server platform when we are trying to get off of others (*cough*sun*cough*).
--- polarbear
Arguably, all icon/mouse-based interfaces are pretty much the same. I.e., you click on an icon and something happens.
Maybe building a desktop that uses icons and a mouse that doesn't look like all the rest will have to wait for the shift that rids us of mice.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
There's something really messed up with Windows when it takes over a year to migrate from NT to W2K. I read in on of the forums on CNN that some guy/admin wasn't even thinking of a WXP migration because they were still working on migrating from NT to W2K. A bunch of software needed upgrading and testing.
Maybe THAT's why so many NT and W2K sites are just moving to Linux. If it's gonna hurt so much, best end up with something less painful in the long run.
IMHO,
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Check Netcraft for Confirmation. On another note this article supports an earlier survey here regarding the Enterprise environment and Networking. This is a 29 page PDF report from March. Biggest drivers: Cost and Ease of use. The report is a good read. A look at the source, and not a reporter's digestion of the facts.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
In fact, the biggest growth area for Linux is NOT on desktop installations, but workgroups and departmental server installations. This is because servers are usually configured very few times, not multiple times like you have with desktop machines.
People forget that Linux is not yet a true auto-configuring desktop operating system like Windows is now. That could result in a pretty frustrating experiences, especially when the desktop user starts updating hardware and adds hot-docked external devices.
Is it small wonder why the Linux 2.6.x kernel will include Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) support? With ACPI support in Linux, that makes it vastly easier for end users to upgrade hardware and setup hot-docked external devices that use IEEE-1394 and USB connections.
Well, I've been using Linux since 1995, and I've never once had an ext2 filesystem corruption. This year I switched everything over to reiserfs, and it is even better than ext2fs. You can pull the plug, switch back on and never need to even check the filesystem.
Compiling a new kernel should be a simple process (and one that should be unessecary)[sic]
Well, you really haven't tried Linux recently have you. With most modern distributions, you never need to recompile the kernel. The system will simply autoload whatever modules are needed.
If I had mod points today, I'd mark you down as the troll you are.
...due to Microsoft's new licensing scheme. That's something a lot of businesses hate with something of a passion, I believe.
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
the ability to run every app linux/bsd does
Sure about that, sport? Most Linux/BSD apps are written for x86 systems, and Apple hardware can't readily run stuff designed for x86 without some heavy emulation.
Y2K Compliant since the late 1890s
Identify the class of distributions for which mean, median and mode are the same
Symmetric distributions are like that. Others may exist.
and give three (non-normal) examples. At least one should NOT be in the exponential family.
Student t distributions (other than the meanless Cauchy distribution), the Laplacian distribution (exponential reflected about the mean axis, which occurs often in image compression), and the sum of 2 <= n < infinity independent random variables uniformly distributed in the same domain (case n = 2 is a triangular distribution; case n = infinity is the normal distribution; n cannot be 1 because a uniform distribution has no well defined mode). In addition to these continuous examples, I could give any number of discrete examples.
Can the sample at hand be considered a member of that class? Answer true or false, and support the answer.
False in theory but true in practice. Intelligence quotient distribution is not strictly normal because a normal distribution has support over the entire real line, but IQ cannot be less than zero. However, it appears roughly normal throughout plus or minus three standard deviations.
ObMigrationToLinux: I'm a bit curious about the distribution of market capitalizations of companies that have recently migrated their servers to the Linux operating system.
Speaking of distributions, which distribution is most popular among Linux users who migrated from BSD? Is it Slackware?
Will I retire or break 10K?
Topic: Migration to Linux (and possibly from Mac OS)
I mean, it's not like it takes too many switches to do a gcc ProTools.c on one architecture over the other does it?
If the developers of Pro Tools ported their app from the Mac OS X platform to the Windows platform or to the Linux/i686 platform, they would have to either rewrite or emulate the PowerPC assembly language inner loops.
Perhaps we'll find out whether it's the hardware architecture or the operating system that's limited productive creative applications sooner than we think.
Do you really think Intel's SSE2 is better than Motorola's AltiVec?
Will I retire or break 10K?
When I started my job two years ago, our data center was 100% NT-based. Little by little I've convinced management to migrate various tasks off of Windows and onto Linux. My single 2U RedHat server handles our corporate website, Intranet, FTP, DNS caching, and more. This eliminated several other systems and their associated licensing fees. The machine has been powered up stable since day one, and at 240 days, my uptime is the best in the room.
Linux has also proven itself at our company as a great free network monitoring tool, thanks to snort and MRTG, etc.
One of the biggest wins with the management here was that I was able to prove that Linux can play nicely in an NT domain. People are always surprised that it authenticates domain users and that sort of thing.
We still have alot of NT servers on the rack, but so far my one Linux box runs so well, I don't think we'll ever need another!
What's that? My iMac runs Linux just fine, and I can install any of 10,000 packages from the Debian archive. Well over 99% of commonly-used Linux software builds and runs equally well on any hardware platform. './configure && make'
The Winlots might say that it's not so bad or it's only for their own good (having always the same version) some other market-speak.
But there are 2 scary facts:
1: With the new licensing scheme, Microsoft is taking the power to decide away from the user.
2: Microsoft showed that they don't hesitate long to change EULAs and licensing schemes the way they see fit.
Even if it were not more expensive (but it is!) it would be hated.
In my experience (I've been using linux for 5 years now) I've never had an ext2 filesystem become corrupt because of any reason other than power failure and even then I've only ever had to manually intervene in an fsck once and that was to press y a couple of times.
And yes, your example is outdated. Linux has several journalling filesystems now.
What would you propose? Linus doesn't control the hardware linux runs on so can't limit the options that way. Auto detect what is the current machine? Kinda makes it hard to compile stuff for a different machine not to mention making modules for hardware that isn't installed yet.Fact is linux probably supports more hardware than any other operating system other than Windows. NetBSD may support more architectures but linux has more device drivers.
74% of all statistics are made up on the spot so statistically speaking yours are probably among them. Say for instance you pulled your head out of your arse for a minute. You may actually realise that without the free nixes, the Real Unix world would be in deep shit. Windows wouldn't have any competition in the low to mid range. Universities are already starting to drop *nix as a teaching plateform and with *nix relegated to the high end this could only happen faster. With generations of IT Professionals only having used Windows it's only a matter of time before the *nix vendors start dropping it and His Billness rules the world.If nothing else linux is introducing a new generation of computer techies to *nix. It's a shit load cheaper than your Real Unix and despite your pondering (seeing as you admit to not actually using linux) linux is quite stable and reliable.
You sir are a troll.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
I'm guessing Microsoft try to make a last dash for it...
I can destroy a linux workstation with one command:
sudo rm -rf /
OMG! OMG! OMG!
Idiot.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
Some of them are:
gEDA - schematic capture, board layout
Icarus Verilog - verilog simulation, synthesis
Savant - VHDL analysis, simulation (sequential and parallel)
GnuCAP - a mostly Spice compatible circuit simulator
The Open Collector has references to these projects and many more! (Full disclosure; I'm an upstream author on the SAVANT project.)
That's inovation for you.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
KDE seems to be striking a reasonable balance between not terrifying incoming Windows users, and curing some of Windows' ills. Have you tried the newer KDEs? KDE 3.0.x with translucency only looks like Windows until you click on something, KDE 3.1 even more so. I don't see XP ripping audio CDs for you when you drag them onto a filesystem, I don't see it giving you a choice of cut/paste methods, I don't see protocol drivers for odd devices (think palmtops) accessible within the existing file management paradigm, and so on.
Windows 3 had fixed-sized elevators because Macintosh had them. So IRL, who is it chasing tail-lights?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Simplified, the more users a platform has, the better it becomes for all users.
So even if somebody is not giving anything back in terms of code or money, he helps Linux.
Have you ever worked in a sophisticated IT environment? I have and there are several reasons why you would roll out your upgrades slowly.
Most sophisiticated IT deployments take several months while you test scenarios and interoperability - first in a test environment, then in a partial production, wait for an available window and the appropriate resources to do it, etc. Remember, the servers you are running are mission critical and it is far more important to your business that those servers keep running without a hitch than it is to have the latest whizbang software or hardware on them. Adequate care must therefore be exercised.
Mmmm.. Donuts
I don't see protocol drivers for odd devices (think palmtops) accessible within the existing file management paradigm, and so on.
I am not sure what you are trying to say but I have been able to access my PocketPC filesystem through explorer quite nicely, thank you.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Because all is not what it seems.
There's a TV ad here encouraging people to wear seatbelts. It says "Of the xxx fatal car crashes in Tasmania last year, 1 in 3 weren't wearing a seatbelt" or words to that effect. I joke that this means you are twice as likely to die if you wear a seatbelt. The error in that logic is that there are far more people wearing seatbelts than not.
What I'd like to see is the percentage of Windows users moving to Linux, not the percentage of Linux users who came from Windows.
Do you have any figures to back up that claim? It seems pretty implausible to me, even if we look at desktop usage. On the server, of course, it is clearly false, given the miniscule usage of Macintosh for servers.
Besides, what is your point? Most Macintosh users don't use or see much of the UNIX functionality. UNIX applications still require quite a bit of porting to become native Macintosh applications. And Macintosh applications aren't portable to non-Macintosh UNIX systems. And Macintosh users still use Microsoft Office and IE, like good little Bill Gates clones.
1. There are definately BSD's being used as servers. Probably not a lot of Macs, because Macs aren't built to be servers. Why pay for a built in screen and graphics and such when a faceless server would suffice? No one uses Linux running Xboxes for servers either, that doesn't mean Linux doesn't make a good server.
2. O'Reilly did a survey and more new Mac users were coming from the Linux camp than anywhere else. From what I've seen of Apple's sales figures (latest 10-Q) sales are much too high to be the same old Mac users, the new ones are coming from somewhere.
3. I love 'em too. Most Linux desktop users don't give two hoots about the underlying Linux kernel either. Developing for an API like Apple's OSX API would be like, oh say... developing for Gnome or KDE's API, or God-forbid Motif. Did I miss something, because I have yet to see Mozilla run in the Linux console?
...and statistics. This article was bit misleading and overstated the importance of the sudden surge in Linux server acquisitions. The actual numbers only suggest that 41% of an undisclosed number of CIOs had changed their Windows servers to Linux. While this sounds good up front (as the article intended), when one considers that if this undisclosed number were a small percentage of CIOs considering purchases then 41% of, say 5%, is not a whole lot. I think the article failed to mention how truly insignificant this 41% really is on purpose.
lol
http://saveie6.com/
Now that Linux/BSD is eating NT's lunch just like NT ate Netware, I get it.
Netware's superiority didn't matter, because Windows NT (even 9x at some sites) was (it sickens me to say this) good enough. It used to be that your server was the highest end box in the building. Now it's "don't throw away that old Pentium 166; we can use it as a server."
Servers are a commodity. The reason Linux/BSD is beating NT isn't because it's better (even though it is ;-), it's because it costs less. There is no major attribute by which a server can distinguish itself as being better than another (in the eyes of the common man), except cost.
Desktops were almost a commodity too, which is why Microsoft reacted so violently toward Netscape's web browser and Sun's Java. One of these days, someone is going to come up with something that they can make stick. And then Microsoft will join Novell in history.
Actually, I think it's kind of sad that it might possibly turn out to be something as lame as Gnome or KDE that unseats Windows. But sometimes I think peoples' standards just may be low enough (after all, they accepted Windows).
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
How many CIO's don't even know they are running Linux??
Go out and get sailing!
But, my second was What is the count of UNIX to Windows servers?
I suspect that the number of total Windows server installed allows a greater numerical loss while suffering a much lesser market share loss...
RonSpace
The story goes something like this:
~Shop runs UNIX machines
~Base and upgrade costs on UNIX boxen are high, and Management complains of high TCO on UNIX, too.
~Shop migrates to cheaper x86 hardware running Windows NT
~Management and a few staff love Windows, the rest hate it for religious reasons.
~Windows-hating, UNIX-loving staff starts setting up Linux boxen 'guerrilla style,' shows Linux boxen working successfully to other employees.
~When employee support is high, Linux solution to task Foo is shown to Mgmt by members of staff that miss UNIX.
~Mgmt. chooses to accept or deny Linux solution.
~If Linux solution is accepted and works properly with few hitches, Linux takes over. If there are problems, shop keeps running Windows.
Red Hat wouldn't want to risk having Apple sue them for stealing the 'look and feel' of one of their advertising campaigns.
. . . about Microsoft using its market dominance to price-gouge the hell out of customers. Changing the contract for large purchases who only use Microsoft Office to increase the price, for example. The customers end up just taking it because they don't see any alternative to Microsoft Office.
Sadly, there honestly isn't a great alternative in many cases. I'm a huge Open Source guy, but realistically, I still can't see a good alternative to Excel yet, for example.
But as soon as OpenOffice.org irons out a few kinks and starts building a reputation (especially for its rather good Office compatibility features), I think the market is going to drop out for Microsoft. Their licensing practises are only building enemies, even in die-hard Windows-only shops (sometimes, I think, especially in Windows-only shops), and when a lot of people realize that choice has returned to the market, they'll make a decision, and it's not going to be the one that costs $300 per license.
Actually, I believe you need Ximian Connector, a non-free piece of software (not that I have qualms about buying from Ximian), to use Evolution with Exchange.
:-) )
If you have it, you get shared calendar and whatnot.
It'd be interesting to try running Mozilla + OpenOffice + Evolution and see what people think (aside from not liking the three different UIs
May we never see th
After all, when people say "It was the average American Family", they don't mean a family that has two and a half children. They are referring to the mode, not the mean.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Thanks Narf. Bladeenc is my best friend. But, I don't usually get to him until after I've spent many hours with my digital multi-tracker getting my material sounding what it needs to sound like. I hope people like yourself continue to motivate the industry to keep technologies like Linux alive and encourage application programmers to port useful tools to the platform so guys like me can use them.
It's not about money: I paid $500 for Cakewalk 1.0 in 1991 for Win3.1. Thanks for piping up.
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
One of our customers wanted us to port from Linux to AIX, due to the "unkown" factor - they were not certain about its stability and heavy load ability, plus they were concerned about their AIX-trained staff. Now, we're putting it on hold, since they are considering migrating as many as possible of their server. It seems that cheap server hardware and reduced license fees may be a bigger saving than retraining some of their AIX people would be an expense.
Stop the brainwash
Oh. They hate the old licensing scheme with a passion, too. Every time they think they are in compliance, Microsoft comes up with some demand or question.
Stop the brainwash
Wow, nice rant...and I do agree with all of it.
Now, the reason why I'm running such a power machine is becuase:
a) I'm an architect
b) I'm the only one in the office running a Win box (everyone else is Mac OS9) and they plan on converting so they can use AutoCAD instead of PowerCAD (a very very lameass Mac drafting package)
c) I work for a sub-firm/department which specializes in web design, 3d modeling and animation. If you want some examples, check out http://www.virtual-design.net, more than half the stuff there (inlcuding the site itself) is my work.
d) There is nothing that comes close to Dreamweaver for developing web pages that are complicated to produce because of the design
e) Gimp has nothing on Photoshop 6
[i'll stop enumerating now]
FormZ is the 3D package we do most of our work in, great for architectural modeling (and is both Mac and Win)....but horribly slow when rendering, and animation abilities are pratically nill. Hence I'm leading the migration to better software (and 3D studio is a lot easier to learn than Maya). Our licenses for Maya are for 3.5 on Windows....and the firm isn't going to pay the cost to get linux licenses for 4.0 anytime soon.
Where was I? Oh, yeah..... I'm the only person at the firm who knows how to code webpages....and I happen to do an extremely good job at it. I'm the only person who knows x86 hardware/OS, and the only one except for the outsourced IT guy that knows how to handle networks, servers, etc. I'm the only one who knows anything about video editing (which we need to do to prepare animation sequences for clients). I know more than anyone else about 3DS modeling and animation and currently doing extensive, photorealistic 3D scenery work for a Hollywood movie. At the same time I am developing a website for a foundation that helps parents of children with extremely rare diseases. At the same time I am putting together extremely detailed 3D stills and animations for a developer to find funding for his massive office complex.
My machine at home has a dual-boot with Linux...why? because I think someone else can do something better than what Microsoft has put out. Why don't I use it at work? Because, just like you, I think the software options suck. There are a few good 3D modeling programs available for Linux now (Maya for example), but they aren't very good for architectural modeling. And as for my other major apps...gimp ain't gonna cut it, and try and figure out how to do the web coding I did with something like Vi, Pico, or Emacs.
When it comes to getting Linux in my office....forget it....we don't have someone who has the expertise to setup Linux installs that would be easy enough for everyone else to use. My Linux dual-boot at home is the most anyone in the office has dealt with Linux....and I still have to fight it at home. Configuring it is a pain in the ass, but I'll fight it out because I enjoy tinkering and getting under the hood of my computer (and I mastered Win9x and NT a while ago). And as for Mac vs. x86.....don't make me laugh, the other people in the office running FormZ (on Macs) are asking me to run their renderings overnight since my machine runs circles arround their new dual-proc G4s. Sure, Photoshop filters are faster on a Mac, but thats it. But maybe IBM's new powerPC chip will change things...but of course AMD has an impressive 64bit chip showing up also.
Anyways......long rant in response to yours. And I think we misunderstood each other. I am not just a gearhead....I'm one of those rare people who is a creative/artsy/designer-type and is extremely interested in technology. If I could, I would learn how to programm....but I don't have the time becuase of love of design and creation. Likewise, if I could, I would learn how to take designs and create construction documents so that they can get built....but I don't have the time becuase I love tinkering with the hardware and software. But the two diverse interests have helped each other. I pick up software faster because I know how to design and so actually use the software rather than just knowing it. Likewise my designs have improved because I'm not limited by my rudimentary knowledge of the program (like most of my college class was).
But I think we both agree. It sucks having to pick your platform based on software. But we do it nonetheless. I happen to push Win2k/XP because is the only platform that has professional-level applications for all of the tasks I need to do on a daily basis.
I'm sorry I pissed you off.... I would have understood you running CF on your primary machine if you had said you did web development, but you only mentioned doing audio work....which led me to think the same thing that you thought about me, that you were running advanced software mostly just to run it rather than be effective with it. For that I apologize, and find it quite ironic that your response pissed me off in the same way.
Oh, btw, I know about Gammage, having gone to architecture school and all, and having friends at/from ASU. But I think it looks too similar to his Greek Orthodox Temple, the Unity Temple is much more innovative as a gathering space, and the same architectural languague/styling is much better developed in his art gallery in San Francisco. But people will be soon saying the same thing about Gehry's Bilbao and upcoming Disney Concert Hall (even though the DCH was designed long before, and originally in stone indstead of titanium). But I digress.....its funny how people can get infuriated by each other so easily isn't it?
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
If these boxes are running RH 7.3, they'll likely be using DRI by default, and there's a longish standing bug with that and VT switching (there are fixes available if you follow the DRI development tree, but I doubt they're in the RH packages yet).
Why on earth these lab boxes are running DRI, though, is a different matter - it's known to be very much a beta system, and likely to cause this kind of thing. Don't Do That Then(tm), Mr. Admin.
himi
My very own DeCSS mirror.
I haven't tried yet to see if you can't ssh into the box
Although that f**ks over all the other users that happen to be sshed into that box at that time.
YHBT
There are powerful scripting tools available for the Windows platform.
I really hope you don't mean WSH. It's awful, completely awful. Steering clear of personal preference, it does not compare to a UNIX shell script at all, for the simple fact it doesn't have full control over the system...there are too many aspects of Windows that are completely graphical, thus needed to be hacked around instead of just done. Windows may have some advantages, but their attempts at allowing decent administration on the server-level are as completely lame as Gnome shipping with a "Redmond" theme.
>2. O'Reilly did a survey and more new Mac users
>were coming from the Linux camp than anywhere
>else. From what I've seen of Apple's sales figures
>(latest 10-Q) sales are much too high to be the
>same old Mac users, the new ones are coming from
>somewhere.
So are you just parroting something you heard, or are you deluded enough to think that the "survey" you're refrencing is actually a valid metric of who's migrating from what?
The "survey" consisted of a post to a mailing list, and got only 15 responses.
Matt
>Linux really isn't that great compared to other
>Unices. It is the media darling, partly because
>it fits the "built in someone's garage" cliche.
>It really is an alternative to Windows, and not
>Unix systems.
It depends on what Unix systems you're refering to. Will it replace a 64 processor machine from HP or Sun? No. Will it replace dual processor machines from the same companies? Almost definitely.
In fact, depending on what hardware you're talking about, Linux is a BETTER alternative to traditional Unixes on the low end because it has lower overhead. For example, process creation, syacalls, and context switches are signifigantly (read: as much as 10 times) more expensive on Solaris than on Linux.
>My personal opinion as to why... It has always
>just been something cool to hack away at. Very
>little work has been done to get security and
>stability overall. As an example, take the
>filesystem, EXT2.
Funny how the kernel developers seem to talk about security and stability a whole lot on the mailing lists. Please provide some evidence to back this up.
>Linux rarely gets used on big iron. The only time
>you'll hear about some fast set of machines is in
>something like a cluster, for
>non-mission-critical applications. Even IBM, the
>diehard supporters of Linux, will openly admits
>that it just can't compete with AIX.
And you know what? The majority of servers AREN'T big iron. If you look at the BSDs, Unixware, or Openserver, they're not running on big iron either.
As for only hearing about Linux on fast machines in clusters for "non-mission-critical" applications, I have direct experience to the contrary. I work at a company that bases its entire company (including the services we offer our customers) on Linux, with the exclusion of a handful of Sun machines. The company my brother works at runs their entire network infrastructure (mail, web, nis, nfs, firewalls, routers, vpn tunnels) on Linux.
>Anyone who has used Linux for more than a week >has had an Ext2 filesystem get corrupted. While I
>realize that there are other filesystems now, and
>that example is out-dated, I haven't used Linux
>extensively for a while, so any examples I give >will be outdated.
I've been using Linux for over 7 years without experiencing filesystem corruption that wasn't recoverable with fsck. And this includes managing upwards of two terabytes of data.
Most of the people I hear who claim this are either parroting what they've heard elsewhere, or base their claim that ext2 is prone to corruption on its use of writing metadata async, unlike e.g. ffs. First off, this is only a problem if you've had an unclean shutdown. And second, e2fsck is a fantastic program. I've never had it fail recovery.
And yes, your experience is seriously outdated. Ext3 can journal just metadata, or metadata AND data, which is actually MORE robust than most commercial offerings.
>More than that there are consistency problems. So
>much work is going into adding new features as
>quickly as possible, that stability, consistency,
>and ease of use just goes out the window.
The stable branches of the kernel (2.0, 2.2, 2.4) get only bug fixes and new drivers, NOT new features.
>Compiling a new kernel should be a simple process
>(and one that should be unessecary) but instead
>gives you tons of kernel modules that are
>unuseable.
What makes you think its commonly necessary? In almost three years I've run a total of four kernels - started on 2.2, did an upgrade to fix an Intel driver issue (stupid MII lockups), moved to 2.4, did an upgrade to fix an obscure SG driver bug.
If you're using a distribution, upgrading a kernel can be as simple as a single command (rpm -Uvh). Even if you're building from scratch, you can "make oldconfig" to avoid having to deal with menu options.
As for unusable modules, they don't show up by default. You need to explicitely choose to see experimental features.
>Linux development just has the Windows'
>attitude... Not a Unix attitude. I can't speak
>for anyone else (although it statistically looks
>like I do) but I don't think Linux has a chance
>against stable, secure, consistent,
>high-performance systems. I just think of it as a
>geek toy... Like a Dreamcast
Odd how I can use a "geek toy" to provide e-mail for literally thousands of domains and millions of users.
And what exactly is "the Windows' development attitude"?
Matt
Well, either you're lying, or you are having the most marvelous run of good luck that I have ever even heard of!
Well, first of all, Linux still isn't as smart as the BSDs. For Linux to know what CPU performance enhancements to use, you do have to recompile the kernel.
It was a Mandrake 8.3 (IIRC) box that I recently had to recompile a kernel for. The system was reporting the correct module for the NIC, but an entirely different one was in
My experience with the Mandrake 8.3 system was a good one. It brought back my bad old days, and made me remember why I quit Linux oh so long ago. It also told me, despite hearing people like yourself, that absolutely nothing has changed in the Linux world in the past couple years.
Ah, the slashdot philosophy! If you don't like what someone has to say, call them a troll so you don't have to get into a legitimate argument with them.
I haven't gotten to (and stayed at) +50 karma from being a troll.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Hence running nothing but a name server on an expensive machine is a questionable business decision.
With decent network card/s a home linux server would make a reasonable name server for most companies - however it makes a lot more sense to have it on an existing machine that has a good reason to have an external IP address for another service.And I've been in these arguments a lot. And although there are maybe four or five Linux users out there who use it for purely technical or monetary reasons, everyone else I have talked to tends to wrap a nice tortilla of dogma around a meaty rational filling (or the other way around).
Just 'cos it's true doesn't mean it can't be a dogma.