Slashdot Mirror
Compaq to bundle Linux and provide support
emptybody was the first of you to write in with this
PC Week story that Compaq is about to ship RedHat 5.2
bundled on some of its servers, and provide 24-by-7 support
for them. This apparently will save time for them, since they
currently pre-load Linux by hand. If this is becoming a problem,
it suggests demand for Linux Servers is increasing.
Gateway also expects to deliver such servers by the end of the
year. Kim Brown, an analyst at Dataquest Inc, says this means
Compaq is walking away from SCO, and that Linux is starting to
be acknowledged as the low-end Unix alternative.
This apparently will save time for them, since they currently pre-load Linux by hand, suggesting demand is increasing.
Sengan, your posts are starting to get incomprehensible again. Please slow down. First read. Then think. Then type. The rethink. Then send.
It's nice to see the fast legitimization of OSS by big companies, but I'm not so sure that Red Hat Everywhere (tm) is a Good Thing... they have a great campany name and logo, but do we really want a replacement for M$? Other distros *do* exist as do other OS's like FreeBSD -- but the media only knows "Red Hat"... good for them, maybe bad for us.
Nonetheless, M$ has to be hating this.
Now you have two unclear sentences.
The first makes no sense: Loading Linux saves time because they were loading by hand? Huh?
The second has a pronoun with no referent: What does "this" refer to?
OK what does that mean? :)
If I understand their business plan, VAResearch's value-add is that they preconfigure Linux for servers and workstations. If Compaq, Dell, Micron etc start selling machines preloaded with Linux, does that kill off VAResearch?
nasty BoY
At least it was their corporate interest.
In nearly every respect they are inferior to competitors (like SuSE), and the only thing they are really doing well is PR.
Now we got what we never wanted through the back door:
The Microsoft of Linux.
Sure, no monopoly (yet), but all the other signs:
They are worse than others in quality, therefore they have to increase their market dominance with all means before this becomes widely known. We've already seen the start of fights among distributors, and RedHat is playing ugly.
(Yet maybe Linux users are not as dumb as RedHat would like, or why else would they have made SuSE the 'Readers Choice' in this month's 'Linux Journal'?)
As an admin myself, the proliants are very nice. I don't have to make a blood sacrifice every time I open the box (unlike certain other makes).
(password at work)
So what?
It's all Open Source, so if Red Hat falters
then take their code, start Blue Derby,
and do it right. If you find a market, great!
I applaud Red Hat for developing their brand
and their business. That's fantastic! At the end
of the day people need to put food on the table and if Red Hat has found a way to profit and
employ programmers like Rasterman, Owen Taylor,
and others, and allow Linux to flourish that is
a GOOD THING.
Red Hat will be very successful, but GPL and LGPL
will keep them from becoming "Another Microsoft".
I wish I was able to move to NC and pursue a
position with them. Regardless, I will profit
from Linux and Open Source in many ways.
Ah yes I see what you mean. That propriatry version of linux that they use is wrong. [/sarcasm].
Its a distibution (one of several), if you don't like it use another. They are in no way another microsoft.
(password at work)
Craig.
'nuff said?
and of course it comes with KDE ...
Before you insult people, you should do some research.
It was an official version, looked just like the US RedHat package (same design).
It doesn't matter who produces or sells it. RedHat gets the money (at least for the name), it is called 'official RedHat' and they have the say over what gets in and what not.
(You may be referring to Mandrake, which merely calles itself 'RedHad-based'!)
at my job they still use VMS (on old VAX and newer alpha). but most of the machines run hp-ux, solaris, linux (on sparc)
:)
and NT . only for Office, but they put cygnus (cant live without bash) and Exceed
btw, does someone know if VMS -> WNT is true, like HAL -> IBM (which is supposely just a coincidence, (yeah sure))
eric sperano
cob2k25@iebgener.org
(i'd rather see false names than anonymous coward)
[ it's been forever since i posted to slashdot and i forgot my passwd!!! it must be a good one! ]
I second the comments made by Chris DiBona. I recently moved to Silicon Valley to be on VA's team. As a VA Research employee or NOT, I believe in VA's global mission, community positions, and overall integrity. I've admired VA from a distance for some time, whether or not I ever wanted to work here or buy the products.
We're all honored to be a part of this team, and would gladly recommend VA's service.
To all those who received less-than-mind-blowing performance from VA.... That's not acceptable to us. We mark each case personally, and humbly apologize and are aware of rusty wheels and such. We remind each other of all outstanding successes and weaknesses. But we have a world class staff at every desk. We do well with the overall project we're undertaking. Many customers emphatically buy all their machines from us, for virtually any project.
As I write this, Chris is standing over my shoulder calling me a "kiss-ass". BUT I MEAN IT!! THE THINGS I PUT UP WITH!! ALL I WANTED WERE SOME **FRICKIN LASERBEAMS**!!!
Call 1-888-linux-4u. My extension is 119.
Be good to each other, people.
--Dan Bethe, dtm@varesearch.com
That's kind of 'proprietary GPL' development:
Make your software incompatible with everything else but your own distro, write messy code (Raster's is not exactly clear design...) so that it is tough to fix it, especially with constant rewrites like with E.
Just make users of other distros feel like 'second class citizens', who get the running prog much later than the RedHat folks.
That's always the RedHat way, even if they fund only part of a project. Gnome is hard to install everywhere, but it's nearly impossible if you haven't RedHat (or, due to some core coders, Debian). So while they pretend to fund free software, they just foster RedHat platform dependence (even if it's only a temporary one).
A counterexample: SuSE does the exact oposite. They have been writing X servers for a long time (they employ X Free developers), and make huge contributions there. But while the few X servers RedHat/Pre.Insight wrote were only available for RedHat Linux in the beginning, SuSE even provided FreeBSD binaries when they were under NDA.
That's what I call true commitment to free software
They keep a low profile, support free projects (KDE, dosemu, etc.) when asked and concentrate on their job: to assemble a good Linux distribution.
(And, unlike with RedHat I have never had severe problems with the SuSE distro)
I think Alan Cox modularized the sound drivers
for them so I doubt he would let them make it
proprietary!
At the Lisa 98 USENIX conf. in bosten compaq had a
couple of servers set up with RH 5.2 to check out and they seemed to be speedy but i did not have much time on them because it was at the trade show. Also my company (me and the other sys admin) where just was talking to our digital(compaq) rep about a new server and he said that they do support linux on both there alpha and pent. boxes. He also mentioned his tech people love when he sells linux boxes and the most of them have used it for a while now......
It's not an issue of ease of use any more. Red Hat got ahead because they could autodetect hardware and had an "install wizard" style setup instead of an "install tool".
However, other distributions have caught up or surpased Red Hat in many areas. What is getting Red Hat koodoos is the fact that they are a company, with real profits, and can market thier product.
Fortunately, if Red Hat ever gets to big a head and tries to raise prices, other "clones" are ready to replace them. They have to play nice. Just make sure that commercial products work on "Linux", not just "Red Hat". It is up to the customers to demand this, otherwise we loose.
Isn't Compaq the only computer vendor that is testifying *in defence* of M$???
I keep hearing about it, but I've no idea what it is.
Also, can somebody explain to me the difference between BSD and System V?
I am a Digital Classic employee in Compaq, working in customer services - and this is brilliant news.
:)
People inside DEC love Linux. On our dept's 60 pc (officially) WinXX network, at least 3 pc's in the network neighbourhood are linux box's.
Everybody whose in the slightest bit interested in computers that i talk to internally is interested in linux, even some of the most dyed in the wool MS fans..
One of those 3 linux machines on our network neighbrhd is a low-end server, acting as an ftp to samba gateway, to facilitate the transfer of large regional contract databases on VMS systems to a devloper writing a windows frontend for that data. Officially it's an NT machine, administered by me. But from testing NT vs Linux it was clear that linux's ftp performance, it's stability, and NT's disturbing tendency to drop samba connections every couple of days that there was only one choice...
maybe now that box can come out of the closet.
Linux is buzzing, and it's breathing life into the other unices at the same time. The cpq unix career path is looking more secure...
have to calm down now.
It is very unfortunate that many people now associate Linux with RedHat. Their releases *ARE* beta quality and it appears that they are getting more and more unstable. This is a disgrace to the Linux community.
Examples: Disk Druid is so buggy that it keeps screwin partitions. Why is RedHat the only distro (AFAIK) that doesn't have key bindings set up properly? (i.e. when you press home or end on the command line it prints some characters, but every other distro I tried works fine). And what in the world does it take to get whatis command to work? (whenever I tried it, it would spit out "nothing appropriate").
As for the comments about SuSE, I agree again. SuSE was easy to install and MUCH better polished then RedHat. The only thing is that SuSE has only recently become libc6 (and it's still not available in English).
As someone else pointed out, Debian is very easy to administer. I haven't tried 2.1 yet, nut I'm running 2.0 on my server and I'm very pleased with it.
But RedHat just keeps screwing...
RH made lead the pack in marketing/brainwashing, but just about every release has had some more-than-trivial bugs.
When a Debian release is made, you can rest assured that's it's been hammered to death on the Debian devel and bugs lists.
They're trying to help Schmalensee dig his way out of his self-dug grave.
I love the Linux shipping OEMs,but they are still small compared to the MS-locked ones. Schmalensee tried to imply that they had the same potential volume as the locked ones so Linux would be a nearer-term threat for the normal user's desktop.
Schmalensee believes one can earn significant profits in an industry with what he says has "no significant barriers to entry" just by getting lucky. Let's see, enormous profit rates for 8 to 9 years in a Schmalensee descibed purely/perfectly-competitive industry with out some market power. Opps he can't define a market. That's extremely bad for a former economic advisor to the President (Bush). Sorry for all the econ 101-ish tone, but this guy is Microsoft's house economist. Let's see he's testifing in the DOJ case, the Bristol case, and the Caldera case. You think he'd be better at being deceptive with all that practice.
Free the coders!
Ever see the Star Trek TNG episode with the aliens that seem really dumb, and only say stuff like "we look for things"? They "fire" a disarmed photon torpedo at the Enterprise and after a few seconds of nothing happening, one of the aliens says, "they will die soon." This is what comes to my mind whenever I hear someone say that SCO is finally going to disappear because it can't compete with Linux.
My (somewhat rhetorical) question for you: Why hasn't SCO died yet? And what does this fact tell you about SCO?
The answer: There are a lot of people in the world whose computing needs are better satisfied by SCO than Linux. I'm not saying this will always be the case, but if you think that there no longer exists a use for SCO, then you are dead wrong.
I deal with both Linux and SCO on a daily basis. Each serves an important role in my work. I am not "for" or "against" either SCO or Linux. However, I am very much "for" people understanding the world around them, and realizing that the computer they use does not necessarily look like everyone else's.
As a reminder: Every time you make a purchase at McDonalds, KFC, Radio Shack, K-Mart, and a host of other retail chains, you use a SCO system.
It is really amazing to see all of the bitching about Redhat this and Redhat that. Listen, Redhat has mad a legit business out of providing a Open Source OS to the public. In fact, I bet they have contribute much more than you whining a$$holes. Without companies like Redhat/Caldera/SUSE then there would be -0- copies of Linux on the shelf at Best Buy which would be a bad thing. My suggestion, if you don't like Redhat then start a company that competes with Redhat using the EXACT same source they use. Remember, this is "FREE" software.
BY HAND, meaning they had to sit there and run through the setup... I assume now they don't have to do that, meaning a computer will do that for them like with Win9X machines.
How would SCO's demise make your friend's job any easier? I would think he'd have a harder time porting from Xenix to RedHat.
They're too busy flogging MacOS X Server, thier $1000 answer to BSD.
Thats the bottom line for me. If it doesnt
work (or only works conditionaly) then nothing
else matters to me. Redhat is not perfect but
their distributions are generally good. I doubt
I would have ever bothered with linux if it hadn't
been for redhat. At work I have seen all the trouble
others in my dept have with solaris 86.
They have seen my setup and the fact that it has
no problem printing,etc has convinced them to
convert to RH. Usability is the bottom line for
most people.
This is the ultimate! It is the petty bickering crowd! Next, I'll hear someone argue that Linux on Intel is way too overrated, and we should ALL use AMIGAS! Or better yet, C=64s ("8-bit rUl3z!").
Stop being a silly whiner, and get with the program! Stupid assholes like yourself fail to realize that you're fracturing the whole just when we most need a unified front.
Linux source will always be available. Let RedHat be the big winner (aka: M$ Enemy #1). When Linux is proven, THEN move in with other distros.
You just don't realize, the war is far, FAR from over.
there are plenty of huge companies that still run it, on both older VAXen as well as Alphas. Why?
24 x 7 x 365 reliability
command syntax that makes since
can handle huge numbers of users
excellent batch processing system
and many other things. Personally, I prefer it to Unix.
Okay, I'll shut up now.
SuSE is "in the news" as well and I like it.
I hate RedHat because it's buggy, beta-quality software.
But what are the exact differences between BSD and System V? And why is everyone moving towards System V?
Also, what was VMS like? A server OS? Desktop? (don't think so based on our description). GUI?, etc.?
Oh, and you said that Unix used to be unstable. What is the approximate timeframe?
"Tru64Unix"????? UUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!
YUCK! Splutter!
I believe Windows NT was originally called `NT OS/2', which makes the VMS -> WNT idea rather unlikely.
> cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Linux release 5.2 (Apollo)
> whatis whatis
whatis (1) - search the whatis database for complete words.
It seems to work for me. I've never done anything to configure it or set it up. Just works out of the box. I agree that Disk Druid was a mistake, though.
Well, I can live with the glibc6 and compiler issues, even with the KDE and driver issues.
But what rubs me the wrong way is how they turned down id Software. It is an honour that JC would let them distribute their games. Games are very important for Linux and discouraging the distribution of games is very bad for Linux.
Apple felt the same way for a long time. They have now wisened up, when will Red Hat?
just hope their support (Compaq) is better than it's current support for windoze... popping in the "Restore" disk and formatting the hard drive is not a plausable solution... also hope Gateway2000 keeps up it's kickass support!
--==[ X gL@ND ]==--
kaufmjes@unforgettable.com
Looks like you missed the point of my post.
:-)
>1) works
To say that an OS "works" is meaningless. To say it works for a particular application is slightly more meaningful. (Neither Linux nor SCO nor any other OS "works" if I want a milkshake.) Always use the right tool for the right job. Just because I can't pound a nail with my toothbrush doesn't mean it doesn't work.
>2) is consistent with real SysV Unices
Excuse me. SCO _is_ SysV. Anything called SysV is derived from SCO's source base. Perhaps your misconception comes from comparing SCO's OpenServer line (SVR3-based) with SVR4-based OS's like Solaris?
As for Linux being consistent with SysV... Linux has borrowed a lot of flavor from both SysV and BSD, and has a lot of its own Linuxisms and GNUisms thrown in as well. If you want to tell me how cool Linux is, tell me that it borrowed the best features from all of the above, and I'll agree with you. Tell me that it is more "SysV" than SysV itself, and I'll say you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
>3) is relatively easy to support and bugfix
When my server goes down, and each hour it's down I lose a million dollars in revenue, I need a single authority with a 24-hour support line, or on-site customer support. Linux (and even companies selling Linux support contracts) currently do not match SCO's service in this respect. (Linux doesn't even have a stable journaling filesystem! How much money am I flushing down the toilet while my terabyte disk is fsck'ing?) On the flip side, when I need the latest video driver for my desktop machine, I can probably find it on the 'net for Linux, not SCO. Ditto drivers for network cards, PCMCIA, etc. In my experience, setting up a SCO box on unfamiliar hardware is a major pain in the ass. Once again, use the right tool for the right job.
>For $2000+ PER CPU less
In some situations, $2000 is a significant amount of money. In others, it's not. As I mentioned, in the back room at every K-Mart across the USA, there is a SCO server. $2000 is insignificant compared to a single day's operating costs at a place like K-Mart.
Now figure in the following: K-Mart is an example of a large-scale replication situation. There are thousands of K-Mart back rooms across the country, and the machines in them are all identical, and the software on all those machines is installed and maintained remotely. Think of what K-Mart saves per year in not having to staff technicians at each store. Is that worth a one-time investment of $2000 per machine? Heck, yeah.
To reiterate what I said in my first post: Linux does a lot of things, and most of the places it overlaps with SCO, I think it does a better job. But SCO has not disappeared, and can not disappear, until all of its roles are filled by another OS. That hasn't happened yet. People who say that SCO is dead are generally picturing a small subset of possible applications for an OS. To say that one OS is universally better in all respects for all applications than another shows a very myopic perspective of the industry. Please try and get the facts before making naiive blanket assumptions.
(Unless of course, you're comparing a *IX with something cooked up by M$. We can't lose all of our prejudices, now can we?
Please get your facts straight; RMS was not complaining about SuSE's non-GPL licensed inclusions, but their non-free inclusions. Big difference. Even RMS knows there is more to free software than GPL (though it does seem appropriate most of the time).
As for RedHat, I have not seen one legitimate complaint against them here. Yes, they have bugs; which distribution doesn't? I myself prefer Debian -- does that mean that I have to hate RedHat? It is Linux, is it not? The Slashdot posters have declined in quality so badly over the past six months (not referring to you but to the RedHat slammers, GNOME-vs-KDE idiots, Windoze apologists, etc.)!! :(
I prefer FreeBSD, or SuSE among the Linux distributions, but increased use of Red Hat means a larger user base and greater public awareness for Linux and free UNIXes in general, which is surely a good thing for all *BSD and Linux users.
.. or just leave the machine running. It is a cronjob.
ja@linux.nu
Look ppl. if we are afraid of any distribution being dominant then we should make standards (take a look at FHS)
:) )
Instead of complaining about this and that do somethig productive (and clean ur mounth with soap while ur at it
h_al_mohssen@ yahoo.com
Yep, I agree with you. The Anti-RedHat crowd also tends to not care at all about freedom, except in free beer. What lamers!
(No, I am not a RedHat user, but a Debian user. Does that mean that I have to think RedHat is evil? Nope. They are a great bunch of people and make a great product!)
I've kind of come to take it as read that screwups _will_ happen, and that the way VARs and vendors can be best differentiated is in how they handle the aftermath.
For example: I was ordering a 32" TV and 2 VCRs from shop4.com . There was a problem with my credit card (I gave them my city as 'bay ridge', not 'brooklyn', and the CC had 'brooklyn' in its mailing address), and I received no notice for 2 days, then I had to pester them for a week for a shipping time. 4 days before xmas, they _cancelled_ the order on me, _without telling me_ (I had to pester them again, and they sent a curt email response saying they had canceled the order)!!
I switched to Crutchfield, and ordered the same equipment. They screwed up too: they decided to bundle the TV and VCRs on the same bulk shipping order and they'd come 2 weeks after xmas. This was slightly my bad as I didn't stress that the VCRs had to come _before xmas_, but they were able to redo the order so that the VCRs would be shipped second day.
The upshot: because shop4 didn't follow up and try harder for my business, they lost not only a $1600 sale, but they're out of any future sales (digital TV someday? stereo upgrades?). Plus, everyone I know personally will _not_ shop with them. Crutchfield, however, despite the mixup, will certainly be seeing more business from me.
I am quite forgiving of honest mistakes, just as long as damage control is up to par, and determination to set things right is solid.
So far, I'm pretty pleased with Dell, but they aren't yet ready to support Linux properly I guess.. I'd like to give VAR a try with my next purchase, but I'd also like to offer some pieces of advice:
of these in an 8' rack.. I'm thinking of a linux box in the formfactor of a Cisco 2501..
An IDG report which was mangled on TechWeb did indicate that for every 3 copies of NT sold last year, 1 copy of Linux was sold. People are already buying a lot of Linux and machines to run it on.
I stopped recommending and buying Compaq years ago
because they required proprietary disk drives. Are they still requiring non-standard hardware?
"VMS was solid as a rock"
Ya know, it's funny... I use VMS more than anything else, and I don't even think about stability or lack thereof. It just works, period. The only problems we have with are where a user process ties up the CPU so that other users get no/very slow response (a scheduler issue?).
I recall, back when I was in high school (UK), seeing a group of spoof man files for an Unix derivative, named Penix.
I only had them on hard copy, and I've now lost them, but if anyone knows anything about them, I'd be interested in tracking them down. this would have been in about 1984-5 ish
sdjp@st-and.ac.uk
Give up Linux people. NT is the future.
Point, click, go. No more little text
files in a wonderfully intuitive "/etc" directory.
NT is POWER. Get used to it. With NT you can
execute processes on other NT machines just as if
you were on the computer. Hell, with some software packages, you can VIEW THE GRAPHICAL OUTPUT of the other person's machine. NT is POWER.
Linux is for geeks, losers, and dweebs.
Get a life. Get NT.
--This message is a *public service encouragement* brought to you from the mind of the enlightened. No human thought was required to author this message and no critical thinking was applied. It is based on purely and undeniably factual evidence.--
Is Redhat still shipping with defaults to non shadowed passwords? Can someone explain to me why they do this?
Sorry, you're right. I just got kinda steamed when the guy posted a reply to my post that was so blatant an example of the attitude I was complaining about originally. I just pounded out a reply without thinking too hard.
I think my original point still stands though: anyone who says "SCO is dead" because Compaq is bundling RedHat doesn't understand the industry.
Nah,
I suspect that the tech support that you get will be "Can you reboot the computer form me first?"
I find it really to convienient that this announcement comes just as M$ is beginning to call witnesses for it's side of the antitrust trial.
Compaq will do whatever M$ tells them to do. They told them to start bundling linux (they can stop shipping and supporting it in three or four months and announce 'it was a terrible mistake, linux isn't ready for the desktop. three cheers for microsoft and windows 9X'... but in the meantime M$ can claim in court that bad old Linux is eating M$'s lunch.
My advice... don't buy Compaq. Haha, actually that would have been my advice before this announcement too. There are lots of good machines out there that are better and cheaper than Compaq.
SCO doesn't support device files?
Well, I still use Slackware 2.2! I can never find programs which work on it these days.
Actually, I just installed it off of an old CD the other day to see how much things have changed.
Ignoring that fact that VMS was historically very much tied to the VAX (to the extent that some VAX-like features were included in Alpha so it could run VMS), the NT product history you've presented is quite wrong.
In the mid-1980s, Microsoft and IBM were developing OS/2 as a replacement for MS-DOS on the IBM PC platform; VMS was an entirely separate OS that ran on a completely different platform (VAX) and had nothing whatsoever to do with it. Within Microsoft, however, there were serious concerns that the ageing PC/x86 architecture was nearing the end of its useful life. There were a number of new architectures based on RISC designs, and it was assumed one or more of these would eventually displace the creaking IBM PC and its progeny. (As it turns out, this didn't happen, but at the time it was taken for granted it would.)
The solution to this perceived problem was to port OS/2 from the `old technology' of the IBM PC to the `new technology' of RISC. The difficulty in deciding which architecture to support (the Intel i860 being the initial favourite) was solved through the use of a largely platform-independent design, along with the C language (after the manner of UNIX).
The development of a modern OS for RISC platforms required architects with extensive experience of both OS design and the new RISC architectures. Such people weren't to be found at Microsoft, so a team of developers lured from DEC, and led by David Cutler (the architect of VMS, who had also been involved in DEC's ill-fated PRISM RISC architecture), were brought in. With their arrival, NT OS/2 was born.
NT OS/2 was to be based on a microkernel, with various subsystems (similar to MACH servers) providing system-call interfaces to user programmes. The primary subsystem in NT OS/2 was, of course, going to be the OS/2 subsystem, which would implement the OS/2 API. However, the microkernel was designed to allow the addition of other subsystems as the need arose. (The POSIX subsystem, for example, was added to meet certain US government requirements).
A major change in NT came about when IBM and Microsoft had a falling out over OS/2. Persistently high memory prices had made OS/2's minimum hardware requirements too dear for most PC users, who were instead choosing to run the more primitive, but smaller, Windows GUI on top of DOS.
The market's acceptance of Windows, and rejection of OS/2, led Microsoft to shift its long-term strategy from OS/2 to Windows. Microsoft OS/2 was cancelled and the NT team were given the task of designing a version of the Windows API for 32-bit architectures (to be called Win32), which would become the new primary subsystem on NT. In addition to Win32 itself, a Windows emulation layer would be provided on top of it (with the requisite x86 emulator on RISC platforms).
With the birth of Win32, NT OS/2 was not only transformed into Windows NT, but was also repositioned as the primary Microsoft OS on both the `old technology' x86 and `new technology' RISC platforms. The OS/2 subsystem was left in for compatibility, but further development was effectively halted.
What began as NT OS/2 was introduced to the public as Windows NT 3.1, and has subsequently evolved into Windows 2000 (finally shedding the `NT' label, though still supporting perhaps the best RISC architecture of all -- the Alpha).
When looked at in perspective, NT's origin as a port of OS/2 to the new CPU architectures of the 1980s both explains the `new technology' label (referring to new hardware technology, not new OS technology) and all but destroys the myth that `NT' has anything to do with `VMS+1=WNT'.
It WAS worth a real good laugh, though!
Wanna know some "insider" information? I work at a major ISV, and know what? WindowsNT is a JOKE! We gleefully push crappy software on unsuspecting customers! How can we get away with this? BECAUSE WE TELL OUR SUPPORT PEOPLE TO BLAME NT!
Anonymous Coward
Laughing all the way to the bank and learning Linux for the day IS Managers get their heads out of their asses....
6+11=17... 11/17=65%
you could do that stuff in 1975 probably
if you had alot of money to spend. but you know
what, not everyone has thousands of dollars to buy third party
addons to NT to make it do cool things. maybe its better in many ways but u know what
its not free. it costs hundreds of dollars. the only way to get it
is to steal it and thats not gonna happen.
its like RMS said, unix isnt that great but it was ubiquitous and had been around a while and was relatively stable.
and emacs may not be the best, but he does it cause its free, not because its best.
and many ppl have faith that free stuff will eventually be technically better.
I think that the original post was not serious. To me it had a very ironic tone to it. I mean saying that:
/etc - poking fun at the registry!!! No, clearly this poster was making fun of N.T.
"With NT you can execute processes on other NT machines just as if you were on the computer. Hell, with some software packages, you can VIEW THE GRAPHICAL OUTPUT of the other person's machine. NT is POWER."
Clearly this is irony, poking fun at the expense of N.T. in that Unix and X was designed from the bottom up to do this.
Also his comment about the wonderfully intuitive
"With NT you can execute processes on other NT machines just as if you were on the computer"
How do you do this? I have a friend who has an NT computer, and we often want to exchange files. The only way I know how to do this is to go physically to his computer, and from there to ftp to my computer. (My computer runs friendly FreeBSD - I understand that much better than NT.)
Please tell me how.
now, someone tell me, do they load "by hand" win9x, sco, linux et al or do they create a reference implementation and clone all the others from this? ie, write an image of the hard drive?
/. crew can fuck off . . . I dare you to create as excellent a site as this
if the latter (the smart way?), then does this explain sengans comment?
also, dickheads that diss the
Sorry to hear that you like hearing of the shortcomings of a peer and friend in the industry. I've always told everyone that LHS was tip-top, and that I would have applied to work there, except that the job was on the east coast. I have my LHS cupholder from Linux Expo :)
;-> You do the best you can for the most people and gain the hardcore fans that you can.
However we share these frustrations in completing every order as it should be. Sometimes our tech support runs around screaming "DON'T SELL TOKEN RING!!!"
The sysadmin job offer I read about from LHS, included SCUBA training as a plus!! How cool is that?!
"Kim Brown, an analyst at Dataquest Inc, says this means Compaq is walking away from SCO, and that Linux is starting to be acknowledged as the low-end Unix alternative."
:P
I think Kim meant to say, "Linux is a solution to
the poorly supported commerical UNIXes."
Not a coward, just forgot my password.
Charles
It's sort of like cameras. You can go to Walmart to buy a camera, or you can go to a camera store. If you want just a plain vanilla camera, or you already know exactly what you want and it's at Walmart, you go to Walmart. But you buy what they have on the shelf -- they won't special-order anything for you, or let you mix and match stuff. If you want a good professional-quality outfit, you go to your local camera shop, because the people there know their cameras (unlike the droids at Walmart). There you can get exactly the camera you want, even if it's not in stock at the moment.
:-). A LHS or VAR is never going to be as big as Walmart (or Compaq), but it is still a very profitable and useful market niche. Walmart has not driven the local camera shop out of business, and it's unlikely that Compaq is going to drive the local Linux shop out of business.
Compaq is the Walmart of Linux computers, while folks like VA Research and Linux Hardware Solutions are the knowledgable specialists (the camera shop of Linux computers). (Though I get a chuckle over the rest of the thread about people's troubles with VA Research
BTW, Debian, Mindspring, and LHS are about to release a press release about the new Debian FTP server. VA Research isn't the *only* company that gives to Open Source.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
While I enjoy reading horror stories about VA Research bunging (see my URL for why :-), I have to point out that s**t happens. Orders can be delayed because of supply problems (for example, at the end of December you COULD NOT GET a Pentium II 350 or a 9gb Seagate Cheetah, period, unless you were Compaq or IBM). Orders can be bungled because the sales guy keeps rushing back to the build area and shouting "Get order #XYZ out, he's called AGAIN!" and a rushed tech accidentally skips a checksheet item. Or it may be that you ordered a combination that the guy who built your computer hates. For example, I *hate* dual-boot machines. Windows 98 is a pain in the a** to install, and a waste of valuable disk space (grin). So if I'm rushed, I might not QA the Win98 the way I should and a driver might not get loaded for something in Win98 (but you better believe that the Linux stuff is going to be right!). It happens, though not often.
Anyhow, the point is that s**t happens, regardless of the vendor, and the difference between a bad vendor and a good vendor is what happens once all h**l breaks loose. Or even all heck -- e.g., a very large server we shipped out with a token ring card didn't token ring very well (we'd warned this customer, a major bank with a single-digit address on Wall Street, that we had no way of testing a token ring card because we don't have a token ring network handy, all we could do was make sure it was recognized by the driver). So we worked with them until it was fixed, trying different kernel versions and trying patched drivers from the author of the token ring driver to try to figure out why it was Oopsing. The final solution was a different model token ring card, which we shipped to them overnight once I decided that was the solution.
I'm not going to comment any further on this issue, because of an obvious conflict of interest (grin).
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
The problem on the client side is that margins are so slim. It takes about 2 man-hours of labor to build, test, and box a low-end IDE machine. (Yes, I've done time and motion studies on the subject, that's my job). The end result is maybe $100 profit. You have to sell a LOT of $100 profits to justify a technician's $25K/year salary or a systems specialist's $40K/year salary (note: These are North Carolina salaries, Silicon Valley salaries would be roughly double the above due to the higher rents and cost of living out there).
VA Research is addressing this by re-badging a Taiwanese import (we still build our own at LHS, but we have a lower-cost labor supply in North Carolina than VAR has in the Silicon Valley), but this still doesn't address the chicken-and-egg problem: you're not making enough money from client-side Linux to justify spending money on marketing it, but without pushing product through the channel you never WILL make money on it. Yet without making money on it you can't afford to take ad money away from pushing your servers and spend it all in PC Week or Computer Shopper pushing desktops... then you lose your server market (where both VAR and LHS can undercut Compaq handily on similar computers).
The answer, I guess, would be venture capital, and massive amounts of it, properly applied. We'll have to see whether it'll be one of the existing Linux hardware companies that does it, or a newcomer.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
I keep fussing at them and they keep ignoring me when I point out the things that need to be done to make SuSE Linux enterprise-ready.
/etc is supposed to contain all configuration information. Well, in SuSE Linux it doesn't. For some weird reason they stuck their startup script configuration info in /sbin. For some weird reason they stuck their "X" server link in /var/lib/X11. Etc. The problem is that I can't go tracing down configuration information to be backed up all over God's creation. That's what /etc was invented for. But SuSE says that the "X" server link is an executable and thus does not belong in /etc. ARGH!
/etc/cron.daily (etc.) directories, which allow me to 'ssh' out a cron job to be added to the crontab of the entire network with one command rather than having to edit an /etc/crontab on hundreds of machines, and /etc/profile.d, which allows me to add startup tasks to users without having to edit the global /etc/profile script on hundreds of machines. Then there is the fact that with Red Hat Linux, I know that if I back up /etc, /usr/local, and /home I can restore the entire system. With SuSE, configuration info is so scattered that you have to backup the entire system -- period.
Example:
Red Hat Linux has its quality problems, but I have administered it in large-scale enterprise deployments and can attest that it scales quite well because of a number of pleasant design decisions, such as the
Don't get me wrong, I've run SuSE and like it, but they have to be the most STUBBORN people I've ever encountered. I've been ragging them about this since SuSE 5.1 days, and still nada.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
We have a new laptop line, but not in the $1500 price point range. We can do you a very nice one with a 15.1" LCD display and 6gb hard drive with 128mb of memory for around $2500. With Linux. And you aren't paying for Windows 98 as part of that either -- we get'em from the manufacturer without any OS.
They're kinda big and heavy, they're not fancy, and that Mobile PII sucks power, but they work quite well.
The problem with the $1500 price point is that we'd end up supporting two different lines of laptops -- a low end line, and a high-end line. And most people interested in Linux laptops would be most interested in that $2500 laptop. Due to the low margin on a $1500 laptop we'd have to sell a couple dozen of them just to make back the cost of adding it to our lineup, much less the ongoing support costs. I'm not sure it'd sell well enough to make back that cost.
Regarding traditional channels: We already advertise on Slashdot (for which we donated a 9gb Cheetah, BTW), Linux Journal, Linux Today (we were their first advertiser!), etc. The problem is that these channels are geared towards current Linux users, who are predominantly either hobbiests or server users. The hobby users don't buy machines -- they build their own from parts. The server users aren't generally in low-end IDE workstations in mass quantities. This means using different channels for moving mass quantities of low-end IDE workstations, especially if you want to address the consumer market. Linux Journal doesn't address that market. Mainstream publications do. But, as I mentioned, you have a chicken/egg problem there. I don't know if any vendor is going to go there (I don't make those kinds of business decisions for LHS and I know about as much as you do about VA Research), but so it goes.
-- Eric
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
Posted by gruv:
Well I never had anything against Compaq until about three days ago. Our IT dept. has two Compaq server boxes sitting in the machine room. Now Im no networking expert, but I soon realized how much we trust these two boxes to keep the backbone going in our Intranet.
I've estimated the loss of man hours in the last three days to be about 17 hours split between two shifts. This is due to a busted Compaq box. About half our Intranet was hosed and we lost about two days of data. Needless to say, some serious ass-chewin' was going on in IT. Now the problem got fixed today, but that hardly impressed me. All of the other equipment works flawlessly. And I hear from around the campfire that Compaq wasn't exaclty prompt in deleivery of a replacement. So thumbs down for Compaq on that one.
We also deploy some Compaq boxes in some In-Store listening stations w/ touch screens. I saw one of them opened up one day last week. I didn't think nothing of it until this other incident. I found out that quite afew of these boxes had to be either replaced or repaired. Doesn't sound good to me.
I saw that Compaq had the two highest selling boxes in the first part of this month. Hmm, I won't be one of those people. I've had enough of problems with Compaq. I even have talked to other computer users I know and they all have nothing but negative things to say about Compaq. A few of them backed Compaq up saying some of the older stuff works well. But all in all I'll stay away from them. And I've seen some of those case designs, very grotesque.
RedHat. Well I haven't compiled Linux yet. But I've seen the headaches it has given a couple of my freinds. I learn from those around me alot. One of them tried Debian and liked it. And judging by all this hype for RedHat...it's cursed, Murphy's law.
Hmm... Now to get out a shotgun and start pumping some lead under bridges. :)
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
I for one won't miss them.
SCO UnixWare7 is the most broken piece of shit I've ever worked with in my entire life. It's worse than Windows 95.
I hope those bastards starve -- not only do they sell broken OSes and release broken software, even their friggin' compiler is a piece of junk so you can't fix anything!
Santa Cruz is a nice town, it's about time it stopped having its name dragged through the mud by SCO, anyways. Rat bastards probably delayed Linux's acceptance by a year or two, as well.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
Maybe, but does Debian use RPM? Face it RPM is going to become the standard Linux package format, which I think is a good thing. What really needs to happen is a merger between the RedHat and Debian package formats which retains compatibity with both.
Wow, I am really sorry to hear this (I work for VA). If you'd like to discuss how we can "make good" by you, please call me (or anyone can for that matter) at 650-934-3666 x 108
Chris DiBona
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Hi Eric,
Actualyl we never rebadged umax, we just used thier cases, we are no longer affiliated with umax. In fact, we have recieved equity funding from sequoia capital. (funded yahoo, cisco, etc)
Say hi to kit, and see you guys in march.
Chris DiBOna
(VA Research)
Co-Editor, Open Sources
Open Source Program Manager, Google, Inc.
Compaq is expected to make more Unix news next month when it renames Digital Unix to Tru64Unix, according to sources.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a lousy name? It sounds like a marketing whiz kid's brainfart.
I'm not that fond of Digital Unix as an OS. But I has some nice features and a decent sounding name. I would be embarrased to put Tru64Unix on my resume.
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Well, to give credit where credit is due, Eunice (unix for VMS) is probably the worst name for a Unix and arguably the worst Unix.
It warrants its own entry in Perl's Configure script.
Congratulations. You aren't running Eunice.
"L'IT c'est moi!"
If you read Hellen Cutler's book on the insides of NT, you'll find out it was heavily influenced by VMS design. That's partially why Unix is such a bad word at Microsoft, and the coders are so rabiddly for NT: they want to beat Unix that beat their original VMS.
Oh, for what it's worth: apparently we (Boston University) have the full source -- on microfiche.
--
What, the microfiche? It's not special machine-readable microfiche or anything!
--
Where I could see Compaq doing some good (and having fun doing it) would be to say "we'll build you a Beowulf Linux supercomputing cluster, from start to finish, using our superduper Proliants" and so on.
Yes, it was pretty impressive when i found
/etc/route to be applied on startup each :)
most SuSE installation/configuration tools come
without source...
Also, SuSE insisted on putting interface routes
into
time you changed the configuration in Yast.
A big NO-NO for internet routers
(That was a real `wow, impressive` effect)
I don't see a problem with either the original sentence, or the rewritten version.
:)
However, there seems to be a hole in the chain from article to summary. The time savings is for a network administrator that was quoted, not for Compaq. But I do think your conclusion is still valid: that demand for Linux is increasing.
Naturally, we all like to hear that.
Since Compaq seems intent on letting VMS die, I think it would be a shame (especially for those who still use VMS) to let the codebase die.
COMPAQ, this move would give you great PR within the Open Source community and would cost you little. In fact, while you're at it why not free up RT-11, RSTS/E, and RSX? Who uses that stuff anymore but dedicated hobbyists?
Think about their historical value.
J. Maynard Gelinas
Obviously YMMV, but I had a great experience with the company. They took a tremendous amount of hassling from me getting quote after quote, were always courteous, and handled a special case order where my company needed RedHat 4.2 instead of RH-5.2. And since the box was SMP they even compiled a kernel to support the hardware and provided instructions for getting it up. I really can't give them higher marks!
And to pay them back we ordered only one machine VA and chose a (brain dead) local vendor for about 50 other machines. ARRRGH! Of course the local guy is cheaper (this choice is not management's fault or only concern however, I'm well to blame because of time pressures during the qote exchange phase), but I payed for that by having to give these locals plenty of tech support. I spent a good while explaining to them why a glibc X server won't run on RedHat 4.2 and why rpm --nodeps isn't always the right solution to a dependency problem for example. Feh.
VAResearch was a breath of fresh air and I hope to buy from them again.
Here are some URLs to FAQs which contain specific information on OpenVMS, the VAX and Alpha AXP architecture line, and finally the older PDP-11 line and it's Operating systems RSTS-E, RSX, and RT-11. A Vax-11/750 might disapoint you for sheer computing power compared with todays processors - it's not much faster than a 16mhz 386, but it had a great backplane, powerful peripherals, it could handle huge memory spaces (up to 4MB of RAM in 1977!), and could support 50 (or so) simultaneous users.
u senet/comp/os/vms/top.html
5 6/faq1.htm
i ence/history/pdp-11/
VMS Specific FAQs:
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/bng
http://www.montagar.com/dfwlug/openvms-faq.html
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lakes/29
The PDP-11 was the first low cost 'desk-side' computer available. Introduced in 1970 with a wire wrapped backplane, 8K words of CORE (that's 16K bytes of wire mesh RAM hand weaved for those who don't know), and a CPU made of discrete components, by 1974 a PDP-11/03 could be had for something like 50K which contained 64K of RAM, a VT-52 video terminal, RX01 8" Floppy drives, and RK05 or RL02 removeable pack disk drives (between 2.5MB to 5MB per pack). These machines usually ran RT-11, a Real Time operating system very similar to DOS (except done properly). By Real Time, what they mean is that it's not much more than a program loader - applications get Real Time access to the CPU. These machines were usually bought by scientists for cheap automated data collection or by factories for automated assembly on a production line.
The PDP-11 could also be used for larger multiuser systems, supporting up to 22 bits of address space with an MMU (some backplanes only supported up to 18 bits). Accessing memory beyond 64K thus meant setting offset page registers to move around. In those days memory management meant finding ways to move around a larger address space than directly addressable by the CPU. Today 32 bit CPU's address 4GB while 64 bits work out to 4TB of address lines. Now memory management refers to using virtual memory to readdress linear physical RAM to various address ranges doled out by the OS kernel and 'owned' by individual processes.
In the larger configuration the PDP-11 made for an excellent multiuser system. An 11/44 or 11/34 with 768K of RAM migh run RSTS/E - a multitasking, multiuser Operating System which used BASIC as it's primary interface (I'm certain this is why BASIC in ROM because popular in late 70's micros like the TRS-80, Apple II and Commodore PET 2000 computers). RSX provided a similar interface to RT-11 (as a program loader) but was a multiuser OS. A machine like this could easily handle 16 - 20 simultaneous users while providing a large array of tools, compilers, and I/O devices.
Of course, there was also UNIX available. Check out the UNIX Preservation Society and download a PDP-11 emulator along with a copy of V7 UNIX! You can even buy a source license to V7 UNIX for $100 bucks from SCO! And this is REALLY important because SCO has recognized the historical value of ancient UNIX sources and acted in time preserve history. Compaq should do the same! Time is running out!
COMPAQ, please give out source and binary licenses for ancient operating systems like RT-11, RSTS/E and RSX if only because some people still use these systems and cannot purchase support or maintanance from Digital any longer!
And if you open up OpenVMS by giving away source you stand a good chance at revitalizing the VMS community and reducing your overall support costs for an OS you obviously plan on mkaing obsolete. There are plenty of free UNIX systems now available, we could all use a free alternative operating environment and VMS is certainly a credible alternative to UNIX. If you free the source, hackers will come to fix it up and port it to new platforms - and you won't have to spend a dime.
PDP-11 FAQs:
http://www.village.org/pdp-11/faq.htm
Sunsite PDP-11 support page:
http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/academic/computer-sc
Great photographs of old systems!
http://www.telnet.hu/hamster/pdp-11/
PDP-11 on UNIX preservation society
http://minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au/PUPS/
Or a strong coffee :-)
-- LaTeX, The Best There Is
Hmm, as I recall, in the DOJ trials, a letter that was written to the DOJ from Compaq came out (or something like that), which suggested that they were displeased with the fact that since their relationship had soured a bit with Microsoft, they were being charged significantly more than other vendors like Dell were. In fact, some resellers were even charged up to $95 for Windows 95, instead of the $50 that Microsoft claims they charged.
At any rate, Compaq is probably the first to do this because they're getting shafted by MS as compared to the other OEM's.
Are there any websites where I can learn more about VMS? (I don't have access to a university-caliber library that would have books covering VMS)
*Yawn* - yet more NT-Microsoft-invented-the-GUI-Linux-is-all-command -line-tripe.
Uhm...there's a few software packages for NT, and some Graphical Interfaces to services under NT that are neat - but that's all they are - They'll all become available under Linux as we grow, otherwise, nothing very fancy about 'em.
Nice attempt at flamebait - but here's where you blew it: MOST flamebait will contain factual remarks - designed to infuriate its victims into terse, ill-written replies. There's still a lot of things Linux is lacking in - and I wish I were a coder so I could help fill in the void - I can't.
There's *nothing* factual about your remarks, insofar as your attempt to present NT as something more advanced than Linux. It isn't - never has been, and never likely will be. Most or all of what you described above IS available in Linux.
buh-bye now...
At any rate, Compaq is probably the first to do this because they're getting shafted by MS as compared to the other OEM's.
That, and because they have the most to gain from Linux - they can use it to push the Alpha, thus not only getting out from under MS a bit, but also shaking a little of the Intel monkey off their back, too.
There's a couple obvious counter-arguments. :) Feel free to complain about it, provided you're willing to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.
1. If you don't like RedHat's product, don't use it
2. If you want to try and take an active hand in improving the quality of RedHat releases, fax them your resume' and try to get employed.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
Well, I said thanx, I go and get an Alpha machine (not Compaq) instead.. Too bad.. They have just lost a customer. I've got support and a pre-installed machine from someone who know Linux well..
:wq
If you're going through hell, keep going. -- Winston Churchill
Don't worry!
RedHat is strong only in US. In Europe and in Japan there are some other guys.
Andrew
It is because of companies like Red Hat that Corporations and PC makers are adopting Linux. They like RedHat because it is easy to install, admin and most importantly, because it *WORKS*.
While other distributions are great for hacking, companies don't make money or derive joy by playing around with computers, they must be productive to be successful.
Let's remember that.
Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside about those brand new Proliants sitting on my racks. They're doing a wonderful job of running things under Linux, and I'm glad to see Compaq moving in the directions shown in the article.
The Proliant 1600R/400 runs RedHat remarkably well right out of the box. I was very happy about that. Now they're going to be offering support as well? I like.
Three cheers for Compaq. :)
Working on Compaqs makes me want to vomit.
They're ugly, fussy, and damned near impossible to upgrade unless you purchase everything from Compaq. I now refuse to work on them. If someone brings one to me I'll tell them to bring somewhere else, because I don't need that headache.
The copper bosses killed you, Joe. 'I never died', said he.
Got ear wax in your eyes or something? Brain fogged by anti-sengan hostility?
--
Infuriate left and right
while they -king of all hypocrites- shipped the same desktop they were fighting in the US (moral!) in central Europe.
I believe it turned out to be a European distributor who was adding KDE to Red Hat.
You accuse Red Hat of vaporware, yet I see no facts in your own arguments, own innuendo and rumour. How about some solid facts to back up your FUD? Otherwise you just look ugly yourself.
--
Infuriate left and right
University libraries often have some good books on the history of computers and operating systems... as well as some crunchy unix books ;)
I have to laugh at this one. My company has replaced over 190 NT servers with Linux. The power and functionality is unmatched. Could you please show me how to administer a disk quota in NT? HAHAHA or administer a MPI or PVM cluster? hahaha
Could you show me how to lock down the desktop so that a windows user can't type a del tree command? HAHAHA
How about that NT5.0 (sorry... I mean windoze-2000 management console.??) what a joke! LinuxConf blows it away! Please get out of puberty, then talk to us....
By the way, were set to replace 3,250 NT/Windows Boxes with Linux for an international engineering company... so bite on that! Oh by the way...WANG Global has just signed a contract with Corel Computer for 15,000 Units....
NT? keep dreaming....
Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
Nick
LSG
One of these days I gonna break down and up the threshold so I don't have to watch ACs like you publicly defecate on this forum.
As for your "points":
1) Red Hat took the initiative on glibc. I guarantee that _every_ distribution of Linux benefitted from Redhat's mistakes by not repeating them. Glibc is a _very_ important upgrade and distributions that are just getting it now (SuSe) or are not approaching it at all ( Slackware ) are the ones promoting binary incompatibility, not Red Hat.
2)As for the "broken" compiler mix, its better to ship a better standards compliant C++ compiler (egcs) than it is too keep one as sadly broken as g++ 2.7.2 ( or 2.8.1 ). I appluad Red Hat for making the developer come first. I disapprove,however, of thier handling of it.
3) As for the whole "desktop wars" thing, it was the right thing to do. KDE's QT (at the time) was nothing more than a "Quick and Dirty" fix to the problem. Its reliance on non-free software made it incompatible with Red Hat (and Debian ) policy. I do think Red Hat should of put it on the commercial version, since that isn't pure anyway. Anyway, this isn't a problem now ( the entire KDE system becomes free when QT 2.0 is released,and Red Hat should make it an option upon install). So quit bitching.
As for your signs of "Microsofts of Linux", I'd be much more worried about SuSe. RMS, the vocal conscience of free software ( as much as we'd like to not admit it) described them as "the worst" of the distributors (wrt to freeness). I don't keep up with SuSe, but RMS wouldn't have described them as that unless he had damn good reason. I worry much more on reliance of proprietary software than with distribution bugs that can be fixed by reading errata and following the easy directions.
At least I know that RedHat audits their distribution throughly to find those bugs in the first place.
Elaborate on the "fights between distributors". I haven't seen Red Hat fighting with anyone. Have you been watching FUDAVISION again,AC?
Now begone!
VA Research bungled my order from beginning to end. I became enraged with the incompetence they demonstrated for such a small company. To be specific, my computer was late (very late) and misconfigured. They took longer than I would expect even the most incompetent supplier would take.
Its been a long time coming, but SCO is truly on the verge of going out.
But SuSE says that the "X" server link is an executable and thus does not belong in /etc. ARGH!
/etc. If at all, it's a X problem.
And they're right about it. Executable files don't belong into
As for the rest, they've apparently changed a couple of things for 6.0. Let's see.
Anyway, for home users, SuSE is still way better than RedHat.
If apple don't follow Compaqs lead NOW they'll be left behind
yeah, Digital Unix sounds good, and actually has a good reputation of being a stable, high-end Unix. now, Tru64Unix, what the hell is that for a fugly name? it sounds like the kind of cheesy names soundcards or game consoles get.
I may be wrong, and I've never used SuSE myself, but I don't think RedHat is anywhere as bad as some people say around here. There are many things I change when I install a new system, sure, but I haven't had any major problems with RedHat as a Linux distribution.
I've installed Debians too, and I'd say they're about as good, but in different places; Debian's installation isn't as neat as RedHat's, but the package selection is more comprehensive.
The second most popular distro is debian. .debs will last as long as debian users keep using it. Debian is not going away. Saying "RPM is the future" is not a basis for arguing RPMs are better. Red Hat users that switch to debian fall in love. I'm one of them.
I got apt-get for Debian 2.0 (Hamm) from the
upgrade-i386 directory of 2.1. The front-end to it
is not yet ready, but it works in very well with
dselect, and I have been very impressed. I found
it very annoying in Red Hat when upon downloading
and rpm you try to install it and then have to get
a load of other rpm's to satisfy dependancies
manually. Debian solves this problem beautifully.
RedHat can't have the same power that MS does now. Remember, anyone can burn their own RedHat CD and distribute it. To my knowlege, everything in RedHat is OSS (they even hire full time developers to write OSS). Instead, we should keep a close eye on RedHat, if they begin to make RedHat proprietary (ie they start shipping non-OSS with RedHat Linux) we need to take what OSS has already been developed and continue with an OSS version - a kind of OSS policing by the Linux community.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
that MS has become so powerful and rich mainly because of the Win32 API and because of its pricing scheme. Microsoft has used its closed API to make alliances with other companies and the Win32 API has also prevented many applications from easily being ported to other OS's. MS has also used the price of its OS to ensure that VAR's only sold its OS.
RedHat on the other hand is using an open source kernel that will always be open, and so RedHat can't put nasty little hooks in the kernel to control who's software runs best, its a level ground for everyone. Also, because RedHat can be distributed freely, RedHat cannot bully companies around.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
It would be a better idea to offer it on all the computers, as everyone in my family (including an 8-year old kid) uses Linux for everything.
~Linux is not The Answer. Yes is the answer. Linux is The Question.
So, RH and linux have the jazz right now. RH in particular (though others are also) is developing support channels. Big trad. companies like that. As more people get introduced to OSS, through RH, SuSE, or whatever else, the entire OSS community benefits.
This whole mindset of "linux/redhat/anybody is gaining success, we must revile them as much as we hate MS is a bit counterproductive.
The really wonderfull thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
I agree that there is more nd more FUD being spread by MS types (and Apple types for that matter), but I see a serious cannibalistic trend among some in the OSS community.
It's like the old deal with punk bands that got successful, everyone raged at ''em for "selling out". I just think it's a shame that there is a group that seems to want it all to stay marginal and underground, or are too myopic to see any sucess for a part of OSS translates into a success for the whole of it.
just my$.02, for what it's worth. That and a buck will get you a cup'o'coffe.
The really wonderfull thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from.
I already lost all respect for compaq due to the fact that their support always tries to push the problem onto someone else, I can't wait to see them try to handle Linux support "hold on .. ok there is a guy who is in the documentation who wrote this program in 1982, you should email him with this issue."
Compaq is pretty sad now'a days.. GO IBM!
Does this mean they will add the RedHat disks to the pack of CDs you get with a Compaq? If so this is wonderful.
For those who don't use Compaq ProLiants, they come with CDs for most systems. You can't install them without licence information. If you call up and pay for the one you want by credit card, they give you the licence details and you install it.
Now there will be one CD in that pack that installs without any payment. Which one are lots of people going to choose?
Here's an SCO official comment on Linux:
6 0/0000891618-98-005461.txt
"Over the past months competition from companies
selling versions of the Linux Operating System
has increased."
SCO 1998 10-K
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/8515
You can also read up on how much money they lose each year.
I confess! I admit it! Blue is my favorite ... I love coming in the morning to find
color
out I'm going to have another "blue screen day!"
Historical Value?? I worked at a company that still used pdp11-73 as their main systems and this was only 2 years ago!!!! Knowing the owner (a dead ringer for PHB) they are most likely still using the garbage. (I lasted five months before I found a new job at a 20% pay increase).
What it seem to be is that many of the computer manufacturing companies are becoming afraid of they will miss out on the sales of servers and workstations if they don't come around. Wouldn't you if you saw the whole world changing over to another OS that is STABLE, POWERFULL, and being used world wide.
Dell, are you paying attention?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
It wont be long until linux goes the way of UNIX.
Just like AIX, SCO,Sun, Dgital, we will have a dozen different distributions, how long will it be before we have binary incompatability? Red Hat ships glibc,Slackware doesnt, if you look at alot of different software, CodeForge IDE for example, they ship two different versions, one for glibc and one for libc, most.
Linux obviously needs some standards to succeed in the corporate world, but who says RedHat has to set them.
VMS is dying of natural causes. Compaq would be foolish to open source it however as there are still some valuable gems in it that need to be leveraged onto other platforms.
Like it or not, VMS clusters in 1984 were way ahead of any Unix clusters of today (a full 15 years later).
Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. In fact, Compaq's recent announcements to increase their support for Linux makes me want to buy stock. This is a good thing.
It is also a good thing that Compaq announced that they are actively integrated some of the VMS cluster technology into their Unix offering (and not just the NT world). This is good for Unix too.
Those are some great links, thanks for sharing them.
For your historical pleasure, here is an advertisement for Unix from a 1981 issue of Datamation:
http://cprjbv.ne.mediaone.net/www/unix1.jpg