Slashdot Mirror
A Continued Look at Linux vs Windows
Rogier van Vlissingen writes to tell us Paul Murphy has an interesting writeup on his blog about the continued Linux versus Windows debate with regards to some of the recent insights provided by various groups. From the article: "Disinformation comes in three major forms: innocent mistakes, intentional disinformation (aka FUD), and (self) delusion. Delusions are easily the most dangerous of these. In the IT context the most common delusion is simply that what we know is right in general or applicable to some specific issue when, in reality, it isn't. We know, and we act accordingly - with frequently catastrophic results."
More Windows vs Linux stuff.
Can't get enough.
Honestly.
Since when do blogs represent news? While blogs are interesting to read, they are by no means a good news source. Please stop allowing blogs as news sources. They are usually biased and the writers are normally amateurs spouting incompetent opinions. This person may be acclimated to the information pursuant to a linux vs. windows debate, but his blog should not allowed in this site as news. Additionally, I am getting tired of reading about this debate. If I want an opinion on windows or linux I will damn well use them both and figure out which one I prefer.
who is paul murphy and why the fuck do I care what some blogger has to say? /. has gone from a blog reporting on news to a blog reporting on blogs. Why bother?
This kind of stuff is always an oversimplification. We are going to see these things forever. For instance the very nature of this discussion is already ignoring FreeBSD, Mac OS X, etc. and thats before they even get into their arguments about why linux is better then windows.
How do you compare Linux to Windows when there are hundreds of different linux distros that do things differently as well. It seems that the authors of these comparisons don't truly understand that this question can't be answered. Yet we will continiously see articles pop up that says one is better then the other and of course it will sway one way or the other depending on which OS the person who did the study is partial towards.
It seems more and more like the comparisons turn from honest analysis to biased back and forth dribble. I feel as though if geeks ruled the world - this man would be Bill O'Reilly, calling for the "end of times!?" of an operating system at this point is way to soothsayer-ish for me. Neither is going to fall over and collapse. Steady growth for linux means increased developer support (more people, more geeks) and that bodes well for longevity. Give it time my padawan learner.
suck my ping!
if he made a blog entry, the comments should go to his blog, not here. please post in zdnet.
"Innocent mistakes" is misinformation.
"Delusion" is not even information at all -- more like rejecting information from others with a different point of view.
Only "FUD" is disinformation.
Lets count the differences outlined in the article:
:). Linux wins this one.
1. apply security and recommended patches on a simulated monthly release basis;
Is there anything out there equivalent to windows update? Windows wins this one
2. upgrade the e-commerce application with new functionality at the end of each simulated quarter (i.e. change it to meet changing business requirements); and,
This shouldn't be discussed under 'linux vs windows', this is more the case of 'linux software vs windows software'
3. upgrade the core OS from SuSe 8.0 to 9.0 and from Windows 2000 server to Windows 2003/XP server at the end of the simulated year.
This would be the comparison of genkernel and the rest of the beasts in the pack with "Files and Settings transfer wiZZard"
Seems to me that the whole article boils down to 1:1
Ask them , dont dictate what U tink is right
d =238419020
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LinuxWishlist/?ygui
When I read the SI study, I was *horrified.* The paper was uninformative, the methodology was flawed, and the analysis was unsupported.
My favorite quote though from the article is this:
This is absolutely correct. Treat Linux as if it were Windows, or vice versa, and you are asking for real pain.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
As long we're making arbitrary, over simplified judgements about which OS is supperior, why not base our decisions on their mascots? I think the SuSe iguana wins hands down. Linux 1, Windows 0
It makes real cupcakes, with a 40 watt bulb, and there's icing packets....but the secret ingredient is love.
yes. it's call up2date. duh.
Or YUM or YAST. Depending on your distro.
Let's also point out that most major Linux distros have faster patch cycles rather than a month (or two or three or more in Windows case)
Score another point for Linux. And at the buzzer it's Linux 3, Windows 0.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
...is more poorly constructed than the study's own synopsis (which was woefully lacking the clarity of the 10 answered questions earlier today on slashdot.)
:)].)
Read, most amusingly, the blogger's attempt to repudiate the study based upon patching. LOL.
The basic problem with any study like this is that Linux and Windows admins approach things differently. *nix setups tend to spread the workload an application stack across multiple machines and Windows admins tend to load the entire stack on one or two machines. A study tends to try and mimic one or the other (Windows focused ones pick the 'all on one' stack approach, the *nix ones [depending upon what the scenario is] tend be less monolithic on the hardware level [oooh, flexibility
Loading...
You're reading a Slashdot article...about a blog...which is criticizing a report...which is pretty obviously another paid-for-study.
Gah.
That's so many orders of removal away from meaningful content that it's amazing.
Plus, the argument is about the technical merits of Linux versus Windows. You know, I like Linux. I think that it's a pretty nifty system. But, I have to be honest. I think that the technical merits of Linux comprise a pretty small chunk of the real-world benefits it has over Windows.
I think that the biggest reason that I'd rather have a Linux box running something is just that the cluefulness factor of Linux folk tends to be significantly higher. Thus, the chance that the guy writing the software and adminning the machine actually knows what he's doing is significantly better. I know a couple of Windows hackers that I'd call competent, and one that's really good, but of all the Linux hackers I know, I can't think of even one that really doesn't know what he's doing, and most of them are extremely good. It's not that the Penguin is the end-all be-all, it's that his adherents are damn knowledgeable.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
it's like windows update, except it doesn't take seven years to release security updates.
Cause, like AC, I don't know who this guy is, and I don't give a fuck what he thinks. Give me a reason to think that what he's saying is worth anything, or find some actual news to post.
I can't decide if Slashdot sucks more than it used to, or if I always sucked and I'm just forgetful about how much.
that MS is first and formost a marketing company where its second place position is heald by the legal department which also partakes in chess (the idea of sacrificing your own to obtain an advantage worth more then teh sacrifice). Third place at MS is not even innovation but rather imitation or buyout ...
When you understanding this, you understand MS. To understand MS you know that what was once something ignored by MS, then laughed at by MS and then lied about by MS.... there is something of history in teh direction of open source software.
To compare Windows to Linux is like comparing carrots to meat and potatos....
I was gunna mod this something bad, but then I thought, if slashdot is gunna spam me with these crappy articles, people should make the most of it and spam with crappy offers.
How much more can we beat this dead horse over Windows vs. Linux? I mean its probably beaten so much the chances that one would be able to put linux on it is now impossible. How sad.
My production systems have been running Redhat 9 for years with PHP & Perl for ecommerce, Postfix, bind, etc. It "just works", no need for security updates, no need to pay the Microsoft upgrade tax.
If the vast majority of (low wage) administrators are trained and have experience in, and solely in, the "Windows way," I'm not sure that allowing the Linux admins to use the "Unix way" would have been realistic. Yes, they could do it, and do a better job using the "Unix way," but that might make the study less useful and less accurately predictive given the shortage of people adequately trained in the "Unix way."
Also (and this is an honest question, I have no idea what the answer is), is the truly the "Unix way" to "duplicate your production environment on the sysadmin's workstation and debug any processes to be applied to production there before proceeding?" Is that even possible?
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
I am a paid Linux consultand/admin. If I would have read what they wanted me to do... I would have said no. Methodology in supporting a linux server is all wrong. Still one admin mangaged to pull it off. He probably didnt fully follow there rules.
I've mangaged to live update a server with Fedora core 1 all the way through each core release till 4 and kept it live and running.
security updates? 'yum check-update' 'yum upgrade $X'
If you run Linux like Windows, expect Linux to have the problems of Windows too.
Oh please please /. stop posting opinions as news. Especially when it comes to this topic. /. should be a news filter, not a metablog.
Slashdot posts opinions quite frequently - insightful opinion, and intepretations of facts, can make for some informative, lively conversations. Unfortunately I don't think the linked "blog entry" (the fact that it's a "blog entry" is entirely irrelevant - it's a web page with some content) is insightful or offering any valuable interpretation of the facts.
...Goofus and Gallant!
Goofus would rather turn on his computer and be a corporate tool for Microsoft without giving a second thought to how much richer the world would be, intellectually speaking, if everyone spent a little more time actually learning how computers worked instead of learning MS specific pointy clickety stuff.
Gallant spends time learning about how to utilize the resources in his PC as efficiently as possible, sharing his knowledge with anyone who will listen and helping people to help themselved by using Linux as the primary operating system and open source applications for true productivity.
Goofus doesn't care how much bandwidth he uses while downloading internet pr0n with his insecure P2P client that has trojaned his system and turned his system into a spam bot while at the same time complaining about how slow his system is because it's over six months old.
Gallant is a polite internet citizen. "Wow. This ISO download of Fedora Core 5 is going to take me good long time to download. I've got 25 meg down available right now, but my neighbors on the cable system might need to download some things too. So I'll lower my downstream during daytime hours to half a meg and only go up to 2 megs between 2:00AM and 4:00AM".
Goofus thinks that pirating software is cool because it saves him money that he can use to fill the tank on his gas hog SUV. "Haw haw!! Adobe thinks that we're all suckers who will pay them what they ask for their crap program! I'll show them! I'm gonna fire up Kazaa and get it for free! I'm a revolutionary who's stickin' it to the man"!
Gallant respects software licensing: "No Jim Bob. You see, even though I no longer use Windows, I am well aware of Microsoft's licensing requirements and you can't just take that copy of Windows and install it again on your cousin's PC because it's a license violation. If your cousin wants Windows XP Pro, he's going to have to buy the legitimate upgrade copy from a valid retailer".
Goofus doesn't care about other people's property or privacy: "Hey... looks like that hot neighbor Jolene's PC is accessible in Network Neighborhood. Well, well, well... Let's have a looksee at what's ono her hard drive. Oooohhh... C:\Private\JPEGs\XXX\Me, Branden and Rand Partying. That looks like a keeper"!
Gallant warns his neighbors that their machines might be insecure: "Sorry to bother you Jenna, but I noticed that your computer is readily accesible to anyone else in the apartment complex. If you want I can show you how to make it secure". Jenna: "Why thanks Gallant! I'd like that. By the way, if you'd like I could make us something for dinner when you come over. It's the least I could do". Gallant scores.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Yes it is possible under many circumstances.... Your desktop has to fit close to the hard drive, memory, and processor requirements. If your database takes up a gig of ram, dont expect it to work good on a desktop with 256MB.
I copy the linux install from the server computer to the desktop computer and enable it to boot and setup the directories correctly. After that its as simple as compiling/installing the new software and running it. Load testing and border conditions are the hardest to test. After that I copy the install packages (normally rpms in my case) to the server and install them under low usage times.
Is there something like 'strace' for windows?, I have fixed problems countless times with that in Linux.
Well in our case, we have a full fledged QA environment that mirrors our production environment except for the number of app servers. It's even hosted in our datacenter to mimic connectivity.
We even restore a copy of our production database before each major release to the QA box.
Interestingly enough, we do the same thing for our few Windows servers (Navision for instance. Just did an upgrade over the weekend).
I can't understand who would apply patches to a live system without a qa run first. The other thing that bugs me is that they didn't use the same application stack across the board. A better test would have been something like WebSphere or tomcat talking to a DB2 or Oracle database. Those products would have been better tests.
The other thing that bugs me is that they did a major OS upgrade for some vendor binary. Would the same vendor binary have required a 200 to 2003 upgrade?
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
Linux gives us freedom to innovate, Windows limits us too much. I choose freedom.
Software freedom...I love it!
The best performing enterprises do NOT compare themselves with others; they just keep asking the question "how can we be better?". The process of comparison is a waste of energy and an exercise in futility. Put that energy to use building the most amazing system ever created and the customers will be bashing down the door. "Build it and they will come."
I don't make predictions, and I never will.
WoW! do you know how to install postgreSQL on a production ready Windows 2003 server? Do you know where the documentation is and how to update it?
And if you do does this have anything to do with the 10+ years you've been running it as your home machine and not running linux?
For the love of god don't blaim your own incompetence on an OS.
Seen this one so many times I'm not even going to read it. Here is what it says:
Most people use windows, and are ignorant.
Linux used to be rough, but is growing fast.
Linux is better than Windows in 4 of 5 ways (take your pick).
People should use Linux.
It is now Linux's time to shine, in fact, 112% of computer users will switch to Linuxin the next 4 hour.
Saved you 15 minutes.
Go ahead, mark me a flamebait, but even I (I use OSS software and OS all the time) get tired of these repetitive and incredibly biased compairisons.
Typical slashdot-prejudice. "So it's a blog. Well that automatically means it's full of crap about the writers mood and sexual activities and his/hers dogs daily life. Oh and I didn't bother to RTFA, because I have this 5-Insightful-O-Matic which helps me to write witty and cynical remarks and get respect."
Google Search
Doesnt look like a very non-bias opinion if you ask me ..
Sure there are billions of blogs that are basically worthless. But there are also blogs that are doing real reporting, that are good sources of info.
Yes blogs are more biased. But they wear their bias openly on their sleeve. I greatly prefer that to a writer that pretends (even to him/herself) that they have no bias and writes what they think is "Objective" but always has a slant. I can read a right-wing blog and know where they are comign from. I can read a left-wing blog and knw where thety are coming from. If you range widley you can get a pretty good picture of what is going on, and a lot of interesting stories that the real media just pass right by or else make light notice of.
Furthermore blogs are often more accurate because they are (if the blog has a decent reader-base) correctly quickly. I've been involved with a few stories that have gone in the paper over the years and EVERY one of them had major facts wrong. Those are the ones I know about, how am I supposed to think that newspapers or other media get the other facts right as well?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Fedora has a new yum based tool called pup (the joke being that it's a python program->pup.py). It does not have a notification icon (yet). It shows far less info then up2date and does not allow you to select repositories, supposedly to make it more suitable for endusers. Experienced users may prefer up2date (or running yum from the cli) but considering its purpose its a nice tool for people who just want to get regular updates installed without a hassle.
This is an extremely well thought out response to the facts presented by the report. Hmm wish people would learn to not think of Linux as they do Windows...
After all, it is a time-honored Slashdot tradition to pundit the pundits.
...as a blog post, the article is worthless. As a blog comment, your thoughts are worthwhile.
Sure, you can analyze Linux vs. Windows over and over again, but what really matters in the end? Being a programmer myself, I would have to say a decent API is the most important. As far as being client systems, neither is too bad, it's when you run into servers that you hit glitches.
I'm not saying the Linux API is terrible, but it certainly is lacking to the point I would almost rather run a server on Windows over Linux, because Linux adheres to the POSIX standard, preventing it to grow like Windows (or BSD) has. Just look at network (and disk) I/O models. Windows has Overlapped I/O w/ Completion Ports (the equivalent of BSD's kqueue), and Linux has....oh that's right, you're stuck with select (ugh). Of course, the real sin is not many people take advantage of them even when they have the chance. Oh well...
I used to have your mindset. I stopped using windows as my primary OS around 2001, and worked exclusively with Linux and Solaris.
I now do some Windows development again, and have an XP Laptop and I have to admit i'm very impressed. It's stable, fast, easy to use and with a few GPL tools installed I'm pretty happy. Visual Studio.NET is a pretty decent tool and is catching up to eclipse and netbeans.
OTOH I can't stand windows servers. SQL Server is a nightmare, they aren't easy to administer remotely and scriptability is pretty lacking. They have a place in small companies without a full time IT guy, but that's about it.
Windows has it's place, and for now that place is bigger than the place that linux has. I'm certain in time Linux will take over, but it wont happen this year or next.
I see the same problem when dealing with students who come from a Solaris or Linux background -- usually they get tripped up in IP address configuration, which is very different on Mac OS X than it is on a standard Unix system. The Mac OS X way is much more dynamic and self-configuring, but this means that essentially ifconfig(8) is only useful in a read-only mode and cannot be used to write changes.
My respect for Paul Murphy is only increasing.
--Paul
...as you are not fully informed on certain points:
...LINUX (at least OpenSuSE) wins THIS one...
:). Linux wins this one.
Is there anything out there equivalent to windows update? Windows wins this one
You are totally mistaken. I run OpenSuSE and the equivalent to Windows Update is called YOU (YaST Online Updater). I have it configured to be fully automated--it installs all critical updates on a weekly basis without my intervention (YaST sets up the cron job for you through a very simple interface--it can be done daily weekly or monthly).
YOU is superior to Windows Update because it can be used to update ALL the software in all the repositories you have selected to check. Unlike the inferior Windows Update, you have greater control and visibility of WHERE you wish to obtain your updates and WHEN you want them to happen...you could theoretically connect to properly configured repositories of third-party software packages to update via YOU. In Windows, the updater is a too-closed system...it is unable to update anything but the OS and related components.
This shouldn't be discussed under 'linux vs windows', this is more the case of 'linux software vs windows software'
I agree with you there--and the study in question really used flawed criteria in selecting software--one I call the "pointy-haired-boss methodology": select based on false, marketing-oriented metrics and buzzwords like "best of breed" and "market share leader" rather than on sound technical criteria. Furthermore the study authors dictated poor practices must be done in deploying the software--ie. you must do it "the windows way". No staging on a test system? No virtualisation? No proper testing before promotion to production? Just because Windows people don't to these things (or it is "cutting edge" for them) doesn't mean Linux shouldn't be hobbled with bad applications and admin practices. Besides, one admin DID get the dogs-breakfast working by doing something Windows admins rarely have the ability to do: he custom compiled modules to make it work.
I'd say that with the more mature, powerful and flexible options available on an open system that Linux wins here too...
This would be the comparison of genkernel and the rest of the beasts in the pack with "Files and Settings transfer wiZZard"
Agreed. Also, don't even mention the headaches of changing HARDWARE on a Windows system--like when the capacitors blow on your mobo and the replacement is a revision B with a different onboard IDE/ATA chipset (all other things being equal)....wonderful BSOD-land and journey through the emergency repair console and emergency repair disks. You'd figure that if Windows got far enough to boot, load the startup screen and the first few drivers it wouldn't forget how to use the hard disk controller 1/2 way through the startup process. I've found that with Linux, if the HD boots then you can count on Linux getting to the login prompt much more reliably than with Windows.
I have a Linux web server, which has been running Debian 3.0 for over a year. (I haven't rebooted it.) I never applied a single patch. I know the kernel has the mmap vulnerability, but I didn't feel like rebooting the system and I know I'm not going to get hacked just because of that. Seriously where did they come up with 187 patches? I've skimmed the Debian security alerts and it's plainly obvious that 90% of them don't affect any of the software on my server.
Linux security is not that bad. I put this system online in July 2004 and never patched it and it didn't get cracked. Sure I was lazy... there were some things I should have done, but they weren't high-risk so I didn't. But people act like when a Windows vulnerability comes out, if you don't patch it the same day then you're fucked.
I thought this was a Linux v Windows type of thing - So what does Apple have to do with anything?
Mired in Zealand? Isn't that Naw'leans's problem now? See, if they had just switched to Linux the city wouldn't have flooded!
> Disinformation comes in three major forms:
> innocent mistakes, intentional disinformation
> (aka FUD), and (self) delusion.
It has been a long time since I identified
this guy's activities exactly in the form
he does himself now, in the delusion he is
speaking of somebody else.
Disregarding his fellows fudders and a few
naive souls what are Slashdot recurring
stories on this despicable character
good for? Please, Editors, wake up or
at least tell us what your motives are
in this context.
I'm no MS fanboy, but i'm not going to let that crap stand.
.... well, it's... one of those things that almost makes you miss Windows when you're on a *nix box.
up2date is not comparable to Windows Update. Windows Update seems to actually work, where up2date breaks itself because it's a piece
I wonder how much testing Microsoft does with the updates before they distribute them, because I don't think the people behind up2date are testing things worth shit.
You can mod me to hell if you wish, but that won't change the fact that up2date has a long way to go.
Paul Murphy is a Sun fanboy, who swears that sun-ray thin clients are the right solution to every corporate computing problem. He is famous for posting huge blanket assumptions, like "Given the fact that Windows allways crashes, and linux/solaris never ever do....." and "Given the fact that linux allways provides a lower TCO over Windows...".
He is also famous for not replying only to comments that agree with him, and completely ignoring comments that point out his bias, and/or point out when he is flat out wrong.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051117-5590 .html
excerpt:
"As one might expect, the Linux system did not even come close to stacking up to Windows Server. The "granularity and high modularity of Linux" led each administrator down a different path when issues occurred due to the ambiguity of the problem. The Linux administrators were also portrayed as being confused when updates needed to be found, and at one point, a system was rendered useless by a GLIBC upgrade that went awry. On a positive note, once the SUSE server was upgraded to version 9, everything went back to a state of normal operation.
Overall, the study displays Microsoft as king of the server hill. The 49-page study (which I managed to read in its entirety), although claiming to be unbiased, reads like a huge piece of Microsoft propaganda. The Linux administrators were portrayed as lab monkeys at certain points, whereas the Microsoft administrators came off as drones that just went out to Windows Update for all their system needs. It's very difficult to read this study without believing that an obvious bias was in place."
while i'll take up2date over WU anyday, and have had linux doing 90% of server room work since 1997... i will say that its not perfect.
recently --every-- rackspace on linux customer i know, including ourselves, got hit with an up2date deployment bug which totally hosed the distribution (everything from java on down was segfaulting) in the default configuration. whether you label it a redhat or a rackspace problem, its a problem with the technology as its currently implemented. asdly, rackspace actually denied the problem at first.
more fundamentally, tools such as WU and up2date aren't all that useful unless they can keep from hosing your system. i'd be happy if at the very least it put the developers of the code in question (and its dependencies) in closer proximity to my business. ideally my phone would ring not when there IS an update (yawn), but when there is some issue which i should be aware of with the deployment, and even present me with a discussion of my options.
the closest thing i've found to this is the debian system, which i use semi-religiously... i do violate it sometimes when the software i want to use (or rather its development team) is having some friction with the package maintainers. still, the intricate details of the system are available in public information forums and --I-- get to choose how to navigate those waters.
so yeah, in worst-first order:
-- run windows/windows update
-- do nothing and pray
-- run redhat/up2date
-- run debian and just get the emails, update accordingly
-- run debian, and deviate from in where necessary, with close proximity to the actual engineers of the tools involved
LWN.net has more comments on their link to the original report (http://lwn.net/Articles/160247/#Comments).
Look, no reason to debate. Microsoft wants their money and market share. What works for you may not work for me, no reason to yell at each other. Linux, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, UNIX, Solaris, HP-UX, Windows, MacOS, whatever, if it works for you it works for you if it doesn't it doesn't.
Linux is now going through what Mac OS has been going through for years:
People --including well-educated techies-- have misconceptions based upon things that happened in the past and keep those in mind for ever. For instance: about the Mac people still say "it's got weird connectors and you cannot exchange files with Windows". About Linux the same thing, people still say "you have to compile and tweak everything yourself before it works" and "no software available" for both.
Now... articles such as TFA are NEVER going to take those prejudices away. They're just plain zealotry that focuses on the wrong things. Please stop "proving" that OS A is better than OS B by comparing them. Try and focus on taking away those old misconceptions that are in people's heads.
Oh, where to begin...
The post wasn't a "news" story.
Slashdot itself is a blog of sorts.
Why can't a blog be a news source?
Do you expect slashdot to adhere to New York Times or the ABC Nightly News level of journalism (whatever your opinion of that is)?
What's wrong with someone posting their opinion on their own personal website?
And last, this story is quite normal for Slashdot. If you don't think this is an appropriate story, then quite clearly slashdot is not the site for you. Either learn to customize the main page, or go away. You're not going to change slashdot, and staying around will just lead to frustration on your part, and annoyance on ours.
The only Linux administrator who was successful in meeting all requirements installed components and component versions that were not directly supported by the vendor (and in some cases custom compiled) that effectively put his system into an unsupported configuration.
This only proves one thing, really: That SuSE sucks. Dependency problems you say? Ever heard of APT?!?!!
Not exactly good news for Linux is it?
Should have been: Not exactly good news for SuSE is it?
The part of this study calling the success of the Linux admin "unsupported" is ridiculous. It is supported, by the Linux admin and any other nix admin worth their salt. Almost every time I've had to call for support on Win and WinApps and yes even Linux, their first suggestion is the ever popular - uninstall & reinstall. Maybe the companies should hire real admins who know what their doing instead of installation jockeys who know how to use a touch tone phone. If I'm the admin of a system, all support stops with me. If I really need to call someone else in to fix MY system, I"m no longer an admin but just an operator.
l " distro of linux as opposed to something more generic and stable(the whole techie reason for linux) like gentoo? I was a staunch SuSE supporter until it started suffering from emessitis:).
On the use of SuSE......Why would you use the "use-to-be-great-but-now-has-been-ruined-by-novel
And finally my reason for linux versus windows------Applications Shouldn't Change the O/S or cause it's demise, hence different terminology "Applications" and "operating system". Windows O/S and also windows apps do way too much undocumented behind the scenes things that can go wrong. Perhaps it is not so much a problem with windows and win apps as much as it is the fault of their not fully-documenting exactly what different things(dll's, ini-files, registry entries, etc..) are, where they're installed. This info is so poorly lacking in the win environment that many times a marginally knowledgeable person knows more about a product than the people you call for support. Anyway...I digress.
--
L8R,
guitardood
For whoever cares: I've been programming(low-level machine code through current high-level langs) & administrating multiple systems on various O/S's for the last 20 years.
-- L8R, guitardood
The SUSE mascot is a chameleon, not an iguana.
And you still can't spell administering?
Live updates themselves are a stupid and outdated concept. They come from an era of mainframe computing when people didn't have any better alternatives.
If you need to have (close to) 100% uptime, you need failover capability anyway, and in that case, you update one system while the other one keeps running.
However, in most cases, shutting down a system briefly for updates is OK--just about everybody does it. Just make sure to test your updates thoroughly before you install them.
I don't see a "debate" that is continuing. What I see is a multi-billion dollar ad campaign trying to discredit an operating system that is clearly successful, secure, and widely used.
And the motivation is simple: by free market principles, Windows is way too expensive: it's mature technology (in the sense of having been around a long time, not in the sense of working well), there ought to be competitors, and the profit on it should be nearly zero. Instead, Microsoft has managed to keep raking in large profits through monopolistic practices. Linux is the only competitor that has managed to break through Microsoft's monopolistic practices, so it is in Microsoft's crosshairs.
So, move along, there is no "debate" here, only FUD and peoeple from Rent-an-Expert.
how do you really count number of patches? microsoft sometimes combine multiple vulnerabilities into 1 patch. so, naturally, microsoft patches tend to be fewer than linux ones.
Who even cares about this Windows vs Linux stuff anymore? I feel reminded of the sex advice that is an evergreen in all the women's and men's journals. They run the same story three times every week, yet people just can't get enough of it.
On the use of SuSE......Why would you use the "use-to-be-great-but-now-has-been-ruined-by-novell " distro of linux as opposed to something more generic and stable(the whole techie reason for linux) like gentoo? I was a staunch SuSE supporter until it started suffering from emessitis:).
Uhm, because SUSE is supported by Novell? Instead of having to call Joe-Nerd and be told to compile on a server for three hours. Besides, gentoos ebuilds are not well-tested, tend to have severe bugs, and I found it generally unstable. Issues I haven't had with SUSE, Debian, Ubuntu or RedHat.
-- Linux user #369862
No, it is not one of those stallmanian rhetoric about Linux being the kernel, but Linux is still only the kernel.
It is impossible to compare Linux to Windows because they are not the same thing!
Windows is a Windows distribution, and the only one, except if you argue that XP Home, XP Pro and 2k(3) are different enough to be considered different distributions but I don't.
Linux is a general term used to described thousands of distributions.
In a sense you could compare Windows XP Pro (just to be clear) to RedHat EL4 WS, Windows XP Home to Ubuntu 5.10 or Fedora Core 4, and the server version to server version of different distribution, because at the end of the day, in the real world, people do not build their Linux from scratch, even if they could (and this is THE point of OSS).
It is not fair for Windows, and I'm not particularly pro-Microsoft, to compare it to LINUX as a whole. When you will be able to take ALL software from one distro to another without any change, yes you will be able to. Now I'm not saying this is what has to happen, because I think people are fine with choice, but for the sake of comparaison, Windows need to be compared to A Linux distribution like Linux distribution are compared to each other, it is not about the kernel, it is about everything arround.
It might be sad for some idealist, but look at commercial OS, Windows XP and Mac OS, 95% of the time, you will download an app, any app, install it and it will just work, this is this level of usability before all the eye candy that people want. Now I know you can't expect Linux apps developper to produce ready to use package all the time, considering the mess it is out there, but something has to be done, static binary might be the way - who cares about space when you have convenience and a 80 GB drive - some kind of BETTER standardization might be another, leave the package management to those who want it, leave the source for the geeks.
Real people want what is supposed to be an operating system, a system that make the link between the machine and the apps, and yes you can call it a appliance if you want, some people do not really care about tinkering if their machine works with the apps they want. Put some standardization on document format, so everybody can access information, and leave the do it yourself computing to those who want it. How many people use a car, how many people can or want to fix it or build their own? How many people use a TV, how many can or want to fix it or build their own? How many people use a computer? How many people can or want to fix it or build their own?
Because geeks thinks that computer are easy to tinker with does't mean that people want to tinker with theirs!
While the fact that windows updates are enabled by default in the windows gui might appeal to a lot of people -- it turned out to be a very unpleasant experience for a lot of users when service pack 2 for xp was released.
This is why, even with the comprehensive configuration management in Debian, if you install cron-apt it will only download updates by default, not install them.
It *will* email you a notice that updates are ready to install, however. It *can* be configured to install updates, perhaps ignoring kernel-updates until you run upgrade manually.
Now, the fact that users have grown accustomed to inferior interfaces (ie html vs native gui) and inferior protocols (rss/http vs news/mail) shouldn't be blamed on GNU or Unix/BSD.
The only reason anyone would see a local console-only gui hint as superior to email notification must be because they're not used to getting email from their workstation. Because if the machine is networked it'll need those updates even if you don't happen to log in.
Oh, and finally, if I wasn't clear: "allowing Automatic Updates to do it all without any intervention at all" isn't very helpful if those updates are likely to break your remote console and every remote service you have installed -- the way SP2 did, until you could reconfigure the firewall. Or the way the GDI-tool forced an admin to log in during reboot, or the machine would hang.
And apt-get/yum is easier than using windows update, because it'll fix all your supported software; your chioce of sql server, your choice of web server, your office suite, your editor, your downloader, your browser, your chat client(s) etc -- this is ofcourse the major advantage to using a GNU/Linux or BSD-distribution -- the range of supported software is vast.
You seem to be suffering under the misapprehension that there is a fundamental difference between news and opinion. If there is, it is only of degree.
No but, yeah but, no but...
Why on earth would someone have a system administrator add functionality like personalization and such to an application and 1) expect it to work at all, and 2) claim any relevance to the underlying operating system at all?
I have _never_ had any problem with a x86 (not ~x86, the unstable tree) ebuild. That, of course, does not prove that no problem ever existed. Don't use Gentoo anymore, though. Switched to Arch. (Almost) same flexibility, less compiling.
Applying updates directly on production ?! This should not be done on whatever OS. It's not the "Windows way", it's the "stupid way". That said, even under the hypothesis that the argument is not flawed then doing things the proper way would have taken too much time, leading Linux to a greater TCO anyway. What's missing from the entry is the only meaningful study : that there is no absolute best operative system, and every single case is a different story which should be deeply analyzed by itself.
I've been an IT administrator in a company that was funded by Microsoft. We were actualy given briefings quarterly showing 'studies' that prooved that Windows was better. Kind of like what McDonald's restaurants started doing after the movie 'Supersize me' blew their cover. They 'proved' to their employees that the company is doing the 'right' thing. Pretty much what Microsoft does even for mere end-product affiliates.
.NET framework (or other development technologies built to target Windows Developers). Lovely Idea. However, The amount we 'can' know about .NET framework without referring to a hacker's manual, is basicaly the amount Microsoft want's us to know 'safely'. So that someday when we need a better solution, We need to go back to microsoft and pay more. It would be silly for such a big corporation to PROVIDE a versatile solution if it wants to make money. Why wont Intel overclock their CPU's and send them off with a bigger heat sink before marketing? The cost? (it would be a mere 5 dollars over the original). Would you pay 5 dollars extra (over a 3.4 Ghz) for a 3.8 Ghz machine?. I definately would. (Do not say it is unstable, almost all of my home pc's run on P4 3.4 Ghz overclocked systems at 4.01 Ghz safely, and I do most of my office work on them). Same reason, why would Bill Gates unlock all the possibilities of Windows all at once for the hackers and programmers to explore?. Why not keep them coming back for more.
I was the person in my IT department who suggested the team move to Linux, because I was sick of having to 'read' Microsoft manuals of their software when they 'launched' something new. It is true, Microsoft basicaly assumes that its 'end-user' even if its a Software engineer by training, is basicaly stupid. Explaining to the person who said 'Windows any one can run, linux is for specialists'. It does not end there.
Let's say (like in my case) I have a particular e-commerce solution to handle and I want my application and (OS) to be tailored to that solution. Let's also assume Windows DOES provide such a solution and it works great. Patches are seemless, updates are a breeze, I could deploy it with my eyes closed. Everything great so far. Let's say now though, my company starts dealing with another company that has a different e-commerce application working for them. Or my companies demands change. It wont be then a simple matter of 'upgrade' or 'download a patch to fix'. It would be a matter of making the program work for me, without having to pay thousands of dollars and relicensing new software?. Microsoft is basicaly a strictly 'product based business' NOT a solutions provider. There are alot of people who claim 'Microsoft has developed several seemless integration options' Such as the
If you are going to have a 'technical' debate on Windows vs. Linux, i'd pose this question: When you have a dual processor Xeon system for your main file servers, and you want to use all that processor power and high pipeline bandwidth 'only' to ensure data security and smooth retrieval. If there is any one who has worked on powerful machines and used both Linux and Windows would understand when I say that 'a trimmed linux distribution' can deal alot better with raw hardware pottential than Windows OS can.
Bottom line is, I switched to linux to 'free' my company from the Microsoft bond.
It is TRUE, given the 'right' set of solutions, Microsoft OS and Linux distributions BOTH perform well. In some situations Microsoft has a clear victory, in others Linux rules the day. There never can be ONE study of ONE solution to proove LINUX is better or WINDOWS is better. There can be common sense that says on the long run, I'd rather know what i'm doing so that I can build upon it. Rather than having to call teacher Bill Gates for help.
And you have very little of it with Microsoft. You do things the MS way, or you are fucked. This is not a 'delusion', stigma, FUD, or misinformation. It is a business model; a very succesful, and well marketed, business model. This is the core interest of Microsoft and the essence of Windows as a whole:
"How do we keep people from making a choice to use something else"
This is the thought process behind your Exchange server, Active Directory, Roaming Profiles, Office documents, OS patches, and Tech support. All wrapped up in a really sexy desktop.
Linux is about choice. Linux is about standards. Linux is about YOU deciding what's best for YOU and then having the freedom to do it and contribute back to the whole process. That is what Linux is about.
You make the choice.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Are you suggesting that people who have articles published are more trustworthy than bloggers?
You can't have been reading many articles lately!
Respectable news sites are just as likely to display an article from a clueless, FUD-spreading desperado, just as much as a respectable writer.
I would suggest reading some from Rob Enderle or Laura DiDio, and make note of where their articles are published, then maybe you'll realize that there's little difference between articles and blog entries.
Besides, to suggest that somebody's opinon is not intelligent and worthy of notice, just because it's in a blog, is a bit silly.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
I would say it's definitely possible -- it's certainly my preferred technique. I write web apps, and I have my desktop set up with its own httpd and database servers. Once I've tested my stuff thoroughly and made sure it handles all the corner cases I can think of, then I get someone else to test it, and {if it's for the internet and not the intranet} make sure it renders in IE. It's much easier to iron out the kinks that way.
..... I never finished the dual-boot I was planning to build.
Before that, I had a friend build me a Linux based modem sharer out of an old '486. When my ISP started offering a cgi-bin directory, I installed Apache on the modem sharer and did local pre-deployment testing. It just seemed a sensible thing to do. Eventually, the Windows machines hanging off the modem sharer were replaced by Linux ones
If I find something that I think might be a useful application, I'll always build it on my desktop first, and scrutinise the messages for warnings. I don't want to risk causing segmentation faults on a running server.
When we moved over from Apache 1.3 to 2.0 {now with separate configuration files, and what I was already using on my workstation}, I ran the 2.0 server on a non-standard port for a day, and then migrated it to a second non-standard port {a non-trivial task involving editing many files, but that's what we have sed for} just to prove that changing ports worked. The interruption to HTTP service lasted a few seconds while Apache 1.3 stopped and 2.0 started; I suspect any active PHP sessions might have been killed.
I could have been even more careful and built an almost perfect replica of the target machine with exactly the same environment for testing; but we're using Debian and that does make a difference. I can trust the package maintainers that a package will just work when installed with apt-get; and things are pretty consistent even between 64-bit Sid on my workstation and 32-bit Sarge on the servers. Of course, if there's a serious version discrepancy, I can always build the Sarge version from source on my Sid box to make sure it has the necessary features.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
You've hit the nail on the head.
/usr} that all I really needed to do was reinstall the networking stack -- just extract some files from an archive and overwrite the corrupt ones. The trouble was, I didn't know where to begin looking for what files I needed to do that with! So I ended up having to reinstall all of Windows. What a waste! That's like having a whole new fitted kitchen installed, just because the sink waste pipe is blocked!
I recently had to fix a Windows machine {beancounters run some legacy app for compatibility with group HO, we've not hacked its protocols yet} that had been hit by a virus. Post-disinfection, the network hardware was undetected. I knew {from past experience with mucking up Linux boxes in various interesting ways -- let's just say, don't ever run out of space on
The thing is, I seriously doubt there are many Windows people who could tell me just what files I would have needed to replace. There are no doubt one or two gurus out there, but I'd stake money that they also know a little bit about at least one other non-Windows OS too. You could just about train a monkey to reboot a Windows machine, which is always the first line of attack and works just too often. I've seen people reboot Linux boxes and get surprised / disappointed / angry when the problem did not go away -- well, why should it? What did you change? In fact, I would say that if rebooting a poorly Windows machine is enough to cure it, then that indicates that Windows must be losing track of its own state somehow somewhere; and doing it in enough different ways never to be really sure which is the dominant one. In any case, with the Windows box, there probably would be only one service which would need restarting; if you could even do them separately, that is.
But I don't think closed-source software vendors particularly like the idea of low-level field maintenance tools. It's like electronics manufacturers who would rather have you replace a whole PCB just because one fusible resistor has gone open circuit {like it was designed to, but it costs a few pence to unsolder it, solder in a new one and see if it was caused by a real fault or just unlucky}. These people want us to have to install a whole new kitchen for a blocked pipe, and maybe they'll try and sting us extra for their fancy KlogPruf(TM) technology while they're about it. But not too clog-proof for the plumbers and the manufacturers of drain-cleaning products {evil bodges though they be} still to turn a profit on the deal, obviously.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
It's gonna be me vs anybody comparing Windows and Linux pretty soon. I'll bring my grenade launcher and vaseline.
well said that man. i have to admit; i still have a soft spot for win2k, purely because it's a tough, stable system , with a very strong core. i was a little dismayed that it took microsoft sooooo long to embrace the idea of a decent hardware abstraction layer (i don't personally think that they had perfected it in NT, but that's just my observations), but it was a well-executed piece of design. i think the main geek gripe that most weren't willing to admit (when xp came out, at least) was that there waslittle by way of new innovation between windows releases, and the crayola-sponsored desktop was just patronising. but the general populace loved it, which is its victory. when people tend to rant about windows v linux, they don't seem to remember that yes, linuxis a good operating system, but windows wins because it appeals to the lowest common denominator, i.e. 80% of the world. as to whether it's more secure/stable/hackable/tweakable/whateverable is immaterial. joe public has the buying power.
http://xkcd.com/313/
Instead of arguing all day about some fucking study, why not spend the time unifying the *nix distros, which is one of the major problems facing the OS. The reason people aren't migrating is because of the hefty amount of confusing feature-matching that has to occur going from a few "official" products to dozens and dozens of small, user-created programs. Flexibility, flexibility, I know... But c'mon, people. I don't use Linux much because I'm sick and tired of scouring through confusing, "assume-you-know-this-much" documentation and learning a hundred different text config files. There is great work being done in this department, but until the Linux community stops being nerd-centric and stops trying to re-invent the wheel with a different user interface then it stands no chance of overcoming Windows.
I like my women how I like my sugar.. granulated.
Anybody familiar with Murphy knows this. His blog entries are no more insightful than standard msft FUD, or some pro-msft rant I could read on usenet. Why this guy is treated as some sort of an insightful expert is beyond me.
I have no problem with articles bases on blog entries, or windows v linux debate; as long as it's something new and insightful.
But Paul Murphy?
Here is a blog about switching to Linux: MyLinuxStory.com
The creator of this website is switching from Windows to Linux and is blogging the experience. It's in the beginning stages now, but there are several posts already.
Uh, given that the study had an n of 6 and used only ONE linux distribution, I think we can pretty much agree that the study was not useful AT ALL and had zilch predictive possibility---unless you were using SLES and wanted to do what they wanted.
For a study purporting to tell us about the difference between monolithic and modular OS stuff, this was a serious waste of both time and money.
"Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." - H.L. Mencken
What most of these reviews dont really get is the reason why a great portion of the people use linux, It offers choice, you have the freedom to choose your desktop environment, you have the freedom to choose what you want to do today under the front screen. Its not about whats better and whats not its about providing me with a freedom that I never had with windows or MAC OS. When will a study really focus in on what its really about rather than what its not about ?..
Yesterday, when the author of the study was interviewed - I attempted to read the PDF. I could not get it with Mozilla 1.5rc3 and Acrobat reader7. From the authors comments, I had some questions about the methodology.
The Blog Commentary makes several good points about applying "The Windows Way", and configuration management. From the commentary, I can glean that the packages to run on the SUSE box were, shall we say - sub-optimal. Additionally, it appears that the Server was installed with the Kitchen Sink.
While installing the computer with the Kitchen-Sink (TM) options is a bad idea on any Server - it is often done on Windows, and rarely done on Linux. Thus, the patch list summary produced (Windows Patches Linux Patches) would seem questionable on it's face. (No, I can't spell Priema Facia.)
If the systems at download.microsoft.com could have stood up to the slashdotting yesterday, the comment probably would have been modded a 5 here. Since many of us could not get the study to read, it is nice to have it linked.
Good job guys.
I use the distribulator to handle patches on an enterprise level. I run one patch on my test box, and then push it my
database servers, application servers, cm servers, or global.
And yeah.. this is LINUX! I am the Unix systems adminstrator
at Welchs and handle over 50 servers (10 are virtualized in
VMWARE) Oracle RAC, Oracle 11.5.10, CVS, SFTP, My own custom
Linux VM that is mirrored and monitors my QA, PROD, and DEV
landscapes.
It's never enough!
- - - - - .
Parent gives some examples of The Standard Misconceptions on Linux-for-Normal-People:
a) There's not one Linux, there are so many different distro's, normal people don't know what to choose (or, the strong version: normal people don't understand the concept of a distro at all);
b) Too many different apps for every task, people get lost;
c) Dependency hell/compiling/tweaking/installing/whatever the reason may be: Linux is too technical for normal people.
Ad a) ever heard of a 'cell phone'? There's a frottilion different cell phones on the markt (with even more methods of paying for your calls), still very normal people can decide 1)they want a cell phone, and 2)choose which model they like. Same for trousers, by the way. Normal people can very easily understand that 1)Linux is a cool system for your computer, and 2)one can choose many different brands (and even try them out for free!).
Ad b) same point, actually. Any distro has a menu tree which shows normal people where to look for an application for a certain task. "Just choose the one you like" is not a very difficult message for a consumer. Consumers enjoy it.
Ad c) ever heard of 'Amazon'? Certainly a lot of normal people can handle that. In any modern distro, installing is exactly the same, it's one-click-shopping. Only the paying-part lacks. Sure consumers can handle that! All depency-troubles are not for the user, you only run into them when you want obscure software. When you reach this point, you should know how to use Google. Compare that to windows, where every installation has a different dialog, with 30-days try-out nonsense, with programs asking for your email, where you need to know how to get cracks (no, consumers will never pay for programs they use twice a year, so they need cracks), where installing apps goes one by one and asks for reboots, etcetc. Not to mention the fact that with installing a distro, most users have all they want. Windows is not a distro, since it contains almost no apps.
Comparing Linux to Windows for normal people comes down to this: Getting & using Linux is funshopping! Cheap, or even free.
One doesn't need a education in computer science to understand this concept.
Trust me, I work for the government.
It's not a study, but here's an article that talks about Windows vs. Linux. vs. FreeBSD in a datacenter situation.
Examples:
1) Build/maintain a web server that can handle 10,000 static pages a minute on a budget of $5,000.
2) Build/maintain a web server that can handle 10,000 dynamic pages a minute on a budget of $10,000.
3) Build/maintain a database server that can handle 10,000 transactions per minute on a budget of $20,000.
Then extend the maintenance of those over 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, etc. Include hardware/software upgrades.
Each team will come up with different approaches. I'm sure everyone here knows about the MindCraft "study" where a single Windows box with 4 processors and 4 NIC's was setup as a web server. But the logical approach would have been to setup 4 smaller, less expensive, boxes with better redundancy.
If I didn't read /., I'd have NO CLUE that there even was a "Windows vs Linux" debate going on.
I'm not saying this to be a wise-ass. But if Linux is ever to become something that microsoft-Hating commie geeks run, it needs to become more of a mainstream option.
Best Buy can have you arrested
I only point this out because I have learned so much from them in the past few years.
More importantly, this might prove usefull when comparing any two operating systems and be more of a descision tool than a propaganda war resolver.
*** Don't be dull.***
Financial industry newsletters?
There's a difference between Joe Schmoe's blog and Robert Cringely's, just as there's a difference between Jane Schmoe's weekly stock-pick newsletter and Forbes.
Unlike with food, the more salt you take with your consumption of any kind of public media, the lower your blood pressure will be.
We are the 198 proof..
Wikipedia achieves what objectivity it has through combining people from all sides that have none, thus contenious subjects arrive at a sort of objective middle through uneasy truce. The problem with other media is that it's normally written by just a handfull of people, in fact usually just one person.
Why is it bad to give up on objectivity as a primary goal? I find writing by someone more passionate about a subject usually much more interesting than someone who is metaphorically dancing around the elephant in the room. As long as arguments and points made are well supported, that is the thing to insist on. I would far rather have a biased article that gets facts right than anything else. With enough facts I can make up my own mind on if I think an article is correct or not.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I just demand objectivity from the news articles themselves. Of course, the selection of the news articles posted here may well be biased, everyone trying to push his own agenda. But at least the articles should be mostly impartial, instead of pure opinions.
Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
From dic[k]tionary.com:
administrate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-mn-strt)
tr.v. administrated, administrating, administrates
To administer.
-- L8R, guitardood
You missed my whole point. Being "supported" by Novell does not mean you will get your problem fixed when you call them, and more likely than not they'll have you swapping PCI cards in different slots and/or reinstalling the entire system. On top of which, in adding their "support", they also broke a bunch of stuff by adding compatibile to their pathetically irrelavant irrelevant network environment and software which seems to be held together with aluminum foil and chewing gum.
Give me Joe-Nerd anyday of the week and twice on Sundays(when by the way Novell is not available).
-- L8R, guitardood
No, there is no such thing as impartiality. All news is slanted in some way. Some news sources and journalist strive for impartiality but they can never reach it. The fact that there is someone present between you and the events introduces partiality into the news in the way that an observer introduces uncertainty in the Hesienberg uncertainty principle
No but, yeah but, no but...
You the salesperson should have offered a Redhat/Suse/Other brand mousetrap, of which one of the primary features is the reliable Linux triggering mechanism. This is the same as buying a Dell PC with an Intel processor.
And for those of us who want to customise, we get all the parts and put them together ourselves. :)
You confuse me. For there to be a debate, bias on each side is imperative. Why would Microsoft and Linux gurus work together when they enjoy their work as things are ? The real question - at least for me - is "Why debate ?" Let's all just do our own thing.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
unfortunately, i had a discussion with a techie/nerd the other day, and came to slashdot looking for "news" (which was actually a rehash of something i read yesterday)...
looks like you fuckchops are still up to the same old linux vs. windows "debate" -- doesn't it get old?
microsoft has some of the most intelligent individuals on the planet working for them, never mind the fact that they're highly compensated, work on projects full time, etc. it's amazing you guys delude yourself into believing you can seriously compete with one of the largest corporations in the world. come on guys, this whole david and goliath nonsense needs to stop. this whole linux/gnu bullshit has its place, as a hobby, and will never evolve into anything else.
some fucknut admin at xyz large corporation implements linux in a non-critical function and all of a sudden it's front page news. he probably bullshitted his way through a presentation, showed some "favorable" numbers (as in, little/no licensing costs), to a group of middle managers who view the entire department as a cost center, and can't quite get the hang of email.
after not being directly involved with technology projects for well over five years, it's funny to look back and reflect on the outright stupidity of the average it worker, especially those from the linux camp.
just because you can bang out some obscure computer code, or deal with archaic unix-like systems, doesn't mean you're qualified to make business decisions, nor act like gods.
keep trying to reinvent the wheel -- how many successful linux companies are out there? do you think people give a fuck about "free" software, when it's five years too old, has 25% functionality, no real commercial support, and impossible to use?
comparing this "revolution" to the "established leader" is like comparing the aviation efforts of a guy building a plane in his garage to boeing.
#1 Comparisons of and debate on the specific technical merits of Windows/Linux while certainly useful for power users and developers simply confuses 95% of users.
:), the latest and greatest distribution of Linux purchased from eBay for chump change is a 'no brainer' compared to the purchase price of Windows. I also like the technical merits of Linux, especially on the stability and security issues.
:).
#2 Technical merits aside (see #1 above) 95% of the user wanted features found in Linux distros are clones of Windows features. Most users already have experience with Windows, so this is what they want.
#3 As long as Windows comes preinstalled and thus prepurchased on 95% of the new 'disposable' PC products (see #2 above) Linux will remain in a marginalized position.
#4 Corporate PC client implementation tends to follow home user base due to training issues, and 95% of that is Windows and will probably continue to be (see #3 above).
#5 Servers "serve clients", and with such being 95% Windows (see #4 above), well the progression is obvious.
Aside from all this, as I like my boxes naked
Linux has the technical and price advantage, what it needs to do is to leap frog Windows in its feature set instead of following it. Remember this is the feature set the average users will want. What could it be? How about communication and media access and control integration, home security and controls automation integration, maybe a well designed 3D desktop along the lines of Sun's Looking Glass before Microsoft does it. Maybe a real 'personal agent' assistant program, no I am not saying reincarnate MS Bob, a real agent with useful features.
Anyway if the discussion is about improving Linux technically why compare a peach of an OS like Linux to a lemon like Windows. I think it would be more productive to compare it to say an Apple
Matthew
"Delusions are easily the most dangerous of these. In the IT context the most common delusion is simply that what we know is right in general or applicable to some specific issue when, in reality, it isn't. We know, and we act accordingly - with frequently catastrophic results."
As Will Rogers noted "It ain't what people don't know that gets 'em in the most trouble, its the things they know that ain't so."
Matthew