Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft claims Linux provides weak value
Microsoft's Ed Muth (him again) is claiming that
Linux offers little value since it has fewer off-the-shelf
apps, and no long term development road map. Moreover it suffers
from a lack of integration between the OS and the apps, which
is needed so that users can drag barcharts between Excel and
Word. (Heard of Corba? No I guess not). Indeed Ed claims Linux
usage figures are inflated. Finally, it must be obvious
that good programmers won't code for free so they can't be
good -- just like Van Gogh could not have been a good artist.
If nothing else, Ed's good at rhetoric -- "Let's say, for
discussion, they are equally scalable" implies nicely that
NT is obviously more scalable. But his outburst is somewhat
odd given that Microsoft's trial is not over, and the
SIIA is recomending it be broken up. Thanks Alex Prestin
for this link.
It is so obviously misleading that I don't see why any of us should get worked up about it. Get back to coding! :-)
P
It's obvious why he said this. He wants to be called as a government rebuttal witness to show that Microsoft doesn't take Linux seriously as a threat... and is hence a monopoly.
Who are they really trying to *prevent* being called?
It will be a glorious day when microsh*t claims all servers. Hurray!!
Since PCWeek seems so bent on finding Linux spokespeople in Redmond, why don't they go to LWCE and find some spokespeople for NT?
Here's a tip MS:
When people already don't like you in one group, and those people could on your stuff in a hearbeat, don't go trashtalking. Hmm, I think I'll go and SMB hijack myself on the Linux train.
Hmmm linux can't even support ole or activex. Linux sounds more like windows 2.0 then an NT alternative. IF it can't even support that then I am sure their is no way in hell that it can support file sharing or web servering as good as windows. I am sticking ot NT because its betst os around period. I am glad microsoft is finally bringing in some reality in this latest fad.
I prefer if there are 3 programs for FTP each different, yet equally powerfull, as opposed to MS FTP programs.. sure they are more than 30, but each has major flaws and limitations..
One will crash while getting 600meg file, another when the queue is larger than 1000 files... another cant save queues nicely... blah blah blah.. None of them are good...
the point is... Quality doesnt matter.. its quantity... I seem to read that somewhere before, and I didnt like it either... What if cars were made for quanityt not quality... what about planes?
uhm... sorry... I prefer to have a limited choice to 3 apps that work, than 50 that dont...
Oh yeah... so as long as RedHat isnt in my FutureShop / Business Depot it doesnt count... I guess Solaris is also crap.. just like Silicon Graphics... oh yeah... that makes NT also crap... Havent seen much off the shelp shrink-wrapped apps for it either...
Let's see.. that's a guy that works at MS and just gives his opinion based on the brainwash he had for the last few years.
On the other side, we have a bunch of real facts at the MetaChart (http://www.darkelf.net/metachart) with graphs (some even from ZDnet) that shows Linux is far supperior.
No one with half a brain will prefer Ed's opinion over facts.
(note that yes this does imply that many management people dont have brains)
My hope is that Microsoft, should they lose, will pack up shop and move operations to Japan where they're
dying for a boost to their economy. This will show the IDIOTIC MEDDLING government bastards that they
should not mess around with successful American companies. It will never happen, but it would be nice.
After O.J. and Clinton getting off scott free and now Microsoft be punished for success, I am DISGUSTED
to call myself an American. D-I-S-G-U-S-T-E-D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe what Microsoft is doing is fair and in the interest of the consumer. The only case the government
has is several companies that failed to make a decent product, failed to make a competing OS, and want
retribution.
Microsoft should move its operations outside of the US, pull out its assets out of the US economy. I promise
you Canada, England, or even Australia will take Microsoft with open arms.
All you /. readers listen up.
If you keep trying to insult this guy, please stop. All this guy is trying to do is save his job and get himself even more rich. I realize Slashdot is mostly College kids (as am I) who come from preppy ass upper-middle class homes in the richest parts of U.S. cities and small cities. But once you get out into the real world, you will realize that there is more to business than just _the most stable platform for running your servers_. Microsoft is all about MONEY. So are businesses [at least the last time I checked]. Business and making money out in the real world depends on having a structured support system. (maybe someone else with more of an economics background could elaborate for me)
Don't just reply with and say I'm a troll, as I will give an e-mail address at the end of this. I am not in a mood right now to elaborate more on this, so I will let others do so.
But I would like to say this: don't ANY of you give a fuck about MONEY? If you do, then don't just keep saying 'fuck Microsoft', because while their software (most of it) is of very low quality, they do have a very structured business UNLIKE most of the Linux world.
Someone else who is more educated in Economics might want to elaborate on this a bit more, because I am just speaking from a REAL WORLD point of view. I now work in the Real World, and the Real World is a little bit different than the college world that many of the Slashdot.org readers are used to.
Again, please feel free to e-mail me...
stifle33@hotmail.com
Microsoft should close all doors, put thousands
of people out of work, cause a depression, let
the computer business go out of business kiss
everyone goodby. Forget about the year 2000 and
wish everyone well. That it.
What he doesn't realize: Linux kicks Windows
ass on integration. Debian ships over 2000
integrated packages that work together nicely
in all sorts of ways, and you can upgrade the
everything as a whole. It's an integrated system
spanning 2 CDs. The commercial distros are the
same, on a smaller scale.
Gnome and KDE are both working on integrated productivity packages and object embedding,
and have some substantial progress toward those
goals. Just because open technology like CORBA
is used instead of COM doesn't mean it's not
integrated!
Havoc Pennington
hp@pobox.com
http://pobox.com/~hp
So linux doesnt have good security... no wander MS supplied us with crappy FP extentions which are bug ridder (and were bought out from Vermeer Technologies Inc (that why its always
Also... Why should my Quake Server be integrated with Apache? or my FTP? those are independant things..
> I am DISGUSTED to call myself an American
I agree, it's disgusting that you're an American!
I think what a lot of `suits' fail to realise is that with programmers paid pretty well that many are willing to work for free during their free time. Or even better, are much happier getting paid working on open source software where they are free to share their ideas and designs.
If i can't have a database object oriented to my vb apps that run on the desktop, then the os sucks. Since ole and com is simple I assume that the linux hackers made a poor implementation of scalability as well. IF it can't support ole or com then it can't even scale or perform well
So somehow my linux which wasnt tuned for 2 years or even touched (the DNS server) requires more fixing than the NT that crashes once a week IF you are a good Admin... hmm... Yes...
And notice how again we are informed that we dont have enought software... We need two Samba's, two Apaches, everything doubled or tripled... Again.. quantity not quality...
The idea that a software company like Microsoft could "pack up and move to Japan" is so idiotic that this must be some kind of anti-Microsoft parody. The most precious asset of a company like Microsoft is between the ears of its employees. Those employees are not going to move to Japan.
The rather infantile whining about the success of the government is a sign of serious libertarian cognitive dissonance. A clue-by-four to the personal worldview is called for.
Oh, and OJ *lost* the civil suit, just like Microsoft is going to lose *this* civil suit.
Not for a while now.
http://www.activex.org
Were you expecting a microsoft exec to tell you that NT sucks and he is an die-hard Slackware user?
For the type of buck MS throws at him, I'd tell you the moon is made of blue cheese.
We're all in the business of wanting the customer to have the information needed to make informed choices," Muth said."We haven't seen a flavor of Linux coverage that addresses that. Some criticalness is needed."
We haven't seen any mainstream linux coverage, good or bad, until just recently. I finally noticed a linux mention in my hometown paper (The Oregonian) for the first time just a few weeks ago. Yet, how many minutes can you go without seeing a damn MS commercial on tv, in a magazine, or on a webpage.
And as far as criticalness goes, the damn article is on ZDNET, home of the FUD. Second, maybe there isn't as much to be critical of in linux as there is in MS bloatware. In Muth's world, nothing compares to NT, so if an article isn't critical of an alternative, then it is not fair.
The outright arrogance of Muth and Gates just makes me hope even more that the open source movement takes their fully integrated 30+ million lines of code piece of crap OS and shoves it up their ass. May they choke on it.
Oh my GOD, a Microsoft employee said that Windows is better than Linux? THAT'S certainly big news!
Come on, no one is going to take this guy seriously, just move along.. it's funny though.. made my day
Those guys at microsoft make such great products. I have 2 NT servers that have been running for 2 years without reboot. They are great! I use sql server on them and the performace is amazing. YOU LINUX LOSERS SHOULD STOP YOUR WHINEING AND MAKEA BETTER MORE STABLE PRODUCT!
and there's a higher technical risk in using it,"
... why is it better to have 3 buttons for X, while apple has one button on its vermin? those computer thingis are so confusing... weit.. so its called now directory again? not a folder? why are there two ALTs two SHIFTs and two CTRLs? does it matter?
oh no.. I might haveto learn how to use that ackward keyboard again.. they put too many keys on it... Oh weit.. MS even made it worser by adding own keys... Argh... so what is the mouse for... how do I press any key?.. why dont I haveto reboot?
Damn.. I havent passed highschool damnit and was making my 50k as a NT admin.. now have to become literate again... wtf?
----------
wee.... that was fun... time to take my pill again the nurse said...
Hmmm... Linux has a similar problem - after 500 days, it'll fall over.
I am also disgusted to call you an American. Are we agreed, then? You'll ship out to wherever they'll take disgusting Americans sometime next week?
Cordially,
--NakedMoleRat
1)
When he says:
"The more I study linux, the weaker...bla,bla,bla"
He means:
"I still can't find the start icon in the taskbar"
2)
When he says:
"People want more integration"
He means:
"Our Users are trained monkeys so we decide what they want"
3)
When he says:
"Someone wants me to belive that these visionary programers and developers will want to do the best...and give it for free"
He means:
"Hey, wait!, we charge for a piece of sh*t and they do the best for free! This is our end!"
4)
When he says:
"We are all in the bussines of wanting the customer to have the information needed to make informed choices"
He means:
"We will continue paying media to say what we like, because missinformation is the base of domination"
5)
When he says:
"Let's say they are equally scalable"
He means:
"Let's pray for the day they are equally scalable come"
6)
When he talks about shrink-wrapped apps.
He means:
"Word will never be ported to Linux, Word Perfect? What's that? I've never seen it..."
7)
When he finishes:
"That's how it should be"
He means:
"We will make anything at our reach to change the ways things should be"
Just my 2 cents.
Jejeje, if I meet this guy in 10 years I will have a REAL GOOD TIME...
Just because microsoft can make a bunch of products that tie together and act as one while you losers can't write code for somethin like this, does not mean I am stupid but rather intelligent. You see those guys at microsoft really care about the world of computing. Microsoft made the boat while sun,IBM and apple and sco all lost it when Bill wrote dos and gave it out to create standards. Every computer company in the whole industry does not know how to do bussiness other then microsoft. Microsoft is the only company trying to make great products and doing great bussiness deals while the other companies just whine "HELP ME RENO I MIGHT HAVE TO COMPETE!" hehehe
Get a life. I will fucos on true bussiness results by using excelll, word and publisher all together while you all figure out how to do it. Name one wordprocessor thats as good as word. Now name one spreadsheet thats as good as excell. Now name one internet browser thats as good as IE. Face it! you all lost.
Shouldn't that be crack their site?
he government shouldn't put its nose where it doesn't belong. This trail is disgusting.
There is one simple reason that Microsoft is so successful, and that's because it make the best software. PED! When was the last time
that the government did anything that was good for the consumer?
I've have two NT boxes running steady for over two years now, and I haven't yet had to reboot them for *any* reason. What other OS can
make that claim? Linix? Sure, right!
If people would just stop whining about successful companies like Microsoft and Intel, and let innovative and bright people continue their
work, all of us would be much better off. Or would you rather buy software written by the Justice Department?
Let's see.
Linux adds no value. Linux is growing. Must be wrong. Plus any value from a free product is good.
No off the shelf apps. But many Internet apps. And many free.
No long term road map. Companies can't predict the future. Plus road maps get in the way of needs of the future.
No intergrate. Sure there is. Docking etc. Plus depends on your definition of OS. Window Manager intergration is available.
No drag and drop. Got some of that. MS never admits Corba can compete with DCOM do they?
Linux figures are inflated. The opposite is likely true. Many Linux users are likely missed by size figures and where Linux is not known about in many companies.
Linux has second rate coders. Wrong since many are the same programmers. Many programmers code as a hobby, go figure.
Linux is not scalable. And NT is?
Gee Ed is that fear we smell?
If FUD is the best Microsoft can do this late in the game then they
have lost. One year from now, NT 5 will be still born. Two years
from now there will be more Linux desktops and servers than Microsoft.
Three years from not, Microsoft products will be weird little
proprietary memories, with clinging diehards and no future.
I remember my first IBM pc back in 1982 and I was amazed at the power of it. Those guys at microsoft gave me so much commands and
things I could with it, I was filled amazement. MY apple2 was much more primpitive and it was out competed by dos. Those guys at
microsoft invented the idea of personal computers and it shows through their products. Microsoft invented the first program ever on a pc so
dont give me that trash about Ms contributing little if not nothing for the desktop revolution. Infact Bill wrote it himself. Microsoft basic!
Bill also wrote ms dos all by himself and made the best os in the world that still lies in the code of windows so it has to be good for running
on 90% of computers right! Even though msdos is based on qdos, the code was totally rewritten by Bill because qdos was written for a
different machine and it was awefull but Bill saved it. Wow those guys are smart. I would given a medal if I could. Thank you Bill for
personal computers. Thank you for great products that make linux, lotus suite, corel office look laughable in comparison. You always have a
home on my machine.
People should be allowed to puff and code.
Just in case you mean what you wrote:
.doc] so you can share your documents with friends who are reluctant to change and use a better Office Suite like StarOffice.
StarOffice 5.0 and Applixware >> Office 97.
On an indivudual program basis, WordPerfect 8.0 is better than Word.
StarOffice also happens to be free and saves in Office 97 formats [.xls and
Anon.
Last year I read a story where a company dropped NT in favour of Unix (solaris actually) because they realised it cost them $25K in lost revenue for every *hour* their web site was down (coincidentally the amount they 'saved' on buying NT over Sun in the first place).
Where does Ed 'the mouth' Muth fit that into the TCO equation?
That's all. Tell me when and where and I'll be there.
But I would like to say this: don't ANY of you give a fuck about MONEY?
Yes. But for a multitude of good reasons, I hate M$ more than I like money. I know this is "illogical," (God, I hate putting punctuation inside the quotes when it really doesn't belong there, or am I wrong on this rule?) but I want my children to have a better future than a M$ one.
JustSomeGuy
can be fount at http://www.msnbc.com/news/246824.asp
Because my boss told me to say so, and Because I Love MS, I Love the big contribution they have made to mankind, providing all we need to live, think and work. I can tell you 100's of reasons YOU should Like MS too but it's too late and I have to pick up my salary at microsoft.
:p
B-b-b-but, O.J. and Clinton are innocent! ;) You must really hate Japan to wish Microsoft on them - don't you realize they are a bloated black hole to economy? Don't tell me you don't know that their profit margin is astronomical and a few cows are getting really fat at our expense. C'mon - $90 for an upgrade???? I'm an OEM, and I see what they are doing, and it's criminal. With 350 million users, where do you think their costs will be recouped and the rest will be shear profit? And for all the money they're making, you'd think their support would be better, and bug-fixes would be more timely. While they're confering as to which way to go about fixing a bug (1 of 3 million), Linux programmers are already posting a patch to a Linux bug (a tiny handfull). Sure, send'm to Japan. At least there the powers that be have the common sense to pull out the Samuri sword and lop off heads (been wanting that trophy for my wall...).
no , I'm not pissing on Australia here (hey, I live here, it's great), It's just that you M$ people don't realise how many other countries want to rip into you. The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commision)are very interested in you, but they won't move until the American court case(s) is(are) finished.
And I made damn sure they knew, Because I BLOODY WELL TOLD THEM. I explained to them that is was impossible to buy a computer in australia without some M$ OS on it, and how including apps in the OS killed competition.
So don't assume that just americans hate you.
qdos was totally rewritten because it couldn not run on a IBM pc. BIll rewrote it. Their use to be some source code on it somewhere showing which parts he wrote. IT has to be good if 95% of the computers in the world run it.
it kicks ass. it's free. can't get much better value than that.
He's got a strong point. There is no wide spread user application intergration. In the business world the linux/freebsd works great for internet type usage, but application wise the average users does want the simplicity of microsoft products. Samba is not yet ready to compete with NT's server abilities yet, though, apache does take linux a far way; this does include the firewall services too. When I come to a programming project, it's simple what the client wants, VB/C++ applicaicaion that works with office, nothing less. I tell you what though, Linux/FreeBSD offers a great product that needs a centralized core with more application development to overcome the giant.
Applix and staroffice equal office 4.0. You remind me of all those ms haters at work who use amipro 3.0 and say its god and it sucks and its about as good as office 3.0. It can't even do a grammer check.
One more ting! Staroffice can't even read 75% of all ms office docuemnts. Go to zdnet and read why Berst doesn't recommend it to any bussiness. IT sucks and it will never be nothing. Also microsoft will invest in encryption technology for office 2000 so kiss backward compatiblity good bye. os/2 had all this fame before Steve Balmer showed it crshing in front of everyone and showing windows 3.0 being more stable. People believed it and zdnet published this and everyone assumed that os/2 was dead. Expect the same death of linux as well. I work for microsoft and Bill is expected to show off linux crashing in fron of 40,000 people in a few months when showing off windows 2000. You can then kiss your os's goodbye.
I dont see any level of interaction between apps today.
I can only say that I am glad that I do not have to administer nor use nor own any Microsoft products. Well, except for one Microsoft propaganda sticker that a friend gave me that was attached to a laptop. It says:
:)
"Designed for Microsoft (in big letters) Windows 95 and NT"
Well, this is prowdly displayed on the lid of my toilet
I'm happy working and administering Slowaris, Digital Unix, and Linux boxen (even if they don't have essential features like Active X and OLE).
what do u winblo user know... start ,shutdown .. ... do u people know STABILITY...
easy
damn it mofuckas..
suck bills ass mofuckas
2 years?
So you're running 3.5 or something like that? Hope they aren't connected to anything, because there are loads of security holes in there...And we know you haven't applied any updates, because that requires a reboot and possibly a reformat/reinstall/reboot...
fucking sheep is all I am....
The "Shrink-Wrapping" of apps is indeed looking more and more antiquated. ( It seems so to me --and I'm the archetypal newbie. I bought my first PC last March, by early May I was installing Linux) Now I think of software as a kind of living plasma circulating on the internet. I'll still buy apps in plastic for Linux, but exposure to downloaded packages has had exactly the effect you talk about. It's just a matter of time before the new mentality reaches critical mass. People will pay for software still, but the middle man will find it harder to make a buck off of the misconception that one must go to a certain place for software and receive it in a discrete, physical medium that is uniquely yours upon purchase. In the long run, the attempts of software companies to govern our use of our own cpus and put a meter on our access to information, and culture, and each other, will wither away to nothing as a result of the new distribution model. (I mean nothing compared to what we are told we must put up with now.) The "commodity fetish" of a physically possessed bit o' software, purchased in a physical locale is a necessary part of the magic that subordinates the sw user to the sw publisher. This voodoo is about to end. It cannot make the jump into cyberspace.
I have to agree about the windows part, its easy to use, has more apps and like stated above you barley have to do anything yourself, which is the whole reason bussinesses adopted computers were to make working easier not use something cool. although I think linux as of right now is the best server out there it'll never make it to the desktop unless some MAJOR work is done w/ xwindows, i got a amd300 w/ 128 megs of ram, dual boot nt and linux. nt goes much faster then xwindows and i have yet to have it crash. linux = good server, nt = good workstation
I dont think MS means to make bad software. In many cases i think they make excellent software (Word seems good to me). They have a lot of brainpower in one spot, and you cant say MS is stupid because they do control the world afterall. I just think Microsoft is too big to control the quality of its products properly. Without the peer review power of OSS, could it be that which determines if a product is saleable or not is whether it compiles?
Microsoft could make good software, we all know they can... but its just not profitable to care about your software if you're the giant.. and thats the bottom line.
t0ast.
Yes, security and performance are greatly enhanced by cramming as much as possible into the OS and tying it to everything else.
For example, a huge security flaw widely published on 7/12/97, has the following patch available from the Microsoft ftp site:
The LM-FIX hotfix has been temporarily removed from distribution. During complete regression testing, we determined that under certain limited configuration there is a problem with this hotfix and certain DCOM features. We are investigating the extent of this interaction and will issue an updated hotfix as soon as its available.
Oops... Did they really integrate everything so much that they can't fix a basic security flaw without breaking other apps? Well, that's not a good example.
But speed, everybody knows that due to including so many services in the base OS, Windows NT serves its own native file format with half the performance of Linux on a comparable system. (Source: PC Week) Oops again....
ROFL...
Think of a baby that never walked. When you try to get him to walk at first he would give anything to go back on the floor. It's the same thing here. These guys never saw a command line and are used to GUI wizards. They will do everything, including FUD, to win. They see they can't win against a system they don't understand, so they panic. It all comes down to the same basic FUD:
"Programmers will starve cause they don't get paid!!"
Give me a break! If you followed that line of thought everyone that doesn't produce a real product shouldn't get paid. The world need programs, and companies will continue to pay people to code stuff. They will make money off selling CDs and giving support.
It's all fear in their head. Let's stop worrying and go back to taking over the world. Software should be free. And will be. There is no stopping it.
Don't worry about Erik... He's just a kid in school. Check out his website...
Went to Santa Barbara City College and studies computer science at Cal Poly.
He seems to like FreeBSD, which is strange. FreeBSD users and Linux users need to get along better. We both have decent systems and actually run most of the same software on both of them.
I really don't understand his MS supporting nor his Linux bashing.
He hasn't had the opportunity to be in a real work environment bent on MS. He hasn't had to code in VB and use SQL Server in a production evironment with hundreds or thousands of users. Then have to deal with the downtime and support nightmares. He doesn't get paged in the middle of the night because the NT server crashed.
He is clueless when it comes to Enterprise computing and the real world.
He's more interested in writing HTML than real code and I would not class him as a true geek or a real threat to Linux. He's just another lamer college kid talkin junk without any experience to back it up.
Nuff Said...
That's totally unfair! I'm sure lots of Windows boxes can run for 49 days.
The problem is those damn users running applications. How can you expect us to keep NT running all week when the users won't stop running those damn apps ???
Honestly, one would think that Microsoft would at least clarify their position on Linux within the company so as not to have multiple conflicting statements made..
....
You forgetting that since the trial, all internal e-mail is forbidden. Try going around telling this to 25,000 people
:)
You can have Microsoft for free! We'll even throw in a yellow Gremlin and, and, here, I have some change in my coat pocket. (I'd have more money if Microsoft didn't bend me over and @%$@&!*)
I imagine this is just the first in a long string of FUD tactics from Microsoft as it loses sales and customers to Linux and Open Source software.
How do I fight it?
1) I help new users all the time on IRC, via e-mail, and in person. The more educated, knowledgeable Linux users we have, the harder it will be for Microsoft to pass this crap onto the population and have it believed.
2) I participate in public forums on IRC, the web and mailing lists, countering rumors, myths, and outright lies about Linux and free, open source software.
3) I introduce people to the OS we know and love. Many people don't even know there is an alternative to Windows (besides the Macintosh, of course). There are tons of misconceptions out there ("Linux has no GUI!") that we need to dispel.
There's an old story from US politics:
A strategist says to a candidate "We'll get the thinking man's vote."
The candidate replies "That's not enough, I need a majority!"
I feel sorry for the people who post these. These people have been living happily in there cave for years now. Suddenly people start coming in and telling them about the outside world, and how everything is so different from the cave, but instead of going outside to investigate this strange new world, they stay in the cave. They will complain how the outside world is so overated and talk about how great there cave is. I was in this cave before. 4 years ago, I left the cave. Of course I visit still, I have friends and relatives that ask me for help with there computers, and still have to use windows systems at work on acation. My advise is to at least check out Linux. Instead listining to what people tell you, go out and give it a try. It might change your life.
Ah, Erik, stop trolling already, this isn't the GNOME thread. Do you even know what the fuck the survey is about? "Hosts connected to the internet," right, folks boot into Linux for four minutes, get hit by queso and massively skew the survey. Oh my ... I hope MS at least pays you to look like a fool.
Just breaking up MS will result in two monopolies instead of one - an desktop OS monopoly and an office suite monopoly.
More important than breaking up, they need to be restricted from manipulating the distribution channels. They should be forced to sell Windows on an open scale with pricing dependent ONLY on quantity. They should be prevented from making exclusionary contracts with hardware vendors and ISPs. And although I don't believe they should be forced to open their source code, they should be required to submit it to an indepent observation group to ensure that the API's are all documented. This will all require more oversight than just breaking it up, but it will be worth it in the long term.
C'mon, are you a half-wit programmer wannabe? Who in their right mind would want VB????? And Ole? It's so full of holes, and so proprietory, it's not worth the water it takes to flush it! Have you taken at least 5 minutes to check out the incredibly vast arsenal of languages and development tools you would have with Linux??? Obviously not! Lisp, Fortran, C, C++, Perl, Ada, Java, Pascal, etc, etc... ALL FOR FREE!!! So if you're rich enough to throw wasted money at bloated and expensive development tools, too stupid to write in anything but VB (I can piss VB), and don't plan on writing anything more sophisticated that a hello-world program (God help you if you try anything more with VB), knock yourself out. If you want to taste true freedom, access a world that spans numerous platforms and languages for the cost of a $1.99 CD, have true power over all aspects of your system, and want to truely better yourself, reconsider your stance...
cause i dont.. for me life isnt about money, and i would think that for most linux hackers mouny isn't why they hack. here read this cause it just may open your eyes to why some of us work for no money. "punished by rewards" by alfie kohn
Linux crashing? Is he planning on releasing a Microsoft Linux distribution or something? Come on... Sounds like you need a reality check. Microsoft will never be able to compete with OSS in realibility and stability (amongst other things).
"ActiveX is what was formally know as OLE. It's now named ActiveX because people felt silly trying to say OLE[1] in a serious conversation."
-- Mr Bunnies Guide to ActiveX
[1] Oh-lay. Not O-L-E.
We in the Linux realm are in a world of ethical competition. We can take the GPL'd tools and progs, package them in any way we wish and sell them, as long as we allow the next person to do the same. We're not stupid. We understand more about business than you Microsoft waste-faces will ever know. Every distribution is making money off of Open Source. Cheap Bytes is making money off of Open Source. VA Research is making money off of Open Source. I'm making money off of Open Source. All with complete blessing of the Open Source movement. If IBM wants to play, there's plenty of room. They're helping in Open Source projects, Corel is helping in Open Source projects, so's Informix and Oracle - but they aren't required to. Commercialized Open Source products are of great value to the Linux community. Not many 33.6 dialups are going to brave that 500+ meg download and a few bucks shelled out for a CD is of infinately greater value than the hundreds you're forced to pay for equivelent Microsoft products (actually, there are no equivelent Microsoft products - Microsoft is completely beneath us in both quality and capability) I'm happier buying a commercial product for my free Linux than I ever will be for any Microsuck product. With Linux, it's an investment, with Microsoft, it's a butt-%#^&#k.
Stop smoking crack! Right this minute! It's bad for you, you know. . .
yes I know the flame will come.
Linux is a worthy cause at the most. Mr. Muth is right when he siad applocations are not tied closely to the OS ( Kernel ). Linux programmers say it's for security. However Linux is not even C2 secure unlike NT workstation. There are not off the shelf applocations like there are for NT and that puts value to an OS. Without off the shelf applocations/servers an OS is not worth the effort in any business except maybe the ISP business. My personal experience with linux goes as fallows:
I payed about 50.00 for RedHat Linux.
I was amazed when I found out that I had to spend valuble time having to read a manual just to get the system up and running. After spending a few hours trying to get some kind of interface up ( GUI ) I finally gave up after trying 4 different video cards. Sent the software back for a refund.
My personal experience with installing and running NT workstation/server:
I payed for the server and workstation CDs. Took them home and popped the cd in and a window poped up and asked me if I wanted to install. I said yes and click a few more times with the mouse and everything went smooth. No manual was required, thus I more time to spend productively. After going to the local software store to see what applocations I could get for my new NT box I was totally impressed with the amount avalibe. So with Linux I was stuck in some charector based invirament to were there were hundreds of commands I could type but I had no way of listing them all and names were not nmonic enough to give you an idea what it does ( sed, awk, ls, grep, etc.. ). And with NT I had a graphical user interface with intuitive menu options that tell you on there face what they do all because NT reconized all 4 of my video cards during installation so a user interface was avalible.
And the Point of Sale and Inventory tracking and customer account management software has been running for 4 months now without a reboot/crash.
Guys just my personal experiences with the 2 OSs.
I'd like to consider myself "one of the best computer scientists in the world".
Sure if I had my own software company I'd like to sell my product for $$$. But that's not realistic. Like most good software engineers I'm told what crap to write by my employer 9-5. After that I write the real cutting edge stuff that represents what I believe to be the future of software.
And I give it away, partly because of all the reasons people are advocating open source, and partly because I don't really see any way I can make actual $$$ off it anyway.
So Microsoft - get stuffed. You are in maxi-FUD mode obviously and I'm going to code twice as long and twice as hard now to prove you wrong.
Weight of Ed's diaper =
ln([Fortune 500]$ into VA Research)
+ minutes of LinuxWorld coverage on CNN
+ 2000/(days until year 2000)
+ 49.7*(percentage of NT 4 binaries that won't run on NT 5)
+ F0 0F/(MSFT share price)
-Bette Noire-
Hi,
Linux is just a OS for hardcore hackers.
This was true for about 5 years ago.
Linux is just a OS for hackers.
This was true for about 3 years ago.
Linux is just a OS for technical people.
I know this was true for about 1 years ago.
Linux is just a OS where they don't have "Off the shelf applications".
I know this _is_ true, but wait another year and we'll see what have happened ?
Duhhh!
If there wasn't Linux, I would sure use Windows however much I dislike it. You know, i really don't like the MS GUI design, the MFC API, and the integration stuff Ed boast about (I guess this integration stuff would ensure competition to MS products won't win).
Now Windows coexist with Linux on my old Pentium 133 (obviously I don't game much). My new Pentium II 400 only runs Linux. Linux actually displacing Windows on desktop is probably something Ed can't imagine. I'll bet 36 months later there'll be at least 50% of Windows applications available on Linux also.
Ok, I may be a minority. But if there wasn't Linux, I would sure use Windows.
'Cause if you need some magical sort of "integration between the OS and the apps" in order to get the sharing of barcharts, then I'm wondering how Office 98 for MacOS works.
It shares between applications, and I don't expect that Apple added lots of hooks into the OS just for MS.
I was always amazed that IE for Windows had to be built into the OS to work well, yet MS ships IE for other platform that aren't intergrated. I guess Windows is just too flacky to be able to support apps in its own right or something.
It's funny MS is reported to try and hire all the best programmers. Yet everything they say is so clueless. Do they actually believe what they say?
Sometimes I think they do. Very scary.
> Ed Muth
Hi, Ed. Remind me, which of the witness-stand screwups was yours? (There were so many, I can't remember who committed which.)
> fewer off-the-shelf apps
How many different word processors do I need? I think I can deal with a numerically reduced selection, knowing that the ones I *do* choose are going to work right, be trapdoor free, not lock me in to a vicious upgrade cycle, etc. Besided, I'd have almost no apps at all if I had to go down to CompUSA and shell out big bucks for every tool I need.
> no long term development road map
And glad of it: at least we can hope that Linux will go where *we* want it to go, rather than where some CEO wants *his* OS to take us.
> lack of integration between the OS and the apps
May all the gods save us from more "integrated" shoveware!
> drag barcharts between Excel and Word
Should I ever be so unfortunate to use Excel and Word, I'll make it a point to see whether I shouldn't be using them on your OS, Ed.
> Linux usage figures are inflated
That's the expected hypothesis from a company that fakes videotapes for courtroom presentations.
> obvious that good programmers won't code for free, so they can't be good
I prefer to measure "good" by the results rather than by some bogus Platonic platitude. Linux is good, and most of the programming was done for free, so your conclusion is bogus, Ed. (BTW, do they have people who think like you writing the if-then-else logic in the Windows source? Much would be explained by such a hypothesis!)
> just like Van Gogh could not have been a good artist
Hey, starving artists try harder.
Let's look at this argument:
> Let's say, for discussion, they are equally
> scalable," he said.
That's ok so far. We can take the moon being made of green cheese for the sake of argument, if someone likes.
> "And let's assume applications are available for
> both, and setup time is the same.
Again, assumed for the sake of argument.
> Given all these factors as equal, the best you
> could hope for is about the same cost per
> transaction between servers."
Ok, this is basically valid, given the premises. If we assume that two things are equal, we can validly come to the conclusion that they are equal.
> But Muth turned that argument on its ear.
This is a nice piece of objective journalism. Always good to give your readers your own value-judgements before they read what you're giving them your value judgements on.
> "The problem with that is there are fewer
> applications available for Linux,
This is quite debatable. Since his original argument is about database servers, *every* major database vendor is either offering a Linux version or intends to do so shortly. What he's talking about may be true on office productivity suites, it might not be. The count is fairly close. Does windows even have something like TeX, btw? On the other hand, he is right if he's talking about games, but then the argument started out on databases. Kind of an odd switch, wouldn't you say? Oh, wait. Maybe he's talking about custom VB apps? Maybe, but then there are an awful lot of custom UNIX programs out there too. Can he back this up with some hard numbers and examples? Can anyone think of an area where NT has a clear advantage in the number of application offerings? Maybe CAD?
> there's no long-term development road map,
As someone else pointed out, microsoft's long term development roadmap didn't include the internet until it nearly passed them by. Anyhow, what does a long term development road map mean in the computing industry? Can anyone predict in a meaningful way where computing will be in a year from now? Two years? Five? What does he mean by long term development road map? Does he mean to say that NT's development is set for the next x number of years? That's interesting to know that Microsoft doesn't plan to adapt to the world. But if they do, what is that long term roadmap then, but some vague notions of what they're going to do unless they aren't?
> and there's a higher technical risk in using
> it," he said.
What is a technical risk? Is that a risk which is technically a risk? Is that a risk which is technical in nature? I.e. the technology is more risky? Can he back this up? My experience of the two in a business environment directly contradicts this. My experience of trouble shooting for friends directly contradicts this. My experience of our Linux lab in the comp. sci. department, on which real scientific calculations are done, directly contradicts this. NT is known for crashing, Linux is known for stability. Where is he getting this "information"?
>"You could cut Linux some slack if it were
> sharply lower in cost per transaction than NT,
> but that's not the case."
This rests on our previous assumption that the two are comparably scalable. Has Ed Muth given us the slightest reason to believe that there might be some basis for this assumption before he went on to conclude the argument, resting squarely on his assumption?
And another fabulous "argument":
> "We feel that 2 to 20 percent of Linux shipments
> turn out to be 'shelfware,'"
It's nice to know what they feel. I'd be more interested in what qualified people think, peronsally. Where exactly does microsoft's credibility as statisticians and polsters come from? Why should we trust their gut instincts?
> he said. "From what
> we can tell, real-world deployments of Linux are
> very thin.
Out of curiosity, how did they try to tell? Going with their previous basing of arguments on feeling, I'd guess either a oiji board or tarot cards. Of course, that's just a guess. For all I know they might have used a random number generator.
And now for his (IMHO) crowning achievement:
> "I find it hard to believe that some of the best
> computer scientists in the world will want to do
> their work for free," he said.
Isn't he obviously right? After all, all of the great physicists, chemists, and mathematicians of all times sold their ideas for millions. Sure, they lived off of their ideas, much of the time. Some of the time they didn't. Einstein worked on relativity while doing some menial job which I forget at the moment (did he work in a patent office?). As we all know, the true geniuses aren't motivated by a love of their field, but by sheer unadulterated greed. That's why they always like to hide their discoveries and inovations from the rest of the world, and that's why we're so technologically backword, still using knives to hunt down animals and collecting berries off of the bushes, with no knowledge of genetics or quantum theory..
> "Without a long-term technical road map,
What is this hangup that Muth has with a "long-term technical road map". Life is unpredictable. What value is a long-term technical road map going to give? We're going to do this unless we're not doesn't sound very helpful. Yes, there's "we're going to push server content type y", or "We're going to try to win by shear technical superiority and gain advances by using 1 nanometer transistors" etc. Of course, for a bunch of people who claim to be about innovation, it's kind of odd that they have their "innovation" planned out years in advance.
> without multimillion-dollar test labs,
These are undoubtedly better than not having them. This is a good point. It doesn't mean that these labs aren't indispensible, but they are beyond doubt a good thing so long as they aren't used in isolation.
> someone wants me to believe these visionary
> programmers and developers will want to do the
> best work of their lives and then give it away.
What do the first two parts of this sentence have to do with the end? Long-term road map? Does muth think that geniuses like being told what to think about and what to do? Test labs? What does that have to do with giving away your best ideas? If anything, not having these test labs would make you more able to give your ideas away, as you don't owe people nearly as much.
Anyhow, that isn't addressing his point. Doesn't he notice the general trend in science to give away one's ideas? To get credit for them, certainly, but to give them away? One's crowning achievement, as a researcher, is to publish your article about your discoveries. Sure, some people keep their discoveries secret and just make money off of them, but that isn't how science or math generally works.
Master craftsmen like people to see their work, they don't like it hidden away. The only way for someone to see the craft of your code is to see your code.
Also, Muth doesn't seem to realize that giving your ideas away makes for a great barter economy. If we all give our ideas away, we can all live beyond our means and have it all. Master programmers aren't dumb. They can see their own best interest when it stares them in the face. Not to mention, many of them are human. They like leaving the world a better place than they found it. They like knowing that someone else's life was better off for them having existed.
Sure, the world largely works off money. But then again, let's not forget Ghandi and Martin Luther King Junior. Let's not forget the Literacy volunteers of America, and the Red Cross. Let's not forget those people who sheltered Jews in Nazi germany, or who helped runaway slaves escape in the south. Let's not forget those who donated their work to Great cathedrals, and those who donate to places like Carnegie hall, and a myriad of other artistic groups.
Yes, money is important. So is the human spirit. Let's not be so reductionist that we lose sight of that.
> "I do not believe in that vision of the future."
Well, I'm glad that Ed Muth isn't God. I would not want to live in his universe. To directly address his point, I do think that we have some reason to believe that the future won't be as bleak as the corporate owned future that Muth envisions. After all, Carnegie Hall and the Red Cross do still exist.
Many of the trolls appear to be resorting to abuse and name calling. (Rather than attempting to say anything good about Microsoft systems.) Obviously they have have no rational arguments.
I'm waiting for the pop when you finally pull your head out of your a$#%#s. If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you. It's in beautiful Mohave. Dos started it's life as a pirated piece of shit since before Bill, and he only got that because his pitiful basic was even worse. Invented the idea of Personal Computers?!?!?! I can tell you were toking the pot when this was all happening. IBM invented personal PC's in competition with Apple - not Microsoft, they were just unlucky enough to stumble upon our favorite college drop-out (read - quiter, failure, con artist). It could have been anyone, so in truth, Microsoft is still of little value to the history of computers - they did more to injure computing than they ever helped.
Heh. They're gonna make a buck off of free software. OpenSource == OpenWallet
No. They know very well that Open Source and Linux means very little money. But competing with Microsoft on their own turf (Windows) means even less money. So they hedge their bets. That's all.
sure it will crash on demand /dev/null /proc/kcore
cp
that is a nice fast easy way to kill a linux box on demand.
other than that and X windows though it is very
dificult to take it down with software, obviously,
other than software such as X ran as root. I can
see it now.
Billy boy: see to make linux crash all we have to do is pull out this little chip right here (as he
pulls the procssor out of the system) see how easy that was.
what a joke
Sorry buddy, you should spend more time in your classes (or maybe get a job?) instead of writing here because it's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh my god. Microsoft is totally f!@king clueless. They just don't get it. I've been telling myself not to get my hopes up to high about crushing Microsoft, but this article proves it to me. Microsoft is going down. They are going to get a _big_ reality check in the next couple years or so. Did you guys read this part:
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free....someone wants me to believe these visionary programers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
Poor bastard. He's gonna get a gut check hard!! Did he sleep through: The existence of Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, Linus Torvalds, Dennis Ritchie, (hundreds of others deleted). Geez the guys an idiot. Just about every brilliant piece of computerdom came from people who gave it away. The first browser, C, etc. etc. The guy's living in a dream world. It will be really fun to see them figure out the reality of the world. Man.
...I hope not as a programmer. Otherwise, W2K is doomed.
This thread was about Microsoft wining and lying. If you're happy with your NT, keep it. It's you're money to throw away. But while you have two boxes running, you could do so much more and have so much more uptime with a single, less expensive Linux box. If business is about money, then it would be prudent to check this out. A single, cheap server could easily handle all the sql requirements of your two NT boxes, plus serve users conducting various duties such as developing and compiling apps, running mail, telnet, terminal, remote graphical, web, samba and God knows what else. All at a fraction of what you paid, with a fraction of the administration, with gobs more security, and with far greater productivity than both of your NT servers combined. What's it to you. Havn't got a spare computer in the closet? Are you too scared to try? Or are you unable to conceptualize a true multi-tasking, multi-user, robust and inexpensive server conducting more than one purpose simultaniously? Your boss wants a telnet server - what do you do? Buy another NT box with 10 user licenses for $900 bucks? Linux already has that built in with unlimited licensing for less than $2 bucks! And you can use the same box to serve other purposes without a problem or nary a strain.
No, we have nothing to wine about. You, on the other hand, apparently have no idea just how good we Linux admins really have it, and have every right to wine...here's a tissue.
Your just an intern.
Guess what? Even if you do make the cut, you ain't never gonna get vested, 'cause MS is about to get the a*s whipped by the combined totality of the proprietary AND free software industry. Free software cannot be stopped. Try stamping it out here, and it will pop up there. MS doesn't have a prayer in the Third World, which is the customary profit generator for immoral businesses in the US that find regulations a little too strict for their taste (big tobacco for instance).
MS is doomed. They have nothing. Software is not a "product". It isn't tangible.
And what you fail to realize is companies can afford to pay people to work on free software only on very rare occasions. Companies are not charitable institutions. And I don't know many people will to take a large pay cut just work on something that will be free.
level, I can assure you that it really is more trouble than it is worth.
I used to wonder why MS was the only company that got that OLE stuff correct. Now I am positively convinced that the public API is deliberately broken. MS MUST use a private API for the stuff.
I guess he hasn't visited Roothshell or AntiOnline and found the plethora of security related bugs and hacks that exist for the Redmond based baby! Sure this site also has bugs for linux but the difference is that it is usually a matter of days, maybe even hours before they're fixed, in Microsoft land it can take months!
That's a very weak argument. Windows itself is many times bigger than Linux, it supports a lot more applications, is installed on tons more systems, and has many more users so this kind of a comparison is idiotic.
you are quite correct, the quotes go inside the punctuation in this context.
I think it is quite logical to loath MS. MS is a company that has made itself quite a pain in my personal rear end. Nothing illogical about it. They cost me time and money and I want them out of business.
Detroit pulled the same kind of crap that MS is pulling right now. I don't ever plan on owning a detroit brand. Ford, Chevy, CPD and MS can kiss my rosy red spot. Difference is that MS is a monopoly, while the big three were unsuccessful in their lobbying attempts to restrict Japanese imports (you "free market" types listen up: ain't no such thing). Too bad for them. Cat was out of the bag. They spent too many years laughing at little itty bitty cars that were easy to park, inexpensive, reliable, drove for 250,000 miles, until it was too late to do anything about it.
MS is in a mess of its own making.
And if you believe that anywhere but Bellvue will go into depression, you got another think coming.
>Give me a break! If you followed that line of thought everyone that doesn't produce a real product shouldn't get paid. The world need programs, and companies will continue to pay people to code stuff. They will make money off selling CDs and giving support.
Uhhh... Let me make it simple for you: if you make money by selling CDs and giving support you make much, much less money than by selling software, CDs, and giving support. Therefore you cannot afford to pay even a smal fraction of people you used too (unless you want to go bankrupt).
Software should be free.
Where did you get this idea?
So you're saying that money makes it okay to lie?
Yeah, i follow that....
We've got to have something to do after we've finished our mundane day-jobs.
Did you ever stop to think that you have a mundane day job precisely because you're not as good as you think? Or is everybody just blind to your brilliance?
Shit yeah, Windows kicks ass cause you can write cool software in VB really fast. To develope the same program for x windows (notice they try to steal ms name windows, even mac doesnt do that) would take months maybe years.
VB+windows is a total programming integration.
Another AOL hacker
.save
/q
^C
Uhm.. Nice troll.. Especially since you're wrong: There are OLE libraries for Linux...
what makes him think he knows how the best coders think? he seems to only see the value of software in the money it can make!
I don't know what he thinks but I know a lot of programmers that like to make money doing what they are best it. And why should exposure be a better motivation that money to somebody that doesn't need an ego boost?
That contradicts every experience I have ever had with NT. I would beleive maybe 2-3 months, under no load, but not 2 years. No way.
Looks like they are successful!
:) I bet the people in Redmond are lauging their asses off watching the linux "community" spend more time flaming their comments than writing new open-source applications.
If you actually belive those trolls... Well, I guess it is something to between X-Files epsiodes
The man was just telling the truth. NT is more stable and the fact that linux is even in the enterprise is a matter of debate itself. Linux is the most unstable unix variant of all the other unix's. The only way it wont crash is if you run it in consule without x11 or any apps. X11 is so unstable its not even funny. Have you noticed taht zdnet had to turn off x11 before they benchmarked it agaisn't NT. :-)
:-)
NT is the most stable featurfull os since the history of all mankind. Just look at world history in encharta. Also microsoft has doen a terrific job with the most important web even in history. SLATE MAGAZINE! The magazine has totally changed the world we have lived in. Come check out the number of hits it recieves a day www.microsoft.com/mspress . Boy those guys at microsoft are so smart and innovative. If NT is soo unstable and bad at webserving, then why does novell's website run NT.
Its true! Microsoft gets more hits on the web then any other website besides slate and NT and IIS can handle it. You all should download iis4 and the NT option pack. Its makes apache primpitive in comparison and zdnet declared as the best web server around and the editors were appauled that apache is even considered a serious web server in bussiness. iis4 and apahce is like comparing NT to linux. May the best prodcuts win.
Why do you have to take every anti-Linux article as being just blatent deceit? Are you so enthrawled in what is the Linux 'Community' that you can't respectfully take all perspectives into consideration? Sure the guy has to sell MS, that's his job. You CAN be a Linux advocate and still remain open minded toward other platforms, you know.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Linux as well. However I like to be less rushed to call everything that comes out of MS as pure propaganda.
4dos?
This is commonly thrown about, but means little to nothing. Win NT is C2 secure:
* On very specific hardware (including the model of floppy drive)
* With a particular service pack (forget which one)
* With nothing added to it out of the box
* ==NOT ON A NETWORK==
An operating system cannot itself be "C2 secure"; it is an entire system setup which must be. C2 does NOT apply to networked machines.
"Correct me if i'm wrong, but Microsoft is in many ways similar to VHS and Beta. Beta is obviously superior, but because of better marketing, VHS quickly ruled the market."
Actually, you're absolutely bang-on right!!!. Though you have the wrong reason. The reason that VHS quickly ruled the market is because it had what the customers wanted - longer recording time - over technical superiority. Beta vs. VHS is a perfect example of MS vs. Linux - technical superiority, sure! Does Linux give the customer what it wants? Nope. Which is why it's relegated to TV studios and high-end media.
MicroSerf
Install Office 98 on your Mac. Notice how it every-so-thoughtfully installed OLE extensions on your Mac? (And with the new "autorepairing installations", it probably puts them back in if you try to take them off)
MS's goal is NOT to futher the computer market, they are out to make money and nothing more.
Those two goals are actually mutually inclusive, not exclusive
But I see you're choking on your own bile, so you probably didn't notice in all the furore.
MicroSerf
Microsoft will never be able to compete with OSS in realibility and stability (amongst other things).
Such as bilious posts without substance, perchance?
MicroSerf
That doesn't mean it *isn't*. :-)
MS is doomed. They have nothing. Software is not a "product". It isn't tangible.
I bet you say the same thing about stories in books and magazines. Well, miladdo, get a grip - intellectual property is the mainstay of the current world economy. And as such, it's here to stay. And also as such, software is indeed a product.
Or, I guess, you could tell RedHat to pack it all in - after all, they're selling something that isn't a product and isn't tangible in those boxes @ Borders.
MicroSerf
We know stability. In fact, we know it much better than you know how to spell.
Don't forget that Albert Einstein had a mundane day job when he was awarded the Nobel prize...
I can connect just about every Linux
program available together with two
things: shell scripts and pipes.
You can't do this in any version of
Windows.
Ummm... for your information, the following paragraph establishes what "it" is. Sorry, but writing articles is a lot less formal than strictly grammatically correct writing, and has been so for years.
What you're looking at there is what's known as an "advanced clause"; it's a device used to bring the reader into the story. The title has already identified what the subject matter is (MS exec dissects Linux), and the following paragraph details the exact nature of the subject. However, after the title is a sentence which serves to hook the user into the story.
You do know what "delineated" means, don't you? It means "outlined" - now read the sentence again and see if it makes more sense to you.
Emotive language and jargon add color to what would otherwise be a rather boring article. And it did have logical flow; you're just being picky. Stories don't have to go from beginning to end in a straight line; you can have tangents in there, and loops, and there are many other literary toys to play with.
Your high-school English teacher would have been incorrect to do so; this isn't formal writing - it's informal. And as such, you can bend the rules. (See the sentence beginning with a conjunction; only try this if you're a trained professional with a safety net).
This isn't a technical report. It doesn't even purport to be one. It's a general interest (to the computing world) feature presented in a button-pushing manner. Unfortunately, the only buttons it pushed on you were the ones you obtained by being severly beaten by an English teacher in a former life. Unless you are an English teacher, but you play a geek on television.
Simon Cooke
Ex-Technical Editor, Your Sinclair magazine
Redhat sells services and manuals and applications. not Linux.
Now you have installed NT and havn't read the manual, how are you going to fix it when it goes wrong?
The interst rate of time is enourmous. Invest a little at the start and you'll reap major dividends later.
Besr regards
Mark
Hee hee... you should post that to segfault.org!
Perfectly true, not everything MS says is pure propaganda, just a lot of things. This happens to be one of them.
Actually there is no "X Windows". If you do a 'man X' you see:
The X Consortium requests that the following names be used when referring to this software:
X
X Window System
X Version 11
X Window System, Version 11
X11
As you can see, no "X Windows". Windows just isn't the same as Window. No stealing there on Linux's part.
Check again. Even links at the site you point to note that Microsoft's only giving away "half the keys", the so-called "core technology" for server applications. It's a ruse: it is *not* open.
Read the script :
MyLinuxMate : Windows, is shit shit shit. Always crashing all the time. Linux never crashes its so stable.
Me : Hmm.. I dont belive you can I come round to your house and check it out (make it crash)
MyLinuxMate : Yes. I've got this art package which is so much better than photoshop, it gets updated all the time.
I went round to his house, he ran linux for me and put on this art package (I can't remember name, but its offensive). Less than 1 minute and I crashed the damn thing, some error cam up and then it crashed.
MyLinuxMate : Err.. It never usually crashes.
Me : Do you actually use this package.
MyLinuxMate : No not really.
Me : Do you ever use Blender?
MyLinuxMate : Err... no, but its much better than 3DS max 2.0
Conclusion : BOLLOCKS, If I used linux as much as I used Windows then I would have it crashing every minute. Linux is crap. Fact. Programs released are 2 years old. Fact.
Can someone please tell me something about Linux that is better Windows, apart from the usual bullshit like cost, stability etc.
Title says it all :)
Touché!
/., they pissed me off with al their Bill-bashing about Linux vs Windows, so I thought I would giv'em some hard time, and....
All this time this guy spent on slashdot! Can you imagine
Manager: So are you done with (whatever was to be done)?
this guy: Well, no, see those guys on
Manager : [Error 2001 at x00FFFF entry point: MANAGERSBRAIN: Manager speechlessly awes at amusing moron sitting in front of him for a while] Where did you get the idea that your job title was : waste time for useless PR BS on slashdot? You are fired!
So see. Who needs this. Be mercyful. Everybody needs a job, I mean *everybody*! Unfortunately
Bill didn't write DOS, genius. So why don't you go read about the history of modern computing while you're rebooting your Windows box.
The reason that VHS quickly ruled the market is because it had what the customers wanted - longer recording time - over technical superiority.
Not all customers want the same thing. A lot of customers want what Linux can give them that some other systems can't. I'm sure plenty of other people prefer Microsoft, others maybe want a mainframe.
Linux is (at least currently :) not the only solution. Its openness and modularity though may help give it a wider audience in the future though. Similarly MS Windows, although meeting some peoples requirements, does not meet everyone's.
Concerning the original comments:
- Integration: I see integration as a possible weakness in the MS world. Word should be able to exchange data with Excell without needing any OS specific features to do so. One of open source's strengths in my oppinion is its modularity.
- Applications: such as Star Office, Word Perfect, Oracle, DB2, too many other things announced as well as all the open source alternatives.
- Security: Apache seems pretty secure. PGP is stronger than most I think. We have firewalling, tcpd, all sorts. This does not need to be integrated into the OS. No-ones yet managed to explain to me how NetBios gets around spoofing attacks. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to rely on broadcasting for authentication services.
I don't think that article can be taken seriously at all. I'm not even going to think about total cost of ownership for NT versus Linux.that's great for the 386 in your bedroom, silly child.
go get some real world experience (OLTP, CORBA, OLE) before you post again.
How long did that take to do? Well worth the time, anyway. Thanks! I enjoyed that.
You are right, of course. Many people (sites, webmasters, manuals etc) make this mistake.
FUD is evil, also Linux FUD. While Bill Gates is
Microsofts little Hitler, Linus is also
showing some signs of intolerance. Disturbing.
VB+windows is a total programming integration.
yeah right..
I have coded a lot of VB code and I am not impressed at all. Ok if you mean cool programs = a couple of ballons flying around the maybe VB is ok but when it comes to real programs then VB sucks because the language basic is so fucked up when it comes to large applications. BTW macromedia director or flash is much better when creating flying ballons.
The C2 security thing is meaningless. You need a particular configuration of both computer, OS AND software. The OS in question is NT 3.51 (just try buying that from Microsoft). The computer MUST be standalone.
As for whether a C2 security rating is meaningful in a commercial environment, seeing it was designed to protect hierarchical classified data in a military environment? Probably not.
IS NT 4 secure? Well according to my flat mate (who has the thankless task of securing NT for a large investment bank), not really. For external use forget it (IIS and ASP seem to have been designed first and foremost as security holes). For internal use it is hard, as both the OS and applications seem to have been designed to thwart security. Basically unless you really know your stuff (and my friend is GOOD), forget it.
Win2000 is worse by the way. Some of the security holes they're designing into that baby are gonna be impossible to plug.
Linux on the other hand is comparitively trival to make secure.
_____________________________________________
Another anonymous coward who hasn't quite registered yet...
"If i can't have a database object oriented to my vb apps that run on the desktop..."
I can quite happily have a databse accessed by my Java apps on my desktop thankyou. Wasn't there a VB to Java translator somewhere? "
Since ole and com is simple I assume that the linux hackers made a poor implementation of scalability as well"
Now thats what I call meaningless. OLE and COM were MS proprietry products (apparently they are available for Linux now). The Non-MS world has other ways of solving the same problems including CORBA, RPC, open file formats, open communications protocols, JDBC, ....
Anyway what does a collection of communication protocol acronyms have to do with scalability? Is this even relevent to the question as to whether or not Linux os better suited to your purposes than Windows.
Windows doesn't even have a network transparent windowing system. Do you expect me to have to travel to the computers in order to access applications on them when I can access everything remotely from one screen here?
>IF it can't support ole or com then it can't even scale or perform well
Hardly. OLE and COM have nothing to do with scalability, or performance. And, as it happens, OLE/COM scales dreadfully.
And Linux supports CORBA, which scales.
I guess you're not a real programmer.
NT boots up like a cow! DAMN SLOW! It is statble for most of the times, but if it locks up, you screwed! And you have to wait for the service packs to get updated.
In contrast with the endless trolls.
* that psycho's can twist your mind into believing a certain reality?
* that people that join a socalled 'bandwagon' can be played for suckers through the masses just because a rumor is spread?
* that what you may believe today may be justified on a social level but not on an individual one?
* it may be possible that our linux community is being played for suckers because the outside influences are so powerful and that we as a generation of hardworking people have to rise to this battle but not on their level......
"... to be able to move an Image from my File Manager to my Word Processor [...] Linux can do this, but it takes days of downloading and compiling and tweaking."
I've not had problems with this under Linux. I must be missing something. I just tend to import the image into the word processor / whatever.
Then again I also find things like cut and paste and printing easy (PS versus Windows' GDI: PS seems to work well enough for me and having previewers like gv is quite nice).
to get buggy Gnome running which uses so much cpu I might as well be using Windows.
I just installed the .deb files - easy. Like you though I gave up on it as I'm used to (its all about what your used to isn't it) FVWM and its a lot lighter weight on a small system like mine. At least I have the choice.
That's why I use FreeBSD
I started out on HP-UX but it didn't run on PCs so not much use on my own machine. I was still able to access it using X, though I prefer bash to ksh. Both systems (home and department) had fvwm. You may like to try Window Maker for a nice lighter weight window manager with user friendly features.
- Richard (I'll get an account one day. Does pressing the "Create Account" button clear your submission though?
What a great page! It comes up with about a bazillion Javascript errors when I try to view it on Netscape. I really must look at msnbc.com more often, I just love all those cascading error windows.
Otherwise, yawn. Microsoft says their competitors suck... gee, that's, like, real news.
Why should you care about how long it takes to compile Gnome then? Sounds quite stupid to complain about something you should not have been doing in the first place!
http://mailsearch.particle.net
http://www.netcraft.com/survey
I think this is sarcasm
- scalability (embedded CPUs to 64 processor SMP and Beowulf clusters.)
- support (problems answered and bugs fixed usually within 24 hours - Linux support community has won InfoWorld awards.)
- longevity (not tied to a specific vendor who may decide to scrap the product.)
- system management (full control by remote access and from scripting languages allows easy automation of system management tasks.)
- networking (Samba will serve Unix, Novell and NT networks concurrently.)
- web/ftp serving (Better speed and stability means more pages served from less hardware.)
- security (comparitively imune to viruses. Both default and fully secured installations more secure than corresponding NT setup.)
- portability (ported to more than a dozen CPUs).
- scientific software (most is Unix native. Most supercomputers also Unix based.)
- choice of GUIs.
- distributions includes full range of server software, compilers, utilities, dictionaries.
I've missed some I'm sure.Well what didja expect? When you're used to living high on the hog and it starts to crumble, you do or say anything (even things that have been hashed and re-hashed again) to try to save youself.
Truth is, M$ has no one to blame but themselves for their position - and all Linux's commercial hype. THEY stole from the best M$ solution providers and put them out of business. What were these companies supposed to do? Roll over and die?
They will be the only ones writing M$ software. Thing is, no one will care anymore.
Nice try tho, Mr. Ed.
The linux community is buit on comradere not of economic growth that needs to dazzle the millions of idiots with proprietary gadgets that lead nowhere and are slaves to the almighty dollar.
There are other ways to make money without prostituting your foundational beliefs!!!!
Emacs is the ultimate office suite and IDE and web browser and psychoanalyst and Mayan calendar.
*YOU* lost!
I'm not an expert but I'd like to try and show some weaknesses in his points.
Haven't most articles (including some done on the MSNBC webpage) showed that setting up a Linux server is many times cheaper than setting up an NT server.
Since software such as Apache and sendmail is developed for linux, does that mean that the programmers behind those products are inferior to Microsoft's (capitalism first) programmers?
It is definitely true that Windows isn't shelfware. I get plenty of use from the disk having to reinstall it every other month when it dies. Linux does stay on my shelf though. I install it once and don't need to get the CD out again.
It's funny to see Microsoft attacking the media for giving Linux the boost since MS is the master of deception through marketing.
By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if MS grabs qoutes off of this website during the trial to show that Linux is a major competitor. This whole pcweek article may be a way for MS to get Linux users to come up with new arguments for them. But maybe that's just my conspiracy theory working overtime.
Oh well, sorry for any ranting.
hee hee! cute troll!
FreeBSD and Linux are really popular in Japan. Even more so now with their economy in the toilet.
Better yet, M$ should move to Germany. Linux is practically the national OS there.
China already has M$ CD manufacturing facilities working overtime ;-)
Canada? Fuck NO!
Our government (attempts to) regulatate(s) ethics a LOT more than the Americans...
You probably received those copies of NT and 95 FREE with your computer. Would you take a Red Hat CD back to Red Hat and demand they give you $50 for it? No.
Perhaps they realize they're not going to win the antitrust case and they want to "reassure" their slav^H^H^H^H clients that they should stick with MS and not defect to the rebel alliance...
The best joke I've seen in ages... does this Muth guy do standup?
Can someone tell me what is more satisfying?
1) putting your best code into a closed-source project for a huge company that has less-than-clear motivations (i.e. software that maintains the monopoly is more important than the best solution)
or
2) putting your best code into a project of your choosing, that you use, that other best coders contribute to, and that has a system for allowing the best code to prevail (open-source, peer-review)
maybe you should by some Fritos(r) for now. at least you'll get a lot of sodium, not fat
WOOHOO!!!! I"M F1R5T P05TUR!!!!!!!!11111
or alias ls=rm ? yeah, right :-))
England??? I live in England and there few things I hate more than M$.
"Fair"? You're saying that license agreements that make OEMs have to pay M$ extra to install anyone else's OS are FAIR? Or 'integrating' the browser with Windows so that J. Random Luser can't be bothered to download another browser - or doesn't even *know* there are other browsers. That's "fair"???
And $10 billion of overcharges in the last 3 years is "in the interests of the consumer"?!
"Failed to make a decent product"? Try using Lotus SmartSuite for a while and you will see how superior it is to the crap that M$ shoves down everyone's throats.
The reason other companies can't easily compete against M$ is because M$ uses illegal marketing tactics like the two I mentioned above. Tactics which are illegal in the US and AFAIK all of the other countries you mentioned, and which most people (if they actually *knew* M$ was using them) would agree are morally wrong.
I can't be sure but I think that M$ would probably be *less* well received in England than in the US.
Excellent post. I have a few comments, though--
/.? This is a LINUX oriented page, you KNEW you were going to get flamed up one wall and down the other. WHY PISS US OFF? To make a point? You have made no point. You've proven yourself exactly the opposite of what you said you were, rather intelligent my butt, more like a f*cking retard. Sit on it and rotate!
He said something about taking a great big backwards step? Why the hell not? If you
run too fast you trip and bust your nose anyway. And thats beside the point, I don't see
how he can call linux a step back. I don't want my browser to be part of my OS.
IMHO, an OS should do one thing-- DEVICE INTERFACE, and linux does just that.
I couldn't agree more with this. I think Windows' development over the past ten years has been similar to the American car industry in the 1960's & 70's: building bigger, more complicated, less efficient cars which were not reliable and cost a lot. Linux will do to this market what Honda and Toyota did in the early eighties. These companies made simple, efficient cars that got people from point A to point B. Like running a Japanese import in those days, it still is difficult to "get parts" (am I taking this analogy too far?), but people don't mind considering the value and performance-- and besides, that will change as demand grows.
And one more thing, what the hell are you doing reading
I don't like this attitude one bit. True, I disagree with the guy, but that doesn't mean we should trash him for trying to participate in the discussion. To do so is to go against everything open source software stands for: the product gets better due to the free exchange of ideas. The same goes for this discussion. Trashing an M$ supporter will do little to persuade him to try Linux. It makes us look like a bunch of elitist jerks.
MC
I could not possibly have responded so clearly or so well!!!
well done, well done!
I thought this post by the above AC was fantasticly funny, almost as if I was reading right from www.theonion.com. But then, even better, the greater humor came when the humor-impared responded to this as if he was serious.
MS "group product manager" Ed Muth, on why Linux will not
... is a low level of
0 6,00.html.
succeed with corporate customers: "First, [lack of] a broad base
of support for applications..."
If Mr. Muth is defining "applications" the same way that MS
defines "cross-platform" (i.e.: across Win95, Win98, and WinNT),
I can see his point. Yes, there are no *Microsoft* applications
presently ported to Linux, nor has MS announced any intentions
of doing so. This comes as no surprise. Other than that, there
are many "server applications" either ported, in the process of
being ported, or with ports promised. And in case Mr. Muth has
not been following IT industry news of late, there is an
increasing rate of announcements of intent to port desktop apps,
as well.
Mr. Muth says: "The second failing
integration between the OS and its applications."
Perhaps Mr. Muth simply not paying attention again? In every
poll *I've* ever seen, IT customers overwhelmingly vote
*against* tight integration between an OS and the applications
that run upon it. Customers *want* the two clearly delineated.
Besides, has Microsoft never heard of CORBA? You know: the
open-standards, cross-platform, non-proprietary object broker
technology guided by the Object Management Group? A group to
which belongs every major industry player *except* Microsoft?
And speaking of applications integration: if Microsoft regards
applications integration as being so all-fired important:
perhaps Mr. Muth can explain why MS-desktop/applications-bound
users complain that they can't effectively import Ms-Excel
spreadsheets into Ms-Word without Ms-Word usually trashing the
layout? Two applications that are bundled into Ms-Office. Yet
I can easily export in encapsulated PostScript a spreadsheet
from my spreadsheet application and import it into Corel's
WordPerfect flawlessly. Both products are cheaper than
Microsoft's products. They come from separate vendors. And
they run on multiple platforms. Oh, and neither is "integrated
with the OS."
Muth next asserts that "Linux actually costs end users more than
Windows NT."
I recently put up a Web server, complete with search engine,
feedback forms, FTP, etc. for a whopping $42.50 (U.S.). The
Linux distribution on my laptop, including word-processing,
spreadsheet, email, Web browsing, UseNet news reader, dial-up
Internet access, SQL database, complete C/C++ development
environment (including source-code control and symbolic
debugging), complete Perl support--including many optional
libraries, Adobe AcroRead (for PDF documents), multiple window
managers (I can choose the one *I* like), and more, for less
than $200.00 (U.S.) total. And it all runs just dandy on a
486/50 with a 1GB drive. I even have about 500MB free! Oh, and
it *never* crashes. In addition: the Linux installations were,
if anything, *easier* than the Ms-Win3.x, Ms-Win95, or Ms-WinNT4
installations on the same boxes. (Dells, Compaqs, and the
like.) Hmmm...
Muth: "Let's say, for discussion, they are equally scalable..."
Let's be accurate and say they're not. Not even close. This
from my own experience and from documented head-to-head tests.
For example, many Ms-Windows aficionados (one time an
experienced MSCE), regularly guess my lowly 486/50 laptop to be
a 75MHz or 100MHz Pentium box when they see what it does running
Linux. And then there's this revealing head-to-head performance
comparison at Sm@rt Reseller: "Linux Up Close: Time To Switch"
at http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,3875
All that aside: Mr. Muth conveniently ignores what is perhaps
the greatest contributer to TCO with Ms-Win solutions: new
installations, repairs (patches) and upgrades. In short: the MS
operating system, its applications, its workgroup/domain model,
and the entire environment conspire to make it effectively
impossible to maintain Ms-Win workstations or servers without
having to personally visit every single one of them for every
single patch or upgrade. In comparison: Unix, and Unix
derivatives, can usually easily be updated remotely. And that's
when individual updates are actually necessary. Perhaps due in
part to the dreadful lack of integration between applications
and the OS, Unix applications can usually be installed on *one*
machine and run, as needed, from others. The implications of
this, vis-a-vis, TCO (maintenance) are obvious.
[Note to PC Week editors: you take a credibility hit when you
add gratuitous editorial comment like "But Muth turned that
argument on its ear" when, in fact, he did no such thing.
Muth's argument that followed is what's commonly known as a
"straw man." Perhaps you ought to look it up.]
The remainder of Muth's arguments simply aren't worth
addressing. Save one: "I find it hard to believe that some of
the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their
work for free..." (And that's only worth addressing for its
sheer amusement factor.)
Thanks for the complement Mr. Muth. I'm sure the the multitude
of players that have been responsible for the wealth of freely-
available-source "products" that have driven the Internet to
where it is today will be appreciative of your opinion. Which,
I might note, directly contradicts that of you colleague: Mr.
Valloppillil.
Or perhaps one of your very own employees will be amused by your
blanket assessment of the competence of such contributors: the
man MS hired that created a neat set of tools called "ImgStar."
Look it up.
As for me (being a small-scale contributor): I'm not really all
that concerned with your assessment of my abilities. Given the
quality traditionally reflected in the average Microsoft product,
I don't hold your opinion in very high regard.
In conclusion: Nice try, Mr. Muth, but as Valloppillil noted in
the famous "Halloween Documents": FUD won't work this time.
Lets talk about equally scalable. Lets say what would happen if Hotmail switched from UNiX to
My fault - it did happen. And Hotmail was down hard, until they were forced to *cough* revive UNiX and ditch Exchange.
He was penniless, he had gone half crazy
from a habit of ingesting turpentine,
his mother threw out a bunch of his paintings,
and they were not famous in any sense.
that is, until a couple dozen years after
he died.
so i think your comparison is very odd. are you saying that is what linux will be like? sold
for 40 million dollars a pop by rich elitists who could care less about the artwork and just like
having it around as a status symbol to impress their friends?
"Name one totally new creation that OSS has brought us."
The Internet itself is the product of OSS software development, thu it wasn't called OSS yet.
But of course, the Internet is not really new. It was just a rip-off of MSN.
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free"
Believe it. It is true.
And what's the next stage? I've forgotten--is it acceptance/resignation, or is there something in between? I'd like to know what to watch out for.
(My personal prediction is that we'll soon be seeing much more direct and violent attacks, including staged/fabricated stories of failure involving Linux somehow: "Billy deployed Linux widely on his network and lost data/credibility/his job/his sex drive/his life. Only a fool would be like Billy and bet the farm on Linux. Risky, risky, scary, ooooh!")
I've tried to unsubscribe from this mailing list for days to no avail. Could someone please have mercy on me and remove me from the list. I can't stand this constant flow of nerd news!
Bill S B
No I'm not trying to be a troll. Linux crashed 20 minutes ago.
It was up all night with KDE running. This morning KDE stopped responding. I quit (had to kill X server) and started X again. At this point the screen went black and Linux stopped responding to keyboard. (What's that? Black screen of death?)
Sure, Linux is much more stable then windows, but the notion that it never crashes is largely a myth.
Whatever guy. Here's a flame for ya.
;)
I just installed RedHat for the first time ever in my whole life on a new dual PIII. I've been an NT 4.0 WS user for 3 years. I have never had an easier install. With the help of my NT bawx (to download stuff, but I could have used lynx) I got the new XFree86 and once RPMed, had X on the 8Meg G200 card in literally seconds.
SSH in seconds.
RC5 in seconds.
Network install absolutely transparent.
The disks don't all spin and the entire desktop refresh and redraw all the icons whenever you do something grandiose like delete a file. I say, I though all computers did that until now
I write code. I do not track inventory. Linux is the place to write code. NT is the place to play Quake. And that too will soon change.
Sorry that Linux didn't work for you. I think you should try again someday.
-kabloie
Has anyone else noticed that winfiles and download.com are full of nildy useful shareware, ruined by nagging messages to pay $10 to register?
I used to be Mac user, and so I was used to good quality free stuff.
.. that Microsoft decided (in the Halloween document) would not work? If so, then why are they resorting to them now? Exactly how frightened is Ed Muth? Do they believe that these sweeping condemnations will be taken seriously?
Expect more of this, and ignore it. Redmond is not relevant to the growth of Linux in any significant way. People are slowly beginning to become numbed to Microsoft's smoke-and-mirrors strategies, and we should all "keep the faith" that good, solid technical reasons are the primary motivating factors when people and organizations make a choice as to what OS they're going to deploy. No amount of double-talk from One Microsoft Way can change that, folks.
Sorry, but it's true. You can't handle an OS with the training wheels off. And until you can, you'll never know what you're missing. But maybe someday, you'll be ready for Linux.
And work on that spelling, kid. How old are you, anyway?
"Who are they really trying to *prevent* being called?"
Bill Gates? He really wants to testify, but his own lawyers refuse to call him.
IT sucks and it will never be nothing.
The only reason you folks are talking about this crap is because of Corporate "IT" has been slurping up the computer industry's crap for years and years.
If people treated computer systems like cars (i.e., they didn't buy a new one every year), the hardware would be so expensive that the hobbyists wouldn't be able to afford systems to develop OS's like Linux on. We'd all be still using Atari 800s or MS-DOS.
Hmmm,
Dan Kaminsky posted his "Core Competencies" article on 3/2. Is Muth rebutting him? I think they're watching Linux sites more than they admit...
You gotta love it when Plato pokes his head into a ./ discussion.
MC
You probably have a hardware problem.
What kernel are you running? I once had trouble with an experimental kernel and a certain SCSI controller. After upgrading to a newer kernel, everthing runs fine.
That was the sheee it.
Damn, When a dude can lay the smack down like that. It makes my day.
Rick Ranger is the sheee it. Ed muth is a bung hole. full of FUD.
Well, I guess Applix wouldn't be for you. Your
post *needs* grammar correction. Next time why
don't you type this out in Office and then "drag
and drop" it into IE? The rest of us would
appreciate it.
And you work for Microsoft? Bwahahahahaha!
Jeff
I've have two NT boxes running steady for over two years now, and I haven't yet
had to reboot them for *any* reason. What other OS can
make that claim? Linix? Sure, right!
I've read many posts like this which mean precious little to me. Everyone boasts about how long their server/desktop has been running without saying anything about WHAT its running or WHAT its running on. If those two NT boxes are Xeons with 2GB of memory on a network with 20 nodes, then 2 years really isn't much of a feat.
Our web site is running on a P90 with 40MB of RAM. Redhat 5.1 and Apache. It gets hundreds of hits per day and never goes down. and its fast as all hell.
MC
>The only reason my linux servers are ever >rebooted is for kernel upgrades or hardware >changes.
Actually, I have to reboot my linux server every couple of days, because after about 15 hours(sometimes more, sometimes less) it stops allowing logins.
Anyone have a reason why?
Mike
mikemulvaney@excite.com
I know it bothered me that they kept bandying about the C2 spec even for NT 4 SP 1 (!!!). They have since gotten C2 for Service Pack 4 NT 4. (I think) ;)
Don't give me this bull shit.
I have ATI 3d Pro Turbo video card (Mach64 X server), kernel 2.0.36, XFree that came with RH5.2.
What? A no boot kernel swapout? That's the ONLY reason I reboot. Hah, the uptime wars are going to get VERY one-sided here pretty soon.
Mike
NT sensed your mouse has moved. You will have to reboot to reflect the changes. [OK]
Were you running X as root? Don't compain if you were - you shouldn't except to some twaeking (not necessary at all really). ;)
True, not everything that comes out of Micros~1 is propaganda. They also produce overpriced, bloated, bug-ridden software...
You cant make money on it!
He must have meant to point out how much better Linux scales... That doesn't support his point at all, but what other meaning could there be?
"...someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away."
No, I'd much rather turn my work over to a greed-driven marketing machine and watch it make someone else richer.
Have you heard of Corba and Gnome and their
component model ?
The military carried it only far enough to build a network of seven machines. Sort of a proof of concept.
Then they allowed university grad students to push the envelope by extending the protocol which was only possible because they had the source to the boxes maintaining the fledgling net and to the programs using the protocols.
So yes, Open Source, then known only as R&D did build the Internet !
Think of Open Source as software development using scientific peer review. Are you also claiming that Science has never created anything ?
If "The Scientific Method" allows innovation in physics why not in software ?
Many people have likened programmers to mathemeticians. Mathematics never advances either.
How many contrary examples do you need.
I just realized that we are entering another "Age of Enlightenment". WOW ! This is gonna be FUN !
Try all of it.
That old Ghandi quote should come to mind,
they will start to fight us. Get ready...
it hasn't even began to get nasty as it
will get.
Well, I was going to post on all the spelling errors in that, but then I noticed something even richer. Two quotes from that post:
You remind me of all those ms haters at work who use amipro 3.0
and
I work for microsoft
ROTFLMAO! What a maroon.
While reading a RED HAT manual in the lobby of a computer company, a Microsoft Rep. told me that "Linux is a doomed OS." That was the Spring of 1997. Linux will never be doomed as long as it stays away from being a Windows Replacement. KDE ans GNOME are wonderful -- make M$ copy them. WINE is not the path of success.
>>It sure looks to me like he is saying, "NT is >>better than Linux because it has more market
>>share."
This is perhaps the most legitimate reason to
claim that NT is better. Market share does add
value to most pieces of software.
Read this bilious paper with substance, perchance:
http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/
Thats just fine, feel free to make a buck of us, feel free to exploit us, make money of us, as long as the source remind free we dont have anyting against if companys sell our programs and provides support for our free software, thats just fine for me. Why should we care as long as the source remains free?, why should we care who use our software? is a corporate user more bad than an home user? We write the software becoz its fun and we enjoy it, we give it away for free to anyone who finds it usefull, if its a big fortune 500 company that wants to "make a buck" (save money) of our software or a homeuser does not matter.
Oh really. Can you give a reference.
Is Mozilla supporting ActiveX components?
Does the new GNOME 1.0 support ActiveX plugins?
Just for the record, this is my first post
in this thread.
yes I know the flame will come.
:-)
Sorry, no flames, just an honest debate.
However Linux is not even C2 secure unlike NT workstation.
Apparently it bears repeating that the C2 certification was for one particular computer, not connected to a network. It does not apply to the software you install out of the box.
So with Linux I was stuck in some charector based invirament to were there were hundreds of commands I could type but I had no way of listing them all and names were not nmonic enough to give you an idea what it does ( sed, awk, ls, grep, etc.. ).
No one said there was nothing to learn. The easy to use program with little to learn in the beginning is often unable to accomplish more complicated tasks.
And with NT I had a graphical user interface with intuitive menu options that tell you on there face what they do all because NT reconized all 4 of my video cards during installation so a user interface was avalible.
Most likely intuitive because you used Win95 before. I just had a reality check. My 27-year-old sister who is smart, but not into computers, was trying out the Web. Tasks that I thought were intuitive (typing ".com" at the end of an address) are not intuitive but learned.
And porn movies. Which were banned on the more "idealistic" BETA format. (See, don't mix idealism and commerce, it makes for a brutal wake-up call. ;-)
Stay away from networks
you're too stupid
If thats true then why did Microsoft try to hire Alan Cox?
Windows itself is many times bigger
I guess when you're associated with a company with a name like "Microsoft" (tiny, limp) you feel you have to compensate somehow.
's probably why Mr Bill hates *nix so much, because it has a reputation for being "hard".
No I wasn't. I was running it as a regular user. But that doesn't make any difference since X server runs with SUID root anyway.
In any case, the point is that Linux does crash. It's way more stable then windows, that's true, but it's not as rock-solid as many Linux advocates claim.
Ed's the guy who, in a Point/Counterpoint sort of article with RedHat's Young, said something on the order of "more ISPs are using NT/IIS-based servers than any other type..." which flew in the face of several recently published surveys.
Take what he says with a huge grain of salt... but remember that he's getting this misinformation out to journalists who are usually too stupid to go out and verify the information that they get from sources like Ed.
Who was the guy at the Chicago News Bureau that used to tell reporters:
Sounds like an overheating problem.
What CPU do you have ? Intel - run hot, but have a fan integral these days anyway. AMD/old intel - Fit a heatsink and fan! Use _Heat Transfer Compound_ when you do it!
If you have a graphics card, particularly one with a 3D processor - It needs a heatsink too, more than likely!
what size harddrive/cdrom ?- some do get hot, too.
What size case - I've a medium-spec system, but it's all very comfortable and airy in a full tower case - but in a mini tower or ( aaagh!) desktop case I'd hate to leave it running for ages like I do now.
Ed Muth was manager of Digital's Workstations program where he did the same thing. He was chief apologist for a poorly implemented program. He attacked everyone but the real problems the marketing people who missed the workstation and UNIX phenomenon.
He is like the Captain of the Titanic who told everyone not to worry "they just stopped to take on a little ice". He will still be touting MS policies as they sink.
Gates -> enterpreneur
Allen -> technical brain
At least that's what we learned in one of my classes.
too bad my favourite UNIX book(UNIX System V Release 4: An Introduction) refers to X (what i call it =) as "X Windows". I catch myself calling it X Windows sometimes too. I remember about 6 years ago a computer tech telling me how "X Windows is like Windows but about 4 years ahead of its time".
sigh
MANI
http://209.226.111.111
I've had the same thing happen several times- it's always while logging out of X (windowmaker)- the monitor clicks to go back to wdm, & then nothing happens. Can't connect from the other machines on the network, etc., thus necessitating a manual reset. This has happened both while on 2.1.122 and 2.2.1 kernels, although I'm more suspicious of bttvgrab here (only non-debian installation), as my other linux box at work (2.0.35, pure debian) has been up 125 days now. :)
Actually, the reason Beta lost was because Sony wouldn't share their format with anyone. So Beta became a proprietary format. Everyone else chose VHS because of this. VHS became the standard (open) format. Sort of reminds me of some computer company.
If (Microsoft==proprietary) && (Linux==open)
cout "Linux will win! endl;
The problem hit after you restarted X. X can and does intercept your keyboard.
I'll believe Linux died if you couldn't log in to your box over the network or via the serial port.
if/when that happens again I'll try logging in remotely
I have Cyrix 6x86-PR200 (150 MHz). I know the CPU is crap but it has heatsink and fan. Besides, Linux is supposed to send hlt instruction when the CPU is idle to keep it cool. The case is full tower. (it's larger then friend's mid tower)
video card - ATI 3d Pro Turbo,
HD - 6 gig Seagate
CD - 32x Creative
motherboard - Asus TX97e
One totally new creation OSS has brought us?
The Internet.
Actually, Larry Ellison is the CEO of Oracle. Corel is led by Michael Cowpland.
>The idea that a software company like Microsoft >could "pack up and move to Japan" is so idiotic >that this must be some kind of anti-Microsoft >parody. The most precious asset of a company >like Microsoft is between the ears of its >employees. Those employees are not going to move >to Japan.
We are talking about M$ employees here. So far in this discussion, they haven't proven themselves to be precious to anyone... Do their mothers know what they do?
Microsoft should move its operations outside of the US, pull out its assets out of the US economy. I promise
you Canada, England, or even Australia will take Microsoft with open arms.
As a Canadian, I just want to say that I will not take Bill Gates' army of jackbooted Troll-Lords with open arms. Unless you mean "OPEN FIRE!"
MS should keep ther mouths shut. By saying its low value only confirms that it has GREAT value.
And if Bill did not already figure this out,
the need to create in humanity is paramount.
This explains why so much has been written for linux.
Ed Muth "knows" Linux ?
.... Ed just doesn't get Open Source.
... I mean Win 2000 (DOH !!).
Bwahawhawhawhawhahahahhahah !!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanx to the dolts at ZD for bringing us this super duper exclusive inside story, straight from the mouth of a slobbering M$ goon !!!
It's so funny
Doesn't understand how good programmers will work for free. They must all write crappy code, huh ?
There can't be that many Linux users -- someone must have made it all up !
Sorry, loser -- NT has the crappy code !!
And Linux blows NT away in price/performance !
If you want to talk about "BedTime Stories", how about NT5 ?
Ooops
Interesting in light of Paul ("We're scared to death of Linux") Maritz' testimony in the DOJ trial.
I can't believe it !!
M$ lied again !!
Listen, Every OS has its warts. NT, Linux, Aix, ..... I have always said, you use
SCO, os/2
the app that best meets you needs. If thats NT,
then use NT. If it linux, and for a great many people it is, then use linux.
Shouldn't that be "Microsoft double-plus good. Linux double-plus bad. We have always been at war with Linux"?
The only thing Muth said that made any sense was the M$ has the advantage of a multi-million dollar software testing facility. Too bad they don't seem to make effective use of it...
Micros~1 released another article just a day or
so ago saying that NT 4.0 is great and getting
installed everywhere. These 2 articles are what
I expect from a company that is frozen in its
tracks (NT Oh-Oh) and a truck is bearing down on
it (Linux). They can deny it, and even close
their eyes but it isn't going away. In fact it is
going to flatten it. This is what Linus was
referring to when he said that someone standing
in the middle of the road looks like roadkill.
Locutus
Funny.. When I boot up to Win-95 (Rarely) If I dont log in quickly (roughly 5 minutes) then it crashes when I do log in. I have no idea why it does this or anyway to try and repair it (other than formatting and re-isntalling for the n'th time).
Point: Even a MS-OS doing nothing has problems. (Especially in my case)
Office 4.0? Office 3.0?
I remember Word 2.0
I remember Word 6.0
I Remember Microsoft Office
I Remember Microsoft Office 95
I Remember Microsoft Office 97
I Remember Microsoft Office 98
I've even seen Microsoft Office 2000.
But the ones you mentioned... no.
So I geuss you could be write, if and when MS ever writes them.
That was yesterday; now today in this article: http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,221889 0,00.html Muth says "We see Linux as a competitor... Linux isn't the only OS with which NT competes."
Here's some advice.
Reach behind you. Ram hand up ass. Extract your head.
History of GUI's. Xerox invents X. Xerox administration decides not to release it because Xerox focuses on copiers etc. Steve Jobs sees X, decides it is great and invents Macintosh. Bill Gates sees Macintosh, likes the GUI and decides to create Windows.
X came first. Micros~1 copied the name from X.
... because it only shows they've got *nothing* to say. No technical arguments, no "look, here are the numbers how weak *nix is", just NOTHING, not an atom of an argument.
I love it 8)
Maybe under Windows 95. Under NT, no, the entire OS would NOT have died. Asshole.
>> StarOffice 5.0 and Applixware >> Office 97.
You *are* joking, right? StarOffice is possibly one of the worst pieces of software I've ever seen, and Office 97 is actually much better once you close the stupid dancing paperclip.
I'm not a M$-weenie, but you lot should realise that Linux software doesn't automagically become the solution to the world's problems simply because it runs under Linux. Another example of this is web-browsing. I can browse all day with IE4 but I don't seem to be able to do that with Netscape for Linux.
Don't get me wrong, it would be great if there was a good office suite and web browser for Linux, but StarOffice and Netscape simply aren't.
Seems like NT 3.51 can be, but only as a stand-alone system.
I agree. Then Japan's computer industry will never be able to compete with the U.S. and we here in the U.S. will take over the world.
Bwa ha ha ha....
Pretty accurate, but you mistated a couple of points:
scalability (embedded CPUs to 64 processor SMP and Beowulf clusters.)
Beowulf doesn't say much about the scalability of Linux. The individual nodes are only one or two processors each. It says something about the networking efficiency and general operating efficiency of Linux and about the wonders of MPI and PVM.
scientific software (most is Unix native. Yes. Most supercomputers also Unix based.)not in the OS, but that doesn't matter much; Supercomputer programs are either written directly for the super-computer architechture in question or use a cross-platform interface like MPI. The OS doesn't matter much because you certainly don't want to be doing system calls in a computation program.
I think we will hear a lot more BS out of these guys. But the MS era is over. Bill Gates himself says no giant company has survived an industry shift. They brag about apps, but the app developers hate Microsoft because MS screws them at the drop of a hat. Just ask Real Audio, or Mosiac, or Sybase, etc etc etc They can be critical of Linux, but listen to this: A friend of mine just got ADSL and wanted a gateway for his home LAN. It took him *10 days* to set up email, web, ftp, and IP gate for his other machines running 3 different OS. He installed RedHat 5.2 -- for free! This would have cost thousands on NT, been very UN-secure, and taked 3 times as long to get up and running. He also doesn't need any client access lic. for his server! M|CR0S0FT IS DEAD !!!! (they just have not run out of cash yet) ps - i can't spell
I have FOUR YEARS of "real world" experience
working with VB and OLE/ActiveX.
The technologies are too complex, and I can't see what's going on most of the time, so debugging is
a very time-consuming guessing game.
In Linux, I can see what's happening, and debug much faster.
> cp
WRONG - Won't work. I've even tried it myself (/dev/null has zero length)
This is likely to work (I'm not trying this)
cat /dev/zero >/proc/kcore
Ultimately, though this guy's statements boil down to: "Use Microsoft because everyone else is using it. And it's got a flashing light on the box. So you'll be safe." Admittedly the large userbase is probably the best and only thing that Windows really has going for it. Though this does reak of the "monopoly" and I bet a clever lawyer could mow him down in ten minutes flat.
I have a question? Can't anyone support Linux without bashing MS in the same message? There are too many messages to read all of them, but every one I have looked at seems to be more anti-Microsoft than pro Linux.
As for the stability of MS software... We have four NT servers here, running all MS products, with a support staff of only two. In the year I have been working with these systems, nothing has crashed. We have never have been forced to reboot due to MS-related problems.
Unfortunately, it just seems to be too easy for the uneducated to blame server crashes and forced reboots on Microsoft rather than their own lack of ability
Hey. We know about sex, we just can't get any.
(I'm not logged in now, am I?)
95 percent??
I guess 5 percent of the people on that poll were liars
Wow! How's that for hubris?
"To be happy with what you do you need someone who tells you that it's good. And you will get the most honest responses if people can see what you've written."
I'd be much happier with the respect of the people using my software than the respect of my peers. Just a personal observation there, but if you're writing software for software's sake, you're masturbating. If you're writing it so that your peer group will give you an "attaboy", you're masturbating. If you're writing it to help other people solve problems - then you're doing something worthwhile.
Just my $0.02
"away anything that microsoft currently has to offer. What other os can run so many server functions of half the memory required to run the same functions on a NT server. The last time I assisted in the setup of a Back Office server, It took up 85% of system resources with one person loged on and only idle processes running in the background."
Lemme guess - it was running Exchange, right? Well, you'll find that Exchange is designed to pre-allocate a whole swathe of resources and only release them when you take it down. This is to improve performance. You can edit a registry key to change this behavior if you like; but that's what it will do as standard.
"Poor bastard. He's gonna get a gut check hard!! Did he sleep through: The existence of Richard Stallman, Larry Wall, Linus Torvalds, Dennis Ritchie, (hundreds of others deleted). Geez the guys an idiot. Just about every brilliant piece of computerdom came from people who gave it away. The first browser, C, etc. etc. The guy's living in a dream world. It will be really fun to see them figure out the reality of the world. Man."
Actually, C and Unix were developed at AT&T - they were not given away by their creators. C was released from copyright by AT&T, but the development work was funded by them.
The first browser was an academic project at CERN, and as such, was traditionally a free piece of software; universities do that kind of thing, because they don't have to make money in Europe.
As for Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman... well, there's no accounting for some people.
Wrong, actually. You can use Windows Scripting Host to do it. If you install the Windows NT Resource Kit, you can even run Bash and write PERL scripts to do what you want to do.
The FUD just doesn't stop from the Linux weenies, does it?
GPL != altruism. GPL = altruism *with strings attached*
"People who code for money know how to get jobs. People who code for free know how to code."
You forgot the other items in the set:
People who code for money know how to code.
People who code for free don't know how to code.
People who code for free don't know how to get jobs.
People who code for free know how to get jobs.
There you go. Now you're not using quite so broad a brush to tar people with.
Hmmm! Can all FUD be inverted like this?
:-)
Can we build an entire field of math based on FUD? What other theorems can we prove?
I got my MCSE, and landed a job right away! That's value. My employer doesn't care about hacking, or exspensive "smart" university people, he wants someone to manage our NT firewall and exchange servers. I just click and reboot my way to a phatty paycheck!
I don't make as much as the university grad programmers, but most companies are cutting back on expensive in-house software and high cost unix machines anyway.
It's more lucrative to just go into a company, replace all their high "cost-per-transaction" unix machines, admins and programmer/analysts with PC's running NT and shrink-wrapped applications.
When something goes wrong, we just say "It was probably a Linux hacker trying to break into your system -- that blue screen is just NT's way of protecting itself. Try rebooting it".
---
Ed "Bottom Boy" Muth
I developed software under NT (Workstation) for 16 months and it faired marginally better than Windows 95. It didn't crash nearly as often (about once every 2 weeks as opposed to 3 or 4 times a day), but I would usually be forced to reboot it by about the middle of the day because it had run out of memory (my machine had 128 Mb of RAM). I would shut down all of my applications, and still it would report that I only had 16 Mb free. However, our NT servers at the same shop were relatively stable.
In comparison, I can develop software under Linux all day and never run out of memory (no leaks) plus never crash and get the same or better server performance. I would challenge anyone running an NT server to let a software developer work on the machine and still be able to say that they have the same uptime as a Linux box under the same conditions.
I would argue that the reason NT servers are stable is because no one ever runs anything else on them, they are dedicated. I realize that any server that will be heavily loaded will require this, but don't feel that it is truly a testament to the stability of the OS.
Ohohohohoh!
So, it's okay to berate NT users for claiming that their crashes are Hardware problems, but what's the first thing you point to for a Linux crash? A HARDWARE PROBLEM.
Hypocrits, the lot of you.
"Think of a baby that never walked. When you try to get him to walk at first he would give anything to go back on the floor. It's the same thing here. These guys never saw a command line and are used to GUI wizards."
Funny, most of my co-workers here at MS use VI to edit their code and make files to build it. I personally use an IDE, because I've been spoiled rotten that way, and don't really want to make more work for myself; but different people work better different ways.
Guess it all comes down to the maxim: use what makes you more productive, not what other people deem to be cool.
In other words - stuff your command lines. I'm quite happy with my IDE.
"Hell, Linux is scaleable, works wonders with older hardware, and hopefully I'll be bringing up a new ISP with it shortly"
Good thing that 99% of the world's business is Internet Service Provision, isn't it!
"Shouldn't that be "Microsoft double-plus good. Linux double-plus bad. We have always been at war with Linux"?"
No, you idiot. Double-plus-bad is not a word in the language of which you speak. Which is the whole point of double-plus good.
*sighs* Some people... don't know they're born... don't read literature...
Beta lost because Sony didn't want to license the technology to other companies while Panasonic developed its VHS and licensed it to everyone on easy term. They calculated well and by late 80 they were producing 75% of all VCR even though many of those machines were sold under brand names of JVC, RCA, GE... (OEM deals). I remember reading it in Consumer Reports then.
so it's not so very similar...
Fortunately, this is definitely a satire (never mind that the percentage of truth in this one is higher). Satire heavily based on another work isn't plagarism of the original work.
Wheee, aren't you a bright one! I don't even study economics, I don't even live in the US, but I can sure tell when someone knows what he is talking about! And quite francly, you don't! This student on the other hand, does. And if you cant take it 'cause of you sick love for M$, then piss off and shut the hell up!
"One World, One Web, One Program"
- Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuehrer"
- Adolf Hitler
That benchmark was quite hilarious, but why let the cat out of the bag? Gloat silly fools.
Well, because if they hired Alan, then they could get him to stop working on Linux, doing a lot of damage to production. They've done this to other companies many times. Sometimes they offer multi-million dollar signing bonuses to key employees of competitors, causing huge project delays or just destroying projects altogether. The value to MS isn't the technical skills that they bring to MS, although such acquisitions are usually highly skilled, but the technical skills that they take away from the competitor. Apparantly, such tactics are quite common in business and are not considered sabotage or bribery and are perfectly legal. Morality doesn't seem to come into the discussion anywhere.
The other poster meant 5.0 as well. I don't know if it's really been in development since the late eighties, but I know it has been in development since the early nineties. It's difficult to follow it all that well since they keep on changing the name.
well probably it didn't 'crash' so much as hose the keyboard/console interface.
if you were on a network you could probably telnet in remotely and perhaps
even fix things with some twiddling.
many ppl say you did something 'wrong'... it strikes me as a very
philosophical discussion. a computer stops working, is it because of 'operator error'
or is it because of a 'design flaw'? then there is the whole 'who is to blame, the OS or the program!' question.
perhaps a well designed DOS program wouldnt crash,, unless of course there was a 'hardware bug' , but even then could the DOS program be written to get around it?
could the right person operate windows in a manner so that it never crashed?
fascinating! what do you think?
MSDOS 1-6.2,Win1-2, Win3.1, Win3.2 , Win95, Win98, WinNT3.5, WinNT4.0, Win2000, WinCE, and counting.
How can a serious developer these days make any applications that work on Windows at all? A consumer is living in hell, if he uses Windows. The Windows has splintered and caused enormous cost on the IT industry. The same splintering is evident even within M$'s own applications Office, Word and Excel. Document formats differ, and interoperability is very difficult at best.
Now, Linux on the other hand is licenced so that the splintering effect is simply not possible on the same scale.
But you know what, I find that MSNBC actually give very flattering and factual reviews of Linux. And ZDNet has this written on their frontpage right now: "The best of all worlds:
Installing Linux on a PIII." But your probably right in that they ultimately should not be trusted.
--messiahXI
Active X and OLE ? what's that supose to be ?
Neanderthal Technology (NT)... Anyway just go get
yourself buttfucked by M$ if you please and don't
give us this crap.
Let's hope that Ed "the Mouth's" mindset is typical of Microsoft, and that it doesn't ever change. The MS Weltanschauung, which he unintentionally outlined in the ZD article, is an algorithm for failure. I predict that in five years MS will not be a significant force in the computer world, and ten years from now it will be bought up by Compaq.
o yeah -- just look at this thread -- who's doing flaming and name-calling? Your OS may be better but you are more mature? Don't make me laugh -- you people are the most immature bunch of all. Just as well as all those beautiful apps you mentioning -- you all need to grow up.
i thought X was created at MIT.... after Project W at Carnegie-Mellon.
That's complete bullshit. Microsoft would have tried to hire Alan Cox even if he was still pissing around with the Sinclair Spectrum +3 and doing nothing else. He's talented - so MS wants him. End of story.
Jeezus. I bet you see little black helicopters too.
"I'd much rather have a Linux programmer than a Win32 only programmer as in my over 20 years in IT have shown me.... people that are from a Unix/Linux background tend to be more well rounded."
I'd disagree. I'd say that assembly language programmers tend to be more rounded. And code better.
people that are from a Unix/Linux background tend to be more well rounded
... it's all that fried chicken.
You could cut Linux some slack if it were
sharply lower in cost per transaction than NT, but that's
not the case."
I find such statements very funny. It is simply protecting the reason Microsoft exists > to make money. Rather than spend thousands of $$$ on site liscences for NT you could install Linux Version X from your own server (after download or Distribution purchase) to as many boxes as your heart desires (or needs), with much more faith in the product. With the open source people can customise to their specific circumstances the software they use.
Paul
The fiercely pro-Linux discussion on slashdot is fascinating. I would guesstimate that >80% of messages posted here extolling the virtues of Linux focus primarily on the fact that it's free and stable. We could argue speed but it would end in tears - benchmarks are like statistics, right ? Anyway, when it comes to "free" and "stable" I have some bad news...
:^)
1. "Free" means it doesn't cost a cent on day 1. Linux is anything but on days 2, 3, 4 etc. While you kernel kutters might be happy to make $0 from your ongoing efforts, the people who will be installing and maintaining the product on a daily basis want/need to make $$$ from the exercise - the more the merrier. These people are in short supply (lets count MCSE's and certified Linux engineers..... oh look the ratio's about 1000 to 1). For the next 3 to 5 years Linux skills will cost the average organisation a LOT of $$$. Warm bodies are what drive up IT costs, line-of-business NT skills are now a commodity and are priced accordingly. Why are so many system engineers "evaluating" Linux ? So they can put it on their CV, that's why. This doesn't help the Linux cause.
2. Stability is extremely important. EXTREMELY important. If Linux had hit the primetime 2 or 3 years ago NT would be in serious trouble. I have seen and used Windows 2000 (and I have read a lot of reviews of the product) and I would say that you are about to see a quantum leap forward in NT's stability. This is not good news for Linux. There's a HUGE NT installed base out there and Linux is going to have a hard time eating into it. Let's say Linux is 10% more stable than NT4 (don't worry too much about the exact number or how it's measured). Will millions of NT sites convert to Linux for that additional 10%? Realistically, the answer is "no". It really doesn't matter if Win2000 ships tomorrow or at the end of the year - Y2K will keep 90% of IT Managers from seriously trialling Linux until mid-2000 anyway.
There's two other points I'd like to make: firstly, I think that the pro-Linux community needs to lose (and quickly) the anti-MS loathing they so obviously exude. Granted, this emotion is a great motivator and focusing agent but to "external" people it's generally seen as being extremely unprofessional. To the great unwashed who don't care about the Open Source movement or what it stands for you often appear as boorish and arrogant "techies". Kind of like how Microsofties were viewed 5 or 10 years ago - scary huh ?
Lastly, from what I've seen of the MS/DOJ trial, MS are working to create a well documentated legal argument rather than a press event (most unlike them I must admit). Granted, the DOJ has got some extremely good mileage out of some of MS' screwups but, LEGALLY, I would venture that MS are actually ahead on points. Column inches don't win trials (and they never win appeals). I would give slightly better than even money that MS will win the trial and the inevitable appeal. Has the Linux community looked at this "what if" - I would suggest they should.
Thanks for the opportunity to post what will no-doubt be an unpopular message
compaq supports linux ?
Let's face it,Microsoft has more programs and apps than Linux. I am pro-Linux so don't get into a fury or something. Microsoft NT and Windows is a great OS for beginners in programming or gaming. I still feel though that Linux is truely superior. The fact is Linux is free and powerful and Sony's decision to use Linux as it's PSX2 developmental environment proves it further. Why pay $90 for an upgrade when you can get Linux for $0? Do I hear Rip-off?
lastest post!
And he's right of course, like we've all said: MS just isn't getting it when it comes to the "capitalism" point. Why shouldn't the "best" programmers invest in a project that isn't *greed based*. Isn't altruism a positive human quality?
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
Oh man... this had me cracking up. I'm still not sure if he was trying to make fun of NT or if he really believes NT scales better. How silly!
I think the Oracle guy bashed MS enough in his little speech-o-matic. I mean... sure NT sucks, but I don't want to listen to somebody bash MS the whole time... LinuxWorld is about Linux.
It seems valid to me - To my understanding (3 or 4 economics classes) pressure to drive costs down is one of the strongest forces in an economic model.
Since I'm working towards an Economics minor, I know a little bit about economics, although certainly I'm aware that I don't know everything.
Yes, it is all about money, but not in the way you are thinking. To a business whose interest is in maximizing profit it's all about lowering costs. Hear that? Lowering costs. It's not about paying Microsoft for low quality software just because there's a lot of support (although alot of businesses obviously take that route), it's about finding the cheapest way to produce whatever you produce in the long run.
To a business, the main obstacle to implementing Linux solutions is probably support. These days it's probably not due to application support, but installation and troubleshooting support.
So really you're argument has no legs to stand on. To us, the linux users/gurus/administrators of the world, it IS all about the most stable platform to run your apps on.
Your main argument states that the "Real World" is different because it is all about money, but in reality the real world is more complex than you and I can comprehend. It is not all about money, but a complex set of variables of which money is but a single.
Let me put it to you this way. You have a job to do. You can do it in two ways:
1) Buy the crappy Microsoft solution and live in the endless cycle of buggy product upgrades, hoping the next cycle solves all your problems, but it never does.
2) Implement the inexpensive, more stable, more reliable and often more robust free software solution.
I predict that as businesses start to implement more free software solutions they'll find their costs going down, leading to increased market share and/or increased profits. Therefore these companies will become more successful and eventually dominate the economic landscape.
P.S. a hotmail email doesn't count.
Oh, you're so right, I should just shut up because I have nothing productive to say. In fact, I might as well go kill myself, because obviously I can't contribute to society at all.
Geez. Why don't you offer something constructive...or perhaps *you* need to get an education first? Perhaps you're too afraid to put up a reasonable counter-argument?
To everybody else: I'm sorry about this obviously flammatory post, it's just that kind of post really pisses me off.
By Ranger Rick, Slashdot Reader
THE INTERNET, Worldwide -- Think of it as a burst of cold international rain on the Microsoft parade. In a far-reaching interview this week with himself, Slashdot reader Ranger Rick sounded off on the closed-source operating system, outlining what he considers are fundamental flaws with the Microsoft business model and the OS itself.
"I see it as more of a threat to Macintosh. Windows is a challenge, a competitor," Rick said. "The more I study Windows, the weaker I think the value proposition is to customers."
Technical misgivings
Rick delineated two main technical reasons why he believes Windows will not succeed with corporate customers.
First, a broad base of support for applications -- especially small, interoperable, easily-customizable, instantly-available applications, with modern internet distributions channels -- is necessary for an operating system to compete in today's market, he said.
"Five years ago, everything was shrink-wrapped, and the trend since then has been to customize standard shrink-wrapped software for individual business needs," Rick said. A "closed-design" ethos will not work in corporations, he said, where open standards ease interoperability and customizability.
The second failing, Rick believes, is an extreme level of integration between the OS and its applications. It's a point that touches on ground where holy wars are fought.
Indeed, some Microsoft advocates say Microsoft's integration of one large codebase with everything in one package is what makes it appealing. Reed disagrees.
"People want less integration," he said. "They want a choice between tools to use, with an open standard of interoperability. On the server side they want strong queuing and security. This is all done through a comprehensive set of tools that can be customized to their needs, which use open protocols for talking to each other. Microsoft has a high degree of integration, and therefore is more rigid and uncontrollable. Microsoft is basically a big step backward for those two reasons plus others."
Economies of scale
Rick next turned to the economics of Microsoft. He said his preliminary cost analysis showed Microsoft actually costs end users more than Linux.
"We have very little concern we can't compete with Microsoft on a TCO level," Rick said. "We think the total cost of ownership of Linux is lower than NT, but it's still hard to do good TCO studies because at the moment they're hard to compare since a large majority of Linux applications are free and have been developed, debugged, and improved upon for years, while NT supports so few Internet standards out of the box."
"Let's say, for discussion, they are equally scalable," he said. "And let's assume applications are available for both, and setup time is the same. Given all these factors, the best you could hope for is about the same cost per transaction between servers."
But Ranger Rick turned that argument on its ear.
"The problem with that is there are fewer applications available with the base NT install, there's a shaky development road map (with the Windows 2000 release date being pushed back again and again), and there's a higher technical risk in using it," he said. "You could cut NT some slack if it were sharply lower in cost per transaction than Linux, but that's not the case."
Acknowledging the phenomenon
Ranger Rick did acknowledge the myriad marketing forces that have propelled Windows NT into the spotlight, to the point that the OS was even featured in major print and online publications.
Ranger Rick attributed the closed-source hype to a number of factors, including a lack of fairness in media coverage of Windows NT.
"We're all in the business of wanting the customer to have the information needed to make informed choices," Rick said. "We haven't seen a flavor of NT coverage that addresses that. Some criticalness is needed.
For example, "some people say positive things about NT when their message is anti-Linux," he said. "But I wonder, in 36 months is this the next [Network Computer] or is it a viable OS? We don't see people question the NT numbers."
Ranger Rick pointed out that it's hard to track shipments of an open-source platform and its applications when they can be downloaded for free from any number of Web sites. "We feel that 2 to 20 percent of Windows NT shipments turned out to be 'shelfware,'" he said. "From what we can tell, many servers come bundled with Windows and then have Linux installed instead. In fact," he continued, "many supposed Windows NT file and print servers are actually running Linux, and the users can't tell the difference!"
As for the recent vendor support at Windows conferences, Rick wasn't suprised, adding that the media needs to apply the same critical eye to this trend.
"Take IBM," he said. "They have long supported multiple OSes on X86. They are fundamentally in the service business. You would expect them to support Windows and Linux. But the deep investment is in services. It's a human investment -- developers, support -- the operating system is irrelevant. You have to separate out what OS they will install if you ask them and what investments they make."
But Ranger Rick's most passionate argument came on the development, where he said skill and enjoyment is the wild card that many observers have been ignoring.
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work in a stuffy corporate environment, missing deadlines, making code compromises, sitting in meetings," he said. "Without a long-term road map, programmers are free to make the best possible technical decisions, without worrying whether deadlines must be met, and worrying if the marketing department is happy. I have a hard time believing these visionary programmers and developers would get the same satisfaction just being another cog in the machine. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
But hey, it's competition
For all its shortcomings, Windows NT is part of a larger competitive landscape in the server realm, Rick said. "In the OS market, a fair person would see extraordinary barriers to competition," he said. "And the competition exists in terms of business model and channel model, and NT is a very interesting case."
For linux, that's key, since the question of whether it faces "real" competition in the OS market has been a contentious issue.
Linux has done well in server market share, Muth said, but "we have lots to do in some parts of the market. Take the $100,000 to $1 million server range."
"There is extraordinary competition," he reiterated. "The market is a rich mosaic of parry and thrust from the vendors, with competing OEM service deals in the way of a free OS marketplace where choice rules. We have to earn our stripes every day. That's how it should be."
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Haha... gee, uhh... yeah. I think I heard something about that at Slashdot.
(grin)
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
Exactly.. and its not like M$ had 10,000 integrated apps waiting for them when M$dos and/or win3.0 / 9x went mainstream either. It took a little while for development to build up. But I guess Muth *wasnt paying attention* back then.
I guess M$ thinks an OS or anything for that matter can just pop up from nowhere and have a ton of integrated apps waiting for it to appear.
.
Regarding shrink wrapped applications, sure, coporate users would probably perfer those over some downloaded from an FTP site, but look at the big distributions today, they come with SO MANY apps. Not only stuff for coders, apps word processors, e-mail readers, and internet stuff. Out-of-the-box Redhat has more apps than Windows. GOOD apps.
:P
I fail to see how Word to/from Excel integration has anything to do with integration to the OS. Windows has OLE and we've got CORBA, which isn't one big bug like OLE is
Security through integration? Huh?! How much integration can one handle? WinNT has "services" and we have daemons. Not much difference.
Linux costs more than WinNT? Well, if one considers time = money, then *maybe* for *end users* but not one who knows what he's doing. And, in the end, if it does take longer to *set up* Linux, don't worry, there goes all the blue screens.
Linux supports so few applications? What an idiot. It supports that small thing called POSIX, it has many of X apps, it has multiple binary support and even has impressive DOS (dosemu) and Windows (wine) support.
Blah, I don't want to read more.
More FUD for the weak-minds of the world...
:wq
Yeah, business is about earning money. About earning money for *your* company, not earning money for Microsoft (unless, of course, you work for Microsoft, then the two are equivalent). So, while it's in Microsoft's best interest for people to spend lots of money on their bloatware, it isn't in anyone else's best interest to do so...
this may well be true...
Imagine that MS changes the Linux kernel, inserting some "crashing" routines on purpose, and then shows off at the Win2000 launch a computer with the Win2000 and another with the sabotaged Linux...
MS would make Linux crash and the NT computer would just run along fine (apparently, of course) thus making people think that NT is ACTUALLY better than Linux!
This is simple propaganda. Not worth getting up in arms about.
Our friend Ed Muth is simply fulfilling his duty as Billy's loyal dog and spitting out sweet nothings to make the MSLemmings feel warm and fuzzy. Sit Ed! Roll-over Ed! Good boy.
VENI! VIDI! VICI!
Sure. Even an MS OS can stay up for two years if you don't actually DO anything with it.
Going to install anything? Reboot. Change settings? Reboot. Install a service pack (I you haven't) ? Reboot.
Actually RUN an application? Crash! Reboot.
There's just no way its been up for two years.
Sorry...I just don't believe you.
VENI! VIDI! VICI!
Sure, the Windows Explorer (with shell integration turned off) may be more stable than gnome running w/ enlightenment.
But what does that have to do with anything? We're talking SERVERS here, boy, and servers have no place using a GUI in the first place.
When you can tell me that a web, FTP server or SQL server running on NT is faster and more stable than that same server running on linux... I'll laugh my head off.
Posted by Hawaiian Style:
I see a great battle looming on the horizon.
This kind of FUD (and the mindless repeating of it by their monkeys at ZDNet) really irritates me... maybe someone should hack their site ??!!
Linux Links and more:
http://home.earthlink.net/~hawaiistyle
Posted by tollboothwilly:
The only stripe I'd say MS has earned is the one that runs down the back of that skunk software they pass off as an OS.
I mean my god. The original Win95 was released in Aug 95 and they just now figured out it may hang after 49.7 days due to a timing algorithm bug I'm suprised it only took three years to get a Windows box to stay up that long.
Relaying this through a linux box thats been up longer than 49.7 days
Posted by Hawaiian Style:
... nice and pretty.
First of all, I was being sarcastic,
(I would NEVER advocate the mis-use of computers),
so I actually meant *hack*, as in, FOR FREE, show them how much we will do for nothing. The Works(TM), complete redesign
Nah, I'm just bored.
And pissed off.
*sigh*
and bored.
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
...because they haven't discovered sex yet. Saying that something is good because it's popular doesn't prove a thing, just that the general public is too foolish to even realise how it's long term interests are best served.
It's like saying, "Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all *really* good guys, because they came to power through popular support".
Sure, right dude. You obviously don't work very much with Microsoft products. If you did, you'd know just how often they blue-screen and die.
If your going to put non-Microsoft OS's down, then at least have the courtesy to make your insults entertaining and witty. That way, the rest of us could at least get a laugh. In that respect alone, you are *too* lame for words.
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
Yeah, sure. But lets consider the fact that there is a fundemental difference here.
Consider the flame wars that periodically errupt over open source issues ( such as GNOME versus KDE ). In many ways, this is very *imature*, but it serves a useful purpose in that the rival groups of partisans then have to put their time and energy where their mouths are ( so that their favorite system becomes progressively better ).
In short, rivalry and name calling in open source is useful in that it motivates people to go one step furthur.
Not so with propriatory systems. They just flame anyone that they disagree with, sit on their fat posteriors and do nothing.
So in this case, arguments over "maturity" aren't really very relevant.
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
!
!
!
/. to convince all of us that anyone and everyone who likes Microsoft has had a lobotomy.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SQLConnect();
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
SQLSetColumns();
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SQLFetch();
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh Ghod, you are such a loser! Have you ever read the x88 SQL standard? It was designed to maximise data exchange "...between systems written in COBOL, FORTRAN, PL/I and Pascal...".
In short, it was designed around languages that were already obsolete when it was drawn up back in 1988.
Wait, I finally worked it out! You really don't like Microsoft at all! Your really a closet Linux user who's dropped in at
Ahem! Well, while your intentions are certainly praisworthy, it is a little bit rude of you to be taking such an obvious dig at all of the "mentally challenged" people out there who can't handle anything beyond a "point and drool" interface. Remember, Linux is quite capable of standing on it's own merits, so there really is no need to indulge in this kind of thing.
If you want to promote Linux, it would probably help if you were to take a more charitable view to those poor and unfortunate individuals who haven't realised yet that there are actual alternatives. Remember - good manners cost you nothing.
Regards.
Posted by wraith-q:
hahahahahahahahahahaha
nuff said
Posted by AnnoyingMouseCoward:
...but since you have asked a polite question and since you have the conviction to put your name to your words, I will respond.
Im a profesional programmer with 13+ years of industry experience. I first started programming at university under unix on a PDP-11/60 twenty years ago.
In short, I've been around. I've used Unix, CMP, Apple II, MS-DOS, Windows 3.1/95 and now I'm moving into Linux.
You are perfectly correct - money is everything. As an old drinking buddy of mine uesed to say to me at university
"Money talks, bullshit walks!"
This is the whole reason why so many people ( including the Fortune-500 companies ) are migrating their systems across to FreeBSD/Linux.
They are satisfied with the current level of technology. They don't give a damn about making life any easier than it already is for their staff.
In short, they don't want more capabilities for the same ammount of money.
They want the same capabilities for less money.
A constant ( high ) cost operating system is therfore un-acceptable to the manufacturing/primary industry sector.
So while all the accountents out there might love Microsoft, it doesn't matter. Money is *indeed* what it's all about and that's why Microsoft is going to fall. The financial big guns are out to make money for themselves - not Microsoft.
Posted by tid242:
hm.... a company owned by a M$ subsidiary (sp?) that ranks linux as faster than NT in regards to NT's own prococal.
you know something's up there....
Somebody must die!
Microsoft would be a good start.. Using my name like that.. bastards
I do want to be able to move an Image from my File Manager to my Word Processor and Move a chart from Excel. Everyone does. Linux can do this, but it takes days of downloading and compiling and tweaking. It's fun to geeks, but who wants that besides them? People want a product that's easy. Buy it, pop in the CD, install, and go. Not downloading 20 tgz's and compiling all day to get buggy Gnome running which uses so much cpu I might as well be using Windows. I like the challange unix brings. That's why I use FreeBSD. It's fun. Linux is not a solution for the desktop. I find that funny. It's going to take a lot more then Gnome and KDE to make Linux even clode to a desktop viable solution. Linux has no direction really as I see it. It's just a unix os that was in the right place at the right time. I hope I get lots of flames from all you Linux Kiddies.
"Users of FreeBSD sit back in the shadows, know they have an OS that actually WORKS.
erik
This is why Linux will go no WHERE. It's all these kids and they can say is... "Linux rules! Windows Sucks! YEAH!" About 0.0001% of people actually have valid arguments against Windows and What not.
I don't trust it. It might be that 200000 people use Windows and boot into linux for 4 minutes. That's dumb and I think that chart is a sham.
FreeBSD is not a good desktop os. FreeBSD is just what I use. I never said it was better. I just said I used it. Windows is a better Desktop OS then FreeBSD too.
Of course, Phineas T Barnum offers a dissenting voice: "There's a sucker born every minute". There's still a vast market for refried Osmond Brothers, i.e. Hanson, the Backstreet Boys and others of that ilk. Maybe MS needn't worry at all.
--
--
=8^
sed: Stream EDitor
ls: LiSt
grep: Get Regular Expression Pattern
seems mnemonic enough to me...
Only for English-speakers.
--
--
=8^
why would i want my best work stuffed away in some
proprietary box instead of being shared with the
world and have far more exposure and use?
what makes him think he knows how the best coders
think? he seems to only see the value of software
in the money it can make!
1)Ignore the competitor, at least publicly.
2)Come out swinging - tell everyone how useless/bad/undesirable the cometing product is
3) Announce a product that "Has all the features only better!"
4) Release a crappy me-too copy (unless the competitor has been purchased by this time).
5) Release an improved, almost workable me-too copy. But this time Embrace and Extend (TM). Competitor begins to wither.
Interesting thing is, I don't know how MS could pull off Act 3 this time! Can't wait to see where this is going...
'I suppose SGI, IBM, and so on, are making a benevolent contribution to the self proclaimed "linux community"?'
I suspect Corel, at least, is driven in part by Larry Ellison's personal dislike for Bill Gates. But hey, if we get more open source (in the case of Corel, mostly Wine) out of it...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
"Regarding shrink wrapped applications, sure, corporate users would probably prefer those over some downloaded from an FTP site"
Actually, I think corporate users would like to have access to the source, and generally could have just one person do the build. If you use an application a lot, then each bug costs you appreciably and the advantage to being able to fix it yourself (possibly by hiring someone to fix it) is significant.
What companies do like, I think, is having a company behind the software that is motivated to fix most of the bugs and to do further development. So a company that allows people to see and modify their source -- even if they can't distribute it or reuse it in other apps -- is probably close to optimal for most businesses.
Also, more and more companies are getting fast internet connections. To them, a download may in fact be preferable to having to arrange a purchase or send someone out to buy a program.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
A fundamental flaw to Muth's whole thinking is calling this "work." For many of us, programming projects of our own choice (as opposed to those assigned by an employer) are play, not work. And people will play for free.
Obligatory Star Wars (Empire Strikes Back) quote:
Luke: "I -- I don't believe it!"
Yoda: "That... is why you fail."
And of course, there are others who get paid who will improve the tools they're working with. I've found that employers are often more willing to pay more in salary than to buy productivity-enhancing tools.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Whoops, am I getting my companies wrong? Ellison is CEO of Oracle...
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I gaurunteeee! Seriously, though. What should we expect from the mouth of Sauron? It's kinda like asking Gobbels if Hitler was a nice fella. "Why, shit, yes!" would be the reply. Muth is clueless technically. He's reading a prepared script. He'd be saying the same thing about Sears' brand of washer or dryer as opposed to GE's if he were working for Sears.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Actually, plain old talent can win out in the end. Not that I think that Microsoft's lawyers have shown much talent, but they have managed to do enough damage control to keep their witnesses from getting tossed in jail for contempt or charged with perjury. Considering some of the things they've said, that's no small feat :)
I have been extremely impressed by David Boies though. I've read through quite a few days worth of trial transcripts and I like the way he works. They never see it coming, or if they do, they can't do anything to stop it. It makes perfect sense really. Get them to admit to a few things, then hit them with the tough questions and watch them start to backtrack and contradict and correct themselves. Makes for few laughs sometimes too.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I HIGHLY doubt that ANY NT machine can stay up for 2 years without a reboot, let alone TWO of them. Let's see, what version of NT was out two years ago? You must be running a pretty old version of NT since you can't upgrade without rebooting. Heck, you can't even install most software without rebooting. Quite frankly, I don't buy it. Those machines would have to be doing next to nothing to stay up for anything near that length of time. I think you're just a troll who is fibbing.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I didn't know Plato was a Linux person. They didn't teach us that in school. I think it's time to revise the curriculum. :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Actually it was NT 3.5 with service pack 3 that was certified on (I believe) 3 different hardware configurations. Everything else you said looks correct though :)
I have to agree with you on the Ed Curry issue. He really got screwed over bad. For Microsoft, the truth has always been a touchy thing, best left to "behind closed doors" discussions rather than something to be known publicly. Unfortunately, that's also the way that much of the government is run. It's not surprising that they are taking sides with Microsoft. To put it plainly, something stinks.
The government, and the military in particular, have been switching entire installations over to Microsoft OSes and software illegally. Congress has already ruled that a couple of these transitions were illegal, but didn't do anything about it because it would cost more money to change them to something else now that they've been switched over to NT networks. From what I've read, there were no consequences for anyone. I've also read that there are more of these conversions still going on and that they will probably continue because the government won't put a stop to it. I'd like to know who is making the money off of these deals besides Microsoft. Somebody has to be making alot of money or this wouldn't be happening.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Here is a link I found on the Rainbow books.
http://www.fas.org/irp/nsa/rainbow.htm
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Ah yes, kamikaze. Unfortunately Ed isn't that great of a pilot; he overshot by a thousand yards and plowed into Bill's new house.
No serious apps of any scale that requires stability and flexibility should be written with VB. Check out this page that I originally wrote for my team: DLL Hell
That was VB5 and I'd rather poke my eyes with a jagged skewer first before touching VB6.
Fuck Microsoft.
:)
This "structure" you speak of sounds like a warm fuzzy way of saying "forced down your throat & proprietary". There is plenty of money to be made by supporting systems that operate well and and comply with open standards. In fact, that's what I do at my job, every day.
Besides, if I'm in the business to make money, what have I to gain by overpaying for shoddy product?
Dear Sengan,
Corba is a development framework. Dragging barcharts is an application feature. If there was an app using Corba to drap and drop, then you could make a connection between the two but not now.
> I find it hard to believe that some of the best
> computer scientists in the world will want to do
> their work for free
People who code for money know how to get jobs. People who code for free know how to code.
Um, no. FOLDOC says that it comes from the ed (Ed is the Standard Editor!) command `"g/re/p", where re stands for a regular expression, to Globally search for the Regular Expression and Print the lines containing matches to it'. Some Unix commands are poorly named -- that's why most shells have support for aliasing./p>
--
W.A.S.T.E.
W.A.S.T.E.
Microsoft claims that they can't be a monopoly, because they only have a tiny share of the "Super-insanely-expensive-multi-terra-of-ram-monst er-server" Market. Truth of the matter is that NT (and definately 9x) is not scalable to that level of operating. NT's solution to everything is "throw another box at it." Here, where I work, we have aproximately 400 users total over a wan. At each location there is an NT box which services aproximately 10 - 25 users each. (PII 400, 512 Megs of Ram 9 gig drive et al). That's fine for the small branches, and I'd have to say for a small workgroup, NT is fine and dandy. Lets then look at our main office. 300 or so users. First, we have a box that's just the PDC (Primary Domain Controller). Its job it to make the Network Neighborhood look all nice and tidy and make the NT boxes see each other. How cute. This is a PII 300 with 1 gig of RAM. Crashes now and again, but overall not too bad. Then we have the Exchange server. Its a Alpha, pretty speedy, but I don't know the exact specs. I kinda remember something about 400+ Mhz and 2 gigs of RAM. Web server - P200 with 512 Megs of RAM. 2 BDC's (backup domain controller). These kick in if/when the PDC blows, and allow people to login to the domain when the main server gets lagged. Main file server (2 of these) actually house the files. Now, all totaled, we're looking at like 15 boxes to serve webpages, mail, and files to 300 users. Sounds like a good use of hardware to me.
----------
Clinton made me a Republican. Bush made me a Libertarian. Trump is making me question reality.
Man, themes silly words, so I KNOW your joking..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
*Sniff* That was... beautiful. I've don't usually do this, but...
<AOL> Me too! </AOL>
Seriously, I wish more people thought and acted like this. What disturbs me the most about America is too many "yuppies" -- you know, the kind of people who live in suburbs, drive SUV's, play golf at the country club every weekend, own a $2,000,000 home, and maybe give $100 to charity every two or three months. So reading your post, Mr. "dev/null", was like a breath of fresh air. Thank you, and I hope I meet more people like you.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
If you want to look at a really new OS, check out the Extremely Reliable Operating System (a.k.a. the EROS project). It's not ready for users yet, but if want to hack on a new OS, the pre-release might be just what you're looking for.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
Hey, have any of you noticed something about this particular AC? He's posted the *EXACT SAME THING* (spelling mistakes and all) on all the recent Microsoft discussions. Go back and search through old Microsoft articles for yourself: notice "trail" instead of "trial" and "PED" instead of "QED". This guy blitzed out an astroturf (note "good for the consumer", "innovative and bright people" -- obvious Microsoft buzzwords) post and is pasting it in every time he sees a Microsoft discussion.
This guy's a Microsoft employee doing the "astroturf" campaign. Ignore him.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
I'm almost certain I've seen *this* post before, too! "I would given a medal..." [sic]. This is another copy&paste troll. He's submitted the same thing multiple times before, AFAIR (As Far As I Recall).
Whatever. People have already answered this one. I'm not even going to bother.
-----
The real meaning of the GNU GPL:
"The Source will be with you... Always."
Unfortunately, your vision of the "real world" seems to parallel a certain cable television program far more closely than reality.
You did get one thing right though. Microsoft is all about money, and that's the problem. If MS can get away with foisting poor products on it's customers while continuing to make money, it's darn well going to do it. And that is exactly what it has been doing, in addition to doing everything it can to keep any potential competitors out of the market. Where's the incentive to put out a quality product? With almost no competition and loads of people stupid enough to put up with poor software, poor support (how many times have people called MS tech support to report a bug and paid MS for the service?), and the MS upgrade cycle, MS will continue to make record profits. And as long as the bottom line is not in danger, there's no reason to change it's business tactics.
So where does that leave us? Well, since Microsoft has blocked nearly every commercial route to the market, the free software community is the only way to put MS in check. Personally, I think the commercial software industry has been out in la-la land for so long, that when people finally start to get a dose of the reality (free software, with paid support), it's the free software community that's percieved as being strange. that's perceived as being strange, when, in fact, the commercial software world is the one not based in reality. At least, I haven't heard Microsoft claim it's prices are high to cover piracy in a while, that's one of the silliest things I've ever heard.
Shop Smart, Shop S-mart!
It was NT 3.51 that was certified C2 secure. They never had it re-evaluated for NT4. I find it hilarious that the C2 certification is still bandied about for an OS that you can't even buy any more...
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Read the script:
MyWindowsMate: Linux, is shit shit shit. It's the spawn of satan. Windows is the OS of the Holy.
Me: I don't believe you. Can I come round to your house and check it out (turn it to the dark side)?
MyWindowsMate: Yes, I've got this web browser which is so much better than Netscape. It gets Service Packs all the time.
I went round to his house, he ran Windows for me and put on this web browser (I can't remember the name but it's adventurous). Less than one minute and it brought the computer to life, which then proceeded to eat all his children, splattering blood everywhere.
MyWindowsMate: Err...it never usually becomes demonic
Me: Do you actually make sacrifices to this infernal machine?
MyWindowsMate: No, but I installed Service Pack 1.
Me: Do you ever see a shining halo above your computer?
MyWindowsMate: Err...no, but it's holier than the Angel Gabriel.
Conclusion: BOLLOCKS, If I used windows as much as I used Linux then I would have it opening portals to the nether world allowing demons through every minute. Windows is evil. Fact. Programs released are all version 6.66. Fact.
dylan_-
ps. This really happened.
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
At least 5 times I've tried opening a file in Word from a floppy disk with bad sectors (obviously I didn't know it at the time). NT 4 WorkStation, SP3. Result: BSOD.
dylan_-
--
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
*sigh*. The important thing here is this: on a Windows box, after the Gimp crashed, the entire OS would have died. The Gimp isn't Linux, however much you'd like it to be.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
They can't beat Linux on total cost of ownership so they say that cost per transaction is the most important thing. If that were the case everybody in the world would be running Solaris on an E10k.. In any case OS cost per transaction -> 0 as transactions gets large it's seven figure hardware costs and big support costs that bite you.
Cost of NT is an extremely big issue in a medium scale server application and using it in a large scale server application is idiotic since it does not scale very well and doesn't come close to running on Big Iron (Linux doesn't run on Big Iron either but it will before NT does). Linux beats NT where it counts, cost and reliability in serving NT domains and medium scale server aps on PC hardware. Add the ability of Linux to run more varied and cheaper hardware and you have a clear winner in the server world. I can see how MS could be smug about the user side for a while longer but they're losing the server side now to a supperior product.
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I think breaking them up would be too unweildy of a hammer. I would like to see transparent pricing and fully documented API's. Let the market take care of the rest.
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Exactly how is calling Linux a "Kiddy OS" any different then the sometimes childish things Linux advocates say. In my experience I have seen many lucid expositions of Linux's strengths on a technical basis but few such expositions of Microsoft's strengths from Microsoft advocates. The only counter example I can think of that clearly argues a _technical_ advantage of MS was the CS professor who wrote about the fundamental scalability of NT's internals. and pointed out some problems with Linux 's internals. I have respect for that, although I would have more respect if it meant something in practice.
I do not have much respect for monkeys on either side but they don't bother me much as long as I have the choice to choose what is best for my own use.
"L'IT c'est moi!"
If trolling were a word it would not be used in the context you used it.. Do yourself a favor troll an read the dictionary.
While you're at it shatter your illusions of MS-DOS.
In response to your opinion that the IBM PC was far more advanced than the Apple ][. I respectfully disagree. The Apple had much better graphics capabilities, BASIC in the shell and was cooler overall. The PC took off not because of DOS, which, let's face it, is a no brainer of an OS, but because of programs like VisiCalc and because the bare exposure of the hardware made it easy to write games. Microsoft is right in one thing, apps attract users and users attract apps. Too bad that doesn't work in the server environment where far fewer apps are needed and the big costs are support and downtime. For a server you need a real OS
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I applaud your analysis
"L'IT c'est moi!"
You forgetting that since the trial, all internal e-mail is forbidden. Try going around telling this to 25,000 ....
people
Couldn't they just use their brain-zappers? 8-?)
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Hell I'm Austrlian and I defiantly don't want them.
Hettar.
ZDNN is carrying a version of the article. This version allows you to add comments. I've got the second one up there, and there's a comment from Alan Cox (supposedly), too. I'd encourage some of you to write respectable comments to this version of the article.
Yeah, FreeBSD is dead, which *EXACTLY* why yahoo, cdrom.com, and hotmail are all using it, and why 3.1 just got released. Cripes. Some of you morons really need to get out into the world a little more...
*munch munch munch*
Bleh!
Nope, still as unsatisfying as all the other FUD out there. Keep trying guys, I'm sure you'll get it eventually!
-Seth
Linux does provide little value. To Microsoft, that it. That's the only way they see "value" anymore; what they can get out of it. And you've got to admit, from that standpoint Linux has no value; what can M$ get out of it? Nothing.
Perhaps, also, they mean raw monetary value. And once again, they're right: Linux provides very little monetary value. But it's not because of the things M$ said about it. It's because Linux has grown up according to an economic model so fundamentally different from anything which Microsoft has ever encountered (in particular the abscence of monetary compensation, or money in any form) that they can't really be expected to comprehend it. This is a Good Thing, because it means when M$ falls, they'll be caught completely off-guard. And I, for one, would love to see the look on Billy's face when he realizes that.
...away anything that microsoft currently has to offer. What other os can run so many server functions of half the memory required to run the same functions on a NT server. The last time I assisted in the setup of a Back Office server, It took up 85% of system resources with one person loged on and only idle processes running in the background.
I know of a Linux server that coughed up a major hairball and still survived. It one day decided to spawn 300 copies of a sendmail application. People were able to get to the files on the server with no slowdown, people were getting thier mail and internet just fine. In fact the only reason this problem was discovered was when the admin logged on locally and noticed the slow login. One issuance of the killall command, and a bit of re-configuring the sendmail app later, the machine went on for several more weeks till it had to be rebooted for a kernel update. Lets see M$ NT do that.
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
And why should exposure be a better motivation that money to somebody that doesn't need an ego boost?
What else would I need money for then to boost my ego?
I mean, we're not talking about making a living here. If you're a good programmer you will be able to make a living in the next couple of years without much problems.
To be happy with what you do you need someone who tells you that it's good. And you will get the most honest responses if people can see what you've written.
If it comes to slim, reliable production systems, wheres NT?
-squid
-bind
-sendmail
-cron
-command-line based administration
-instant scripting
Let those M$ weenies go with M$-Office, but when it comes to servers, nobody who ever managed to find out how Unix really works (including BSD, Linux), will go the way back to NT.
Whoo! It's getting warm in here!
3 months ago, this would have concerned me.
Today this is just pure amusement.
Burn baby burn!
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Maybe we could key their cars and burn dog doo on their porches, too.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
I buy a $1 Million server, and then run out and buy Microsoft's "Just Like Daddy's" server OS to use on it?
While I'm at it I'll go have my Jaguar painted at Earl Sheib.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Right-click RPM file, click install.
My God, that nearly killed me!
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
So work as a pornographer, or make snuff films.
Maybe you could be a lawyer that defends insurance companies against 5-year-old cancer patients.
I mean God, doesn't your conscience bother you?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
It's good to see that Microsoft has sharpened your technical knowledge as much as your grammar.
I thought trolls only lived under bridges?
I fail to understand what he means by Linux costing more than NT per transaction.
Does he mean Support? Could someone please enlighten me?
Unfortunatly, Mr. Muth has absolutly nothing new to say short of "Linux sucks! NT Rules!"
I'm not the least bit worried. It will be interesting to see what becomes of him
when Windows 2000 is released and is deemed a failure shortly after. I'll bet Microsoft's
answer will be "He was low level employee..."
Do not read this
But it helps sooo much when you're confronted by twenty years worth of heterogenous, incompatible, and back-assward systems that are piled on top of each other (many of them Microsoft's own messess, although the ODT3 is a close second to Win3).
ERP systems have to be cross-platform in order to succeed. (I mean, like, duh!) Shrink-wrap has nothing to do with it; if the ERP design scope isn't flexible enough to encompass a truly diverse environment, what does that say about the designer's concept of "enterprise?" Having the source available to the community goes a lot farther to fixing those problems instead of just re-framing the question as "what are you running if you're not running NT?"
Not a first post.
Indeed, and I will help MicroSoft make the move to any of the above countries with a swift boot to the posterior. You MS flunkies just don't get it do you? MicroSoft is irrelevant, in fact I challenge you to come up with a single task to be done on a computer that can only be done via MicroSoft software. Believe me, we don't need MicroSoft and threats about them leaving the country are about as frightening as Michael Bolton threatening to cease releasing music. I have never in my life met a top quality programmer who had any affection for anything MicroSoft - *never*, they are the purveyors of crufty, inelegant apis and bloaware - should they choose to depart my only response would be "good riddance". By the way, should you be prepared to claim "I'm a top quality programmer and I love MicroSoft" be aware that I have interviewed on the order of 100 developers in the last year and I shall subject your claim to serious scrutiny.
there are two kinds of people in this world - those who divide people into two groups and those who don't
I have gone back and forthe between the
"real world" and school sreval times. I did grow
up as a white upper middel class kid with
privlige, but I have also been to pore to thke the
buss. Do I care about "MONEY"? Not more then I
care about freedome and not fucking over othere
people and the world we live in. Have you evere
stoped to ask you self what the "real world" is
who defines it and who it serves? I think you will
find if you do that the people who define it are
the ones that it serves. The real world is we make
it and I chose to try to make it one where bullys
don't win and every on hase equla fredome and equality.
Actually, it was NT 3.50 that was certified at an Orange Book C2 level on a specific hardware platform (I don't remember just what platform).
There are many different publications from the National Computer Security Center. The Orange Book (properly called "Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria") is used for NCSC's Trusted Product Evaluation Program (TPEP). The Orange Book only addresses single-system security. In an effort to extend Orange Book evaluation classes to networked systems NCSN published the Red Book ("Trusted Network Interpretation of the Trusted computer System Evaluation Criteria"). The Red book is used for TPEP network evaluation. No Microsoft OS has ever been put through this evaluation, so far as I know.
There are many other color books, such as the Lavender Book for trusted database management systems, the Venice Blue Book for security subsystems, the Pink Book for the Rating Maintenance Phase Program (this is what Microsoft should have been working with to extend the C2 rating to later versions of NT), and the Purple book for formal verification systems.
You can find out more about these sorts of things in the O'Reilly book "Computer Security Basics," by Deborah Russell and G. T. Gangemi Sr.
Finally, the man who sheperded NT through the formal security evaluation process is Ed Curry. For his efforts and his attempts to play by the rules both the Federal gov't and Microsoft laid down, Microsoft destroyed his consulting firm and put him and his family in a precarious financial position. He's still trying to make sure the government knows the exact status of NT security, but seems to be meeting with substantial counter-efforts by both Microsoft and (oddly enough) the Feds themselves. Do a web search for Ed Curry, familiarize yourself with the issues, and help him in whatever way seems best; I advise helping however Ed asks for help. It's in all our best interests to keep the government open to the truth. (Apologies to non-US readers.)
Doug Loss
i think, death cries of so called "best software firm in the world" just begins :)
hany
Next stop: we win.
:)
stormr
----------------------
GPL Win32 UNDER RICO!!
Hello????? This is reality calling. You have no idea what you are talking about. Activex (and OLE IIRC) is a propriatary Microsoft invented technology which isn't very impressive and has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a server.
...to talk to this guy and ask him what it is like to get paid to lie for a living. Talk about a lack of morals. Falsehoods are all we ever hear from him and it makes me _seriously_ angry both at Microsoft, and at Mr. Muth.
Not that I have anything against FreeBSD, but you just compared Gnome to Windows, decided that Windows has a better interface, and concluded from this that FreBSD is better than Linux. How did you get to talking about FreeBSD? I am using Gnome on a system that could never support Win95/98.
BTW, I use Linux and it works, so I assume from your last comment that you were refering to windows as not working. If it was Linux you were refering to, then you simply sound bitter to me.
Good day.
When Microsoft began touting Linux as an alternative to Windows in their case with the DOJ, they didn't believe their own words. Now they are trying to backpeddle. It's fun to watch Microsoft try to convince the DOJ that Linux is competition and, simultaneously, convince customers that it isn't.
Even more fun since huge numbers of people are starting to see that it really is more competition than Microsoft will be able to handle.
Having worked in both corporate and small business America - I've seen a wide variety of OS. A few have different advantages over others in different arenas, but the point of the article wasn't NT's superiority over Linux - it was aimed at breaking the wave of publicity and the surge of popularity that Linux has been experiencing by telling the world what Microsoft thinks the world should want.
It's infuriating which is why a lot of us get upset, but the world will make up it's own mind eventually. If they want to live in mediocrity, so be it. The rest of us who know a better way will use it, whether it's Linux or BeOS or whatever is up to us.
I love freedom of choice.
You are absolutely right. Intuitive is what you are used to. Everyone talks about ease of use, but no one seems to be able to define it and justify the definition outside the framework of an existing platform. My personal opinion is that ease of use should be defined as consistency across applications for common functions and features. The justification is that something is easy to use if you don't have to learn anything new in order to use it. So, if applications have a lot of similarities then the user will be able to start using it quickly and therefore that applciation mst be easy to use.
This has already happened with most GUI applications. Common functions are almost always found in the same menus and operate the same way across applications. The file menu is a good example of this. This really isn't an operating system issue, but a style issue. The operating system or actually the GUI system can come into play as an enforcer of style, but it is the consistent style not the operating system that makes the computer easy to use. This is why Mr Muth claims integration is an ease of use feature it is how Windows enforces style. The only thing is he is mixing up method with result. The ease of use feature is extending the copy, cut, paste skills that everyone learns, to work across applications and with more than just text across those apps. Method is only imprtant to the programmer not the user.
just for the sake of clarity:
sed: Stream EDitor
ls: LiSt
grep: Get Regular Expression Pattern
seems mnemonic enough to me...
j---------
----- when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro -- Hunter S. Thompson
I dunno, I thought the same thing when I read it. Considering the fact that Microsoft named Linux as a competitor in their antitrust trial, and the fact that said trial is still going on, why is this guy coming out and saying, essentially, "Microsoft does not see Linux as a competitor"? Honestly, one would think that Microsoft would at least clarify their position on Linux within the company so as not to have multiple conflicting statements made..
-mike kania
Ok, you received them "free," but the OEM you bought it from paid for it, and you can be sure that at least part of that cost was passed on to you, the consumer.
-mike kania
Argh. This is the type of post that completely pisses me off. If you're going to refute his claims, tell us what exactly makes you think that his claims are invalid instead of just telling us they are. If you don't support your position, it becomes just as weak as the position you're trying to tell us is so bad.
-mike kania
Linux is, frankly, past the stage where simple FUD tactics will stop its momentum. This seems to be common knowledge for everyone outside Redmond.
Still, I hope Muth believes his own rhetoric, and that his opinion represents the mainstream thinking at Microsoft. Such head-in-the-sand mindsets will make Linux's success that much easier.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
Cold dose of reality -- success isn't the issue. Breaking laws that exist for good reason is the issue. You can't just do whatever you want -- in business, or personal life. That's called anarchy, and most philosophers I know of seem to think its a bad thing. I tend to agree.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
Rob, are you logging where the submissions are coming from tonight? Seems we have quite a crop of anonymous pro-Redmond types checking in. Perhaps Muth was only part of the latest PR plan?
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
I agree with you. A few months back, this would have been a routine "keep them in line" action. Now, it seem pathetic and desperate.
The next year seems exciting, indeed.
Kythe
(Remove "x"'s from
Kythe
heh, sounds like some lyrics from one of his sounds
Its spelt "L-I-N-U-X", but pronunced as "Free Beer"
--
Kyle R. Rose, MIT LCS
[ home ]
They must. That's the only thing I can think of that explains brain-dead blathering like this.
Ed? Ed? Time to put the happy-smoke away.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
OLE? My, my, you want Linux to utilize a broken, proprietary, never-lived-up-to-expectations protocol like OLE? No thanks.
CORBA? Uhm. FYI, flamebait, Linux already utilizes it. Thanks for playing.
OLTP? Shakes his head and just walks away before he makes a complete fool of this AC
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
An extremely well written and incisive article.
Good job!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Name one office suite that's as good as Office?
..
....
......
There is no office suite "as good as" Office. Because Office SUCKS. It's all bells and whistles. Anyone who is looking for straight PRODUCTIVITY...should I say it....yeah....HATES OFFICE!
There is one office suite that's far, far better than Office. Basically it's one that Office has spent YEARS and dollars uncounted trying, unsuccessfully I might add, to emulate.
Two words for you.
Word Perfect
Integration is not always desireable. Office is highly integrated into the WinDOS platform. One of the REALLY major side-effects of that though is that if Office crashes, it usually drags WinDOS down without much of a fight.
Under Linux, you may lose the app, but unless you're some doofus running as Root for everything you do, you seldom, if ever lock the box up.
I'll agree. Currently IE is the more stable browser on a WinDOS platform. NS seems to get less and less stable around the time upgrades are made available. How much is Netscape's fault, and how much of it is malicious little "tweaks" left in by MS programming (or is what they do pogromming?), I cannot tell you.
Also, face it. The entire computer market is NOT the desktop market, nor is it all on the Internet.
Linux currently occupies a server niche, but is rapidly moving in and becoming a credible desktop environment.
In addition, when being used as a server, there's little sense in keeping a desktop open to run a graphical browser. And if you just need to make sure a page exists or looks good, do it the RIGHT way, from a desktop machine. Why bog down your server? (Oh, and before you start screaming about Linux not handling loads, I can and have had over 9 gigs of transfer on a server a month (light I know), with Web, IRC, FTP, Telnet, and a few other things running, and STILL am able to open up a desktop and play around.) It's not about that. It's about using the right tool for the right job. If you want to drive a nail, do you use a pipe wrench?
Also, Microsoft is definitely NOT "trying to make great products". They're trying to leverage mediocre, buggy, unstable software by knitting it as close as possible to the OS kernel so that what would otherwise be useless, not to mention painfully slow, appears more as a "feature" and is far quicker than it would be if it were truly a standalone program. This is why most non-MS software packages run slower than the stuff MS puts out. MS has access to all those nice little undocumented API calls to give it higher/better access priority with the kernel.
Also, there's a reason that Linux is, as that bootlicker Muth called it, SHELFWARE.
Not because people try it, don't like it, and chuck it up on a shelf never to use it again.
It's because they try it, find out that it works like it's supposed to, and never have to reinstall the beastie ever again. Upgrade? Sure. Reinstall completely, once in a red-white-and-blue moon.
Please troll elsewhere. We've had enough laughs on this issue. If we laugh much more, we're going to asphyxiate.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
yeah...more stable than gnome
---
Wordperfect has a better spellchecker than the one you're now using.
---
"Think of it as a burst of cold Redmond rain on the Linux parade."
It's not raining, it's FUDding!
"We're all in the business of wanting the customer to have the information needed to make informed choices," Muth said. I guess one of the fringe benefits to working for MS is that you can afford some really fine drugs.
About this Total Cost of Ownership deal. Anybody know how much of that is hardware, how much is electricity, how much is paper and toner cartridges, how much is furniture, buildings, et cetera; in other words what percentage is either software and support costs for that software (keeping support personnel trained)or what percentage isn't?
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free," he said. "Without a long-term technical road map, without multimillion-dollar test labs, someone wants me
to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
Of course not, they're going to write really lame stuff for their personal use and then put out in public with their names attached so as to totally trash their own reputations.
"Without a long-term technical road map..."
Like the one that let them see the internet coming so much sooner than everybody else?
Apparently Muth is planning a second career in stand-up comedy, and thought he'd get in a little practice and try out some new material.
"Muth attributed the open-source hype to a number of factors, including a lack of fairness in media coverage of Linux."
See, he's a regular -insert name of your favorite comedian here-.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Oh-lay! means there's a lot of bull nearby.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
To:ranger@NoSpAm.befunk.com
Hey Ranger Rick!
Did you know that some guy at Microsoft named Ed Muth got hold of a galley proof of your post, changed all the instances of "Linux" to "Windows" or "NT" and vice versa, made a few other changes of the text to be consistent with the name swaps, and then posted it at ZDNET?
Overlooking his plagerism, I must say that his was much, much funnier!
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Ironically, I'd like to get a copy of Bob for my niece and nephew to play with, but I've never even seen it in a remainder bin, and I'm pretty sure MS won't be to eager to help me out, although to be fair they haven't completely purged all mention of it from their archives. Anybody know where I could find a copy (preferably never opened)?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
What is the point of posting links to shit like this? All it causes is yet another Linux sucks/Linux rules flamewar -- like, we really need another one of those.
Linux is more efficient and reliable than NT, Java (from a design and implementaion standpoint) scales way better than VB, and CORBA works much better in the real world (the one with the internet and large corperate WANs).
And all of the above will work on x86, Alpha, Sparc, UltraSparc, and PowerPC platforms, so your customers have a choice.
--
--
This signature left intentionally blank.
Two points. 1) 500 days is a year and a half of continuous run time. Linux can run that long, but usually in that time someone upgrades the kernel or monkeys with the hardware. 2) I've heard reports of several 2.0 machines crossing the 500 day boundary. The result was that the uptime counter was reset, the systems kept running.
--
--
This signature left intentionally blank.
You used the strong word 'never' and the weaker word 'most' in the same sentence. I'd never say never with regard to anything in the computer biz (even "MS will never make a great OS"? that's right). In this case I might have let it pass if you had said "OSS will never address ALL software needs", since "all" is as strong a word as "never". But never support most?
:)
After all, there are OSS spreadsheets and accounting software (geeks need to do their bills too). When you said "'a suit' can run _his_" accounting software or spread sheet" (emphasis added) did you "MS Money and Excel"? Sure, if you want a specific spreadsheet then you are out of luck, but if you want _a_ spreadsheet, you're good to go. Heck, the only genres of software I can't think of an OSS app for are ones that I never use and hence wouldn't know about.
Some people tend to get hung up about specific apps. But the wonderfull thing about the human brain is that its good at generalization. Once its seen a couple spreadsheets, it won't have trouble adapting to another (sadly the human brain also seems to like routine, so not many ever try that second spreadsheet).
Anyway, I will give you that "OSS will never be the be all and end all", because it's hard to argue against so many superlatives
The enemies of Democracy are
Well, that's fine. As I said, I would have let it go if you said "all", but you didn't. Financial software is a good example of the niche the spare-time geek won't fill (though spreadsheet is most likely not). My thrust was that 'most' and 'never' are not readily combined in a tenable fashion in this case. As 'most' typically means 'more than half', it seems quite possible to accomplish penetration into 'most' niches - and however likely or un- it may be, that is enough to nullify 'never'. Even a harsher definition of 'most' of 75+% is not so unreasonably that I believe you could say 'never' with any assurance.
:)
Geeks are geeks are geeks (has a certain ring to it), and since when do geeks care about user-friendly interfaces? Yet we have KDE and Gnome. Of course strong OSS projects are a one man operation, but what does that have to do with it?
And there is something that you are forgetting - 'Open Source Software' doesn't mean 'geek working in his spare time on what he thinks is cool' necessarily. There are entities that do have cash and employ geeks and tell them what to write that produce open-source software. RedHat, Abisource are examples.
RedHat, I needn't remind you, has paid developers working on Gnome. Because they think making linux easy to use will sell more boxes. So now we have OSS being supported by commercial entities, and those entities can provide the motivation and money to make electronic stamps or up-to-date tax software.
Granted, there are reasons why large-scale adoption of OSS practices by corporations is unlikely, but to say 'never' would be hasty. So with corporations making OSS products, why can't OSS cover every niche? Again, I dislike saying 'every', since there are so many niches, so instead let me say 'a vast preponderance, approaching all'.
The geek population and the working population overlap, and as long as they are making OSS stuff, who cares if they work for Redhat or their own personal pleasure?
And remember, when you use the word 'never', time cannot prove you right
The enemies of Democracy are
But, just think of the fun it will be to shatter all the frozen Microsoft employees come winter! ;)
Woo Hoo!
"What do you mean, invalid parameters? 9000Gigs of RAM and it can't answer a simple question!" -- Earthworm Jim
That's a very weak argument. Windows itself is many times bigger than Linux, it supports a lot more applications, is installed on tons more systems, and has many more users so this kind of a comparison is idiotic.
As is yours. Size is a relevant comparison between software, but not in the way you use it. It is a proven fact that as the lines of code increase, the time/costs involved in coding/debuging/testing/bugs increase exponentially.
Secondly, while it may or may not be true that Windows supports more applications, (Keep in mind that Linux has access to a decent chunk of the UNIX software out there) that is ultimately a function of it's market deployment. As the deployment grows, support (both commercial and non-commercial) grows. It's a fairly simple relationship. And Linux's market deployment is CERTAINLY growing.
Furthermore, compared to Windows, which is descended from the Windows of yore (3.x, 2.x, 1.x)
and MS-DOS, Linux is still a young OS. As Linus stated during his LinuxWorld keynote, it's been around for 9 years. ONLY 9 years!
There's nothing to say that 10 years down the road, when Linux reaches version 4.0 (0r 5.0/2000), people won't be 'Linus-bashing' and jumping ship to FooBarOS.
But, in the intirm, Linux has become a commercialy viable server OS, and is making inroads to the desktop market. Perhaps it will fail. You takes your chances. But contrast that to Windows, which is ultimately a desktop OS, desperately attempting to make inroads in the network server market.
Of course Windows is 'easier to use' for most people. It was built from the ground up for 'user friendliness'. (user candy) But what does that say about Linux/UNIX in general, which was built from the ground up to Serve?
"What do you mean, invalid parameters? 9000Gigs of RAM and it can't answer a simple question!" -- Earthworm Jim
Point taken. ;)
"What do you mean, invalid parameters? 9000Gigs of RAM and it can't answer a simple question!" -- Earthworm Jim
Value is not what the sellar attaches to the broduct, but what the buyer percieves from it.
i guess ED would have to go back to his school for his lessons in english.
Value is not what the sellar attaches to the product, but what the buyer percieves from it.
i guess ED would have to go back to his school for his lessons in english.
Didn't Microsoft just announce that most of what little shrink-wrapped NT software exists isn't going to run on NT5/Windows 2000?
Guess what, no one needs 40 million different Word Processors!!! I dont sit there and get upset that my Mac only has say 10,000 peices of software for it, when my Windows machine has 1,000,000. After you get past about 20 or so you use, the rest either suck or are of no use to you! For instance, even if no one made anotehr Paint program or Text editor for the Mac, i would stil be happy cause i think BBEdit and Photoshop satisfy my needs perfectly. And on linux, even if no one ports there Application Server, PHP3 works great for me, better than ANY shrinkwrapped package i have seen. And are we forgetting, Perl? DO we need a shrinkwrapped package for Perl now? Give it up Microsoft, number of peices of crap software != value of system.
-- Steal Me --
I see a lot of people trying to argue with you that Linux really isn't that hard, etc. The real point that you need to realize is that you just can't handle Linux. It's an unfortunate fact, but one a lot of people are going to have to deal with. Linux is never going to be written for the people that can't handle reading a manual and perhaps *gasp* looking for new video drivers. What were those video cards that you couldn't make work, for the record?
So, in short, I'm sorry you had problems, but I'm not really going to call it a fault of Linux. It's more of a self-selection thing going on.
Later,
Zach
My
Thou speakest with ignorance, fellow man.
FYI, I've been using StarOffice under Linux for the past two months now without a hitch. It kicks ass. There IS an excellent word processor for Linux. I'm using it. I haven't been so happy since the day I stopped using Windows entirely.
StarOffice has got a great spreadsheet program that works beautifully. It doesn't hog up my system like Excel does, and I don't have to worry about Word Macro Viruses, when I load Word Documents.
Hey Staroffice does have presentations, too. Now I really can wipe Windows from my laptop, since I can use the presentations in StarOffice instead of that PowerPoint POS.
-- If you met me, you probably wouldn't remember me. I'm pretty hard to remember.
Ed's been smoking crack again.
a bolster for corprate insecurity, good only for
pleasant waffling in board meetings.
What Linux and OSS is about is solving every
problem at once, in parallel, without reins. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I don't think we can discern his exact motivations from one position paper.
I realize Slashdot is mostly College kids (as am I) who come from preppy ass upper-middle class homes in the richest parts of U.S. cities and small cities.
I have not seen the demographics on slashdot readers. It would be interesting to know "Who is your average slashdot reader?".
But once you get out into the real world, you will realize that there is more to business than just _the most stable platform for running your servers_. Microsoft is all about MONEY. So are businesses [at least the last time I checked]. Business and making money out in the real world depends on having a structured support system. (maybe someone else with more of an economics background could elaborate for me)
You are correct in that the purpose of a business is to make money. As a matter of fact, if you are an officer of company with shareholders, you have a responsiblity to them to try and make money. In the case of a publicly traded corporation, failure to do so could be illegal. However, I think it is bad business strategy to offer a consistently inferior product to the consumer. This strategy can surely not be successful in the long run. Yes good marketing allows firms to sell poor products, but we are entering a new economic age, where the cost of discovering information conerning the quality of a product is approaching zero. The web offers me the "Consumer reports" of the new economy. If I want to know which O/S is best for my needs I can read opinion papers, expert analysis, anything. And yes I can also read cute little ads. I often conceive of starting my own software / consulting firm. I have decided that the quality of my work will be my most important marketing weapon. Certainly I will seek to publicize this quality to perspective customers/clients, but I will also be willing to take fair criticism. I think this attitude stems from the way I was raised by my parents. They made it clear to me from a young age that I should never submit a homework assignment that I hadn't done to the best of my ability. "Would you want your name on poor quality work? Work you know you could have done better?". I believe the answer is no. In the new economy I hope that quality can be a vital part of corporate strategy.
Don't just reply with and say I'm a troll, as I will give an e-mail address at the end of this. I am not in a mood right now to elaborate more on this, so I will let others do so. But I would like to say this: don't ANY of you give a fuck about MONEY? If you do, then don't just keep saying 'fuck Microsoft',
I have sought to move away from saying 'f*ck Microsoft'. Though to be honest I let it slip a few times a day while reading ZDNet articles. I have decided that my energy and excitement is better used towards developing new business ideas, creating quality software, and serving as resource to newbies(be they new to the Internet, linux,whatever).
because while their software (most of it) is of very low quality, they do have a very structured business UNLIKE most of the Linux world.Their business and management structure, are yes structured. As evidenced by the Redmond campus with its 30 or 40 or "who knows how many" buildings that house different product teams. In addition their marketing efforts are coordinated and targeted. At these levels they do run an excellent business. The "Linux World" is not a corporation. It is a community with many diverse participants. Some are seeking to explore business issues with Linux. Others are looking to improve the kernel or device drivers of linux. Some are looking at how to develop applications and interfaces that are useful to them and others. Rigid structure would not serve this community's participants well.
Someone else who is more educated in Economics might want to elaborate on this a bit more, because I am just speaking from a REAL WORLD point of view. I now work in the Real World, and the Real World is a little bit different than the college world that many of the Slashdot.org readers are used to.
To give you my demographics. I am a 4th year student at the University of Pennsylvania studying computer science engineering and business as a undergraduate and Telecommunications and Networking as a graduate student. I have worked in the "real world" for IBM, Bellcore, and 3Com and was glad to meet people at each of these companies that were committed to producing high quality work.
Again, please feel free to e-mail me... stifle33@hotmail.com
And please feel free to e-mail me at Stuart.Eichert.wh99@wharton.upenn.edu with your thoughts on these subjects. I am considering writing an essay on the role of product/service quality in software companies.
Stuart Eichert
U. of PENN student/FreeBSD hacker
Stuart Eichert
You know, file sharing and web servering were done long time before OLE and ActiveX, and they have nothing to do with web servers and file servers. furthermore, recent tests have shown that Linux+Samba(a file server which uses NT's protocol) totally outform NT.look here.
besides, Linux today supports Corba, a DCOM alternative
Natureman
You want a good word processor other than microsoft?Applixware,StarOffice,WordPerfect, and soon gwp and go
Yoy want a good spreadsheet?just take a look at gnumeric, it's quite close
A browser better then IE?I use the good old netscape 3, and i think it's better than both ie and netscape 4.0
Natureman
Can you please find out what version of Gimp did he run?
Natureman
This is so funny I've gotta pick out some holes in it!
./configure, make, make install? Plus I don't even have to go through the struggle of taking the nasty shrinkwrap off ;) And it's better for the environment!
/ 199902/ntdllcache.txt.html
>First, a broad base of support for applications >-- especially off-the-shelf, shrink-wrapped >applications -- is necessary for a modern >operating system, he said.
What's so hard about downloading a gziped program and typing
Hmmm... Well if we had everything shrink wrapped like Microsoft does we'd get the same time of dumb default setpu problems they do, ie setups that set up services you don't know about and provide a big open door for people to get into your system. Can anyone say IIS? Which brings me to my next point.
>On the server side they want strong queuing and >security. This is all done through integration. >Linux has a low degree of integration. Linux is >basically a big step backward for those two >reasons plus others."
So Linux has week security. I guess he hasn't visited Roothshell or AntiOnline and found the plethora of security related bugs and hacks that exist for the Redmond based baby! Sure this site also has bugs for linux but the difference is that it is usually a matter of days, maybe even hours before they're fixed, in Microsoft land it can take months!
Just check out http://www.rootshell.com/archive-j457nxiqi3gq59dv
See ya
Euchrid
Hm... Let me see...
If
a) you *do* work for MS
and
b) you code (or work) like you spell/write
and
c) there's more of you in that company (likely?)
I would say that explains a thing or two about the
bad quality of most MS software...
Argathin
... Now the article seemed a mix of ignorance and FUD fight. Imply the last step.
I think, therefore thoughts exist. Ego is just an impression.
The Ed's Formmula to Transaction Cost (TC):
TC = ((Setup Time+Avalable Applications) * (Development Program * Pi * Usage Risk^2)
The Ed's Formmula to Integration (I):
I = ((Number of Icons in the Desktop)^2) * (4 * (Excel Bars + Word Documents))
The Ed's Formmula to Software Quality (SQ):
SQ = (Salary for coders + Salary for developers) * (test labs quantity)^2 * (Cost of the labs)
The Ed's Formmula to Linux Users (LU):
LU = (Population in the world) - (Population in the world) + 100
The Ed's constatant for what people wants (PW):
PW = What we want them to want.
It's SO EASY TO MAKE FUN OF THIS GUY THAT MAKES ME FELL SORRY FOR HIM
But I wish he did! Then it would be easy to take over their market share...with people as dull witted as that!
Sorry but most of the people that I know in Microsoft right now are actually pretty pissed off at the company so....
me thinks this is a funny Linux guy...
Nick
LSG
Oh One more thing about ZD-Net.....
No one that I know in IT even reads the damn thing... I mean come one give me a break..they have a cheesy place called the "Linux Briefing Center" I mean come on... do people really go there? Who? and WHY? Everyone knows the ZD-Net is a wholly owned subsidiary of SoftBank which is run by guess who...Microsoft!! wow what a revelation...get with the program son... no one takes ZD-Net seriously....
Of course I think your actually a Linux guy but hey that's just MHO...
Cheers,
Nick
LSG
Nick
LSG
Trust me folks....Microsoft is running very scared. Those of us who have been in the business for a while and can
remember our first Altair, know that Bill Gates and Co. didn't "get it" 20 years ago and he still doesn't "get it" now.
His worst nightmare has come to pass. Those "hobbiest" programmers are giving away code! How dare they! Don't you
know that when you do that it makes it hard for people like him (his coders) to write good software and sell it for a 200%
mark-up?
Needless to say we all know that a majority of people that work on the code for Linux and it's various apps. blow away the
neophytes at Microsoft.
But hey as my martial arts teacher Shoto Tanemura once said to me..."If you were not scared...there would be no need of
a defensive reaction, the person in control of himself can respond...not react. Remember that reaction is when your
environment dictates you actions... Response is when YOU are in control of you.."
Redmond is scared silly....Bill's worst nightmare is here...and succeeding...
If economic stats make you feel any better, a senior IT market analyst from Forrester Research was on CNN a couple of
nights ago and said something close to the effect of "The Open Source Software model is dynamic and effective. Even
Microsoft with all it's money and resources can't out program or out perform it because they don't have the ability to
harness the collective IQ power of programmers across the world."
Microsoft is more into cable companies and DSL access now than Operating Systems folks...
smile, relax, and run Linux.
Cheers,
Nicholas Donovan
President
Linux Systems Group
New York
I'll be very simple and very direct....
My company uses OSS and proprietary software such as Sybase and Oracle because they suit our needs.
Frankly the thought of using Microsoft is just to risky as it is not really a supported product.
I mean if something goes wrong who can I have come in and fix it? No one! I can trust Oracle as their products have never given me issues... Sybase so far has been good as well. In previous companies I have either managed or had ownership in we have tried Microsoft products but they proved to be too unreliable.
Often a company can release the preliminary API to the OSS community and let them cut their teeth on it. Guess what the Ethernet drivers in Linux are written for us by NASA. Some of out kernel code comes from guys from Australia to New Zealand to Zaire. Don't tell me that companies can't afford to have their people working on OSS. Often people work on it in their own time and the advances they make contribute to the companies overall code pool. I'd much rather have a Linux programmer than a Win32 only programmer as in my over 20 years in IT have shown me.... people that are from a Unix/Linux background tend to be more well rounded. Which is why Linux/Unix programmers and administrators are usually paid more as well..
Cheers,
Nick Donovan
Linux Systems Group
New York
After reading the article, AND not having a chance to flame 'um directly..., I'm depressed! Total FUD. Hell, Linux is scaleable, works wonders with older hardware, and hopefully I'll be bringing up a new ISP with it shortly..., without all of the licencing and MS burps.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
and I'll use it to light the small bonfire I'm planning for my Win95 CD.
:)
(soon as i get everything working right w/ Linux of course
~Grell
Microsoft does have a Year 2000 problem. We're it.
...when it gets down to fundamentals, do what you have to do and shed no tears. Dr. Matson in Tunnel in the Sky
Oh, where to start, where to start? First off, the "idea" of a personal computer was around for one helluva lot longer than Microsoft. In fact, the first mass-marketed PC was a little box called the Altair, which a young Harvard student named William Gates wrote a BASIC interpreter for. _Not_, as you would have us believe, for the IBM PC. Secondly, it is true that QDOS was the basis for MS-DOS. However (and someone out there please back me up on this, my memory is admittedly shaky here), the company and code was swallowed up by MS. Thirdly, my 64K OS/9-based Color Computer (yes, I said Color Computer) whomped on the original IBM-PC's with MS-DOS. It even had some productivity software, though it was pretty awful. Most of what I used, I wrote! Finally, having used Linux, WordPerfect, etc., as well as Microsoft products, well, I don't call it Microsoft LookOut for nothing!
Meow.
Windows is the Acme of computing -- in the Wile E. Coyote sense.
After reading this, it became clear that MS is getting rather nervous, to say the least. When something they don't like appears, start the FUD engines churning and try to destroy their economic base, just wait out the company until it goes under or is primed for buyout. Unfortunately, that is completely useless against the Linux community.
Even if MS is successful in turning away the corporate community in the short term, Linux will continue as always. In fact, I can see the FUD having the opposite effect on developers, getting them so enraged by the bad press that they go out out of the way to create excellent software. MS is now at the beginning of a very long struggle. They are a not so immovable object facing a truely unstoppable force.
So let MS chatter on, the best that they can do is slow down Linux in the short term. As with all empires, this one too must fall, nature strives for entropy, MS cannot maintain its order forever.
So take this article for what I did, a good laugh. More of these will come along, and the community must be ready to take them with a grain of salt. Letting MS generate discord will let them gain the upper hand.
this is why I _love_ slashdot so much. I come in to work in the mornings (hey, I'm on GMT+2) and read the newest articles. The headline was greeted by histerical laughter! I just really find it funny that the M$ can be so bloody wrong. Thanks again to slashdot for providing me with comic relief in the morning :)
--- "He who dies with the most toys, wins."
If Microsoft hired you... Well I can see why their products crash so much. If you can't spell, write a complete sentence, or use proper grammar, it becomes obvious what is wrong with microsoft.
I thought MS Word had a spell check, and a grammar check. Use it.
As to linux crashing... I bought a dell laptop and a few months later they sent me a Win98 upgrade. That day I saw on the new how Bill was demonstrating Win98. He used a scanner and the damn thing locked up on him. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
We *are* talking about the the same "programmer" who couldn't write a working flood-fill routine for MS Basic, aren't we?
Read _Barbarians Led by Bill Gates_. An eye-opener; I'm amazed they ever shipped a single product.
-- Cerebus
-- Cerebus
No more needs to be said. We don't want a redmond here... 'tis bad enough our government lets M$ get away with what they do against our own IT companies - the last thing we need is Bill playing cricket in our own backyard.
Besides - they'd hate it here. Australians are renouned for backing the battler in any fight - and I can't remember the last time M$ fit that description.
'sapientia potestas est'
'nuff said.
'sapientia potestas est'
Does anyone else feel like a Macrosloth PR guy has rocked up at a childcare centre and offered all of the kids a lolly-pop to go to /. and push the MS-line??
/.
Just about all of the pro-MS crap here has been posted by an AC, with the content covering everything from CORBA to Active X to the stability of NT, but all seemingly worded through the mouth of a 10 year old. Each post essentially says "Microsoft is good for us, so leave them alone or I'll tell my dad..."
Something smells funny on
'sapientia potestas est'
Does anyone else find it odd that the "operating system" upgrade that is Internet Explorer 5.0 is being sold separately on the M$ website? Everything article on the site referring to IE almost never mention the added-value the OS gets, just talks about IE as a browser.
Are investors that stupid to keep pouring money into a company that cannot organise a coherent defense? Or worse, one that sends a relative rookie (the M$ lawyer is what, 35-37?) to the highest court in the US to defend its business. Talk about thumbing your nose! And mind you, I'm not age discriminating here. I'm sure the lawyer is smart...however, when it comes to law, there is ALWAYS something to be said about age since both wisdom and presentation are factors.
Jesse
Ofcorse NT is lacking apps, Nobody can port the damn programs because they are lacking the idea of just passing around the source code.
./configure, make, make install.
With Unix (Linux, *BSD, Et Cetra....) We can pass around the source code, and compile it extreamly quickly, with Win32 and WinNT, you halfto pass around the binarys, and when you hit a diffrent platfrom that NT is running on, thows programs wont run, and they have no way of porting the programs, because they dont share the soruce code.
Hell, look at Win2k, they are trying to make it the most advanced os, but when I took a look at it, tryed out beta1, it stunk, it was slow, it crashed offten, it only liked usb hardware, in short, it was a peice of crap, it would probaly have done better in an imac system then a i386.
And so we can only pass special binarys, so what, it dosent take a rocket scientist to do
my $.02!
The fact you say that it cannot share files and serve web pages as well as NT makes it clear you have not done any homework.
Linux is not perfect, no OS is, but where it competes with NT/98 it tends to do better.
In fact my Linux can mount my FAT32 98 partitions, whereas NT does not, go figure.
Ice Tiger
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
As it happens every day,
or at the most 47.9 days.
Ice Tiger
"Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
Yeah as opposed to Linux and Gnome users who on the whole are so mature. Face reality bud, and realize that it's not just the pro MS crowd who is being immature.
The revolution will be mocked
Ed is the standard text editor
Scuttlemonkey is a troll
try this
That guy is so incredibly stupid, it is hard to believe...
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
If not - they they good treatment against hallucinations out there. Try it.
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
Yeah, and if you write it down on restaraunt receipts, you will warp space in no time...
<^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
There is no question in my mind that this is purest bull. There's no way you can run an NT box usefully for that long without rebooting it; even if you don't have problems with stability, about half the applications you install will want a reboot; changing IP settings requires a reboot, etc. If you want to put any kind of load on the box and run anything that might make NT useful, like IIS, or something similar, you are going to have to reboot at least every once in a while. This guy is clearly not telling us something (like maybe his two-year-old NT boxes are sitting in a dusty corner, not doing anything whatsoever).
But in this case it's total propaganda.
... er ...
... but then this article is designed for non-technical people -- to try to scare them away from Linux.
Claiming that there is a "higher technical risk" in Linux is the most laughable part of it. What about the "technical risk" that Microsoft will change the next release of NT so that your existing Microsoft software (or competing software) stops working, forcing you to buy the "upgrade". What if the next version of NT just happens to break your in-house application? The one that has been working so well for the past two years that you've reassigned most of the programmers?
And who's in the better "technical" position to fix any problems caused by a new release? The linux programmer who has the source code in compilable form, AND a full source code patch history of each and every change, or the NT programmer who has
What's the technical risk of that?
This is pure FUD, designed to scare management types who don't understand what open source is into thinking that Microsoft is looking out for them.
Notice that he never specifically described any "technical risks"
> "Without a long-term technical road map..."
Here he is referring to "Microsoft Bob"
- jms
Okay, he's right. Linux does not have off the shelf apps. I can't go to my Best Buy and get the latest version of Oracle for Linux in a box. But I've got one coming anyway.
The fact is, many apps for MS are installed the same way the Linux world does it. Primary apps like Oracle and WP are ordered on CD, and you as the IT of your own little computer base install it for better or worse. How many non-IT people ever install large packages for their corporation?
The smaller apps are downloaded, unzipped, (we've got an extra step), then installed. Anyone using the web and MS will say that a lot of their apps were installed that way. Netscape (don't have to unzip it), MSIE (download cabs? those are zipped files right?), etc. The fact of the matter is that the distribution model of going to a reseller is crumbling in this industry. You don't go to Best Buy, you go direct to Dell for your computer. You don't go to Circuit City, you go direct to the software team. MS is perpetuating the old model, as well as the hardware periphery companies, to help those companies that have been forced to be the grunts of their monopoly.
I bought my computer at Best Buy, for an immediate solution and knowledge that my warranty would be void the moment I got home. I opened this bitch up and started with the upgrades and tearing apart. I recently painted the thing. I didn't go to Best Buy because I was too stupid to build one, nor go to Dell because I wanted custom. I needed both of those solutions, but I needed them fast, so I compromised and got a fairly decent computer, never mind the OS (that comes off easy, hmm... fdisk or format... fdisk, I'll have to do it sooner or later.)
Big corporations can look to Linux, because the apps are there, and their IT people know how to go about getting them and putting them on. Muth just has lost touch with the IT group at ms. Linux is only run by the IT group, and a few well trained individuals. None of us started out gurus, and the learning curve is equally steep for all OS for a novice. I just hate the fact that MS increases the learning curve by putting out a shoddy system that does it all for you, too much goes on behind the scenes and people just adopt the "as long as it works" attitude. I have noticed that the Linux community has the attitude, "as long as it works, alright, but when it fails then what..." Well, ms says reboot, reinstall, reformat. Linux actually lets you recover without those extremes in most cases and most of the time you can do it without the extreme of reboot and reformat. Why, because we already know the frustration that computers cause us in the programming phase. I think we look at our users, or at least should, in the respect that this is a computer, it is not a toy. If you want to treat it like a toy, use ms. After that people will begin to understand that blue screens of death and the like are what's to be expected of an operating system that doesn't understand its customer base, except to treat them as the lowest common denominator.
Basically, that's why the world is getting more stupid, because no one is forced to learn, and that makes everyone but the true lovers of knowledge happy. The day I stop learning is the day I take my last breath. How many dead people do you know today?
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
No the REAL real reason that VHS beat BETA was that while VHS (formerly known as Alpha before Sony sold it) was available to manufactures for a small licensing fee Beta was held tightly under the control of Sony. With more manufactures producing VHS machines and cassettes consumers soon favourd it and Sony had to license VHS (Which THEY DEVELOPED from whoever they sold it to, I think it was Philips or Toshiba but I forget) Now what chance does Winbloze stand considering it is both technicaly inferior AND highly proprietary. compared to Linux which is even more free than VHS and far superior.
Personaly I am unsure if you are for real or a joke cause stupid people are often very obnoxious so that hightens the chace of your icredible levels of both in concert.
How bout we ship micro$oft up to CFB Alert with a bunch of copies of Winbo$e to burn for heat. The personel could use em fer target practice (Our military dont see much action against anything as close to human as a microserf very often.
If M$ ever moves its headquarters to Canada, there will be a disaster unlike this world has ever seen.
:)
It's your crappy company, you keep it
I will not address most of his arguments. All of us here know that MS software is mediocre at best, and that its quality is absolutely inexcusable. However, I do think Linux has some fundamental problems. While it is true that Linux continues to evolve and improve upon itself while Windows remains relatively stagnent, I must say that Linux development is far from perfect. People who say that Linux is particularly innovative are kidding themselves. Name one totally new creation that OSS has brought us. I will not say that the OSS community will never innovate, because they will. It is the rate that I question. I believe the saying that Linux/OSS is designed to 'scratch an itch' is pretty accurate. The question is, whose itch. OSS developers fix their own problems, and impress their friends and what not. Do they really worry about weather or not 'a suit' can run his accounting software or spread sheet program in Linux. 90% of the slashdot community is excessively anti-commercial. Slashdoters seem to lose sight of the fact that most all commercial products only make money by offering some redeeming value to the consumer. Nor do they worry a great deal about ease of installation. Most all of the linux installation development has been at the hands of COMMERCIAL interests such as Redhat.
OSS will never even address most software needs. Nor do I believe that it'll break a whole lot of new ground. I myself have no problem with paying for software, I have a problem with crappy software. That is why I use Linux. There is a certain amount of benefit to be obtained from Open Source code and community contribution, but it is not, and will never be the be all and end all.
Geeks are Geeks are geeks. You are saying that they are geeks, so you are admitting that they are indeed somehow different. Their needs and wants are different as well. Most people will only consider using a computer when it will actually SAVES them time, this is not true for many geeks. Many geeks have plenty of time to burn, and its those geeks that are usually writing these programs. Do you honestly believe that the only thing that seperates the alternative OSS equivalents apart from their commercial cousins is marketing? 99% of these types of programs are secondary projects of even the author(s), they are considered to be beta and unstable, etc etc etc. They require a fair amount of time and sophistication to learn. Many of these programs involve more than mere coding skills, they involve updating them based on the latest tax laws, etc etc etc. How about an OSS MRP system. How about the thousands of other niche markets. How about projects which actually take a direct infusion of cash to make into a reality? On TV I recently saw a product that creates US mail postage using a laser printer, the user can purchase 'electronic' stamps online. OSS would _never_ make this happen. This took some persuasion to get the post office to allow it. Not to mention the fact that there needs to be a web site to support it. Granted, there is some 'hardware' involved in this, but my point still stands.
I don't mind superlatives. Time will prove me right. The basic problem is that there needs to be a sufficient geek population in every niche to fill every demand OSS style. This is simply not the case. None of the strong OSS projects are a one man operation. Even the geeks need to work for a living. One geek working part time simply can't compete with a strong commercial operation. End of story.
Significant innovation is in my opinion the act of making a piece of software to fill a new niche, to do something that it couldn't effectively do before. I would definetly say apple/Macintosh innnovated for example. Even though Xerox technically invented the first GUI, and wysiwyg, and the laser printer......none of them were properly working. Xerox dropped the ball. It was Apple that made this a reality. Or more precisely, Steve Jobs. Innovation is indeed hard work. My point is that OSS lacks the push factor. Steve Jobs had a certain vision of what a computer should look like, and he pushed, and payed to make this a reality. I don't see this sort of thing happening in the OSS world, neither conceptually or empirically. For anything to really fly in the OSS world, it has to be a vision shared by many people. Even if this vision exists, I don't think the OSS timeline can compete against well run commercial organization. I predict that the next great apps of tommarow will NOT come from the OSS world. OSS might however come along after the fact, when there is a clear and obvious need and fill in for the failings of previous companies.
The internet wasn't the first network. There were propietary protocols long before. It was originally military funded anyways. I wouldn't call this a significant innovation. OSS platforms were not the first machines online mind you....The internet happpened mainly by chance, and "Open" part is coincidental for the most part. Although it has improved its stability and succesfullness.
Science and Academic Discovery != Innovation
Mathemeticians don't build things, nor do other academics for the most part. Programming is about alot more than just an idea, the hard part is development. My central point is not that OSS is absolutely incapable of innovation. It is that:
a) OSS pursues different goals then that that the average consumer needs or wants.
b) OSS actually lacks a thing or two when it comes to real innovation.
The Internet is based around RFCs and open standards. Open standards are not entirely new. Anyone can spec out a protocol, this is not THAT difficult. Developing a mature product in a timely fashion is entirely different.
Really ? Do you have a reference to that ?
In any case, 500 days is a LONG time to go without reboots.... Mind you, I have 1 (Linux) Box thats been running for 16 Months without a reboot (Unless I had a power failure & never noticed...).
Perhaps I should shut it down and add that extra disk I've been promising it....
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
To quote Shakespear,
"My ASS"
If you want to be able to "move an Image from my File Manager to my Word Processor and Move a chart from Excel" why not use Applixware like I do ? I bought SuSE Linux Office Suite 99 on CD which installed without any "downloading, compiling and tweaking", and all for about £50 UK (compared to £400+ for Microsoft Office). That leaves me £350 for games, more RAM, new sound card and a meal at a restaurant.
I'll admit that getting X to work was a bit of a fiddle, but then I was using an undocumented monitor and an no-name video card. However, SuSE's X installer ('SaX') guessed some settings that gave me 800x600 in 8 Bit color, whereas the best Win98 could manage was 640x480 in 16 colors until I installed new video drivers.
It is a desktop operating system - I use it on my desktop. Fact. I use NT at work and usually reboot 2-3 times a day. Fact. (And yes, I am a sad git, I do work on my computer for 5-7 hours a night at least 3 nights a week, so both machines get a pounding.)
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
"You could cut Linux some slack if it were sharply lower in cost per transaction than NT, but that's not the case."
... well less than we'll be paying for 3 mos. of NT support...
Hee hee hee... at work we're paying Big Bucks for an NT guru to get our email servers working... If I were using Linux we'd be done, it would work and Redhat could support us for
So is MS giving away stuff to lower their TCO? (cash would work) Apparently I missed that memo...
Best not even ignore Mouth of Micro$oft.
What better value for small-time users than Linux/GNOME, or whatever...and...
...Micro$oft already have the ear of the corporate world and the suits are especially sensitive to reactive ravings. Where logic isn't available they become unhinged by emotion and religion (except their own).
It's 1776 all over again. Keep your powder dry.
Old King William is rallying his troops. This is merely a skirmish.
Buzz Lightyear
Ed would never lie to me. Never, never, never. Ed good. Microsoft good. Linux? Linux bad.
I love Ed.
Is there an Ed Muth stuffed toy forsale, one that would keep me safe at night from the awful linux boogeymen running rampant in the night. Shudder. Evil linux.
I suppose SGI, IBM, and so on, are making a
:)
benevolent contribution to the self proclaimed
"linux community"?
Heh. They're gonna make a buck off of free
software. OpenSource == OpenWallet
To be honest, I don't think there's that many pro-MS trolls active, just a few very industrious ones. A lot of the pro-MS flamage that's appearing has a lot more in common than I'd expect - tendency to flip letters in the word "products", a keyboard with an "l" key that sticks, and lots of statements designed not so much to highlight what few strengths NT has, but to push the right buttons on Slashdot users (i.e. if I was to post a comment defending NT, I probably wouldn't focus on stability or web server performance. However, if I wanted to drive people into a frenzy, I'd post one saying my NT box had been up for years and was a really really great web server). The first two suggest a lot of this is just one person, the last suggests they're more interesting in rattling people's cages than actually making a point.
Just to contribute something to the discussion - a place I used to work recently replaced the senile old SGI I'd set up as their mail and web server, largely because their sysadmin was more familiar with NT than Unix and he'd been rather dependent on staying in contact with me after I left to keep it going. This machine was around 4/5 years old, not exactly a speed demon, yet stayed up for months on end and the only unplanned e-mail/web downtime we ever had was an hour one weekend when the power supply blew up and I had to cannibalize another machine.
It was replaced by a dual Pentium II 350MHz box with 256Mb running NT4 and Back Office. For two weeks, anyway. The Unix box is now handling the e-mail again because the NT box couldn't cope and, I am told, crashed daily during the time it was in service.
I liked the part towards the end where he contradicts the rest of the article. Lets see here... get all the Linux people worked up by saying linux sucks and isn't competition, then we can call it competition again....
As for excelent coders "working" for free, he just needs to hang around the open source community a while. Money isn't everything. Besides, it is possible, and even pretty easy, to get paid for coding open source.
--
Oviously it isn't running the latest service pack.... Guess you better not let anyone find out where they are... there have been at least 10 different DOS attacks via TCP/IP alone over the last couple years. Some that come to mind: WinNuke, Land, and Teardrop.
:P As soon as the 2.3 development gets underway, I may never have a need to reboot again. Some people have built a kernel upgrade method that does not require rebooting... just about 10 seconds inaccessibility while the kernel swaps itself with the new one. Lets see an NT Service pack do that!
The only reason my linux servers are ever rebooted is for kernel upgrades or hardware changes.
There are v1.3 machines all over the place that have been up > 2 years. I think Cox or Raymond (forget which) has a machine nearing 3 years uptime. Running continuously since the kernel was released is pretty common. Big thing that keeps my uptime low is my taste for new kernels
--
Where do they get 'journalists' like that?
"Microsoft exec dissects Linux's 'weak value proposition'"
Hardly english. I don't even know where to begin...
"Microsoft anatomizes Linux"
No such word as "anatomizes".
Consider the leading sentence - "Think of it as a burst of cold Redmond rain on the Linux parade." Think of what? This sentence should follow one that establishes what "it" is.
In the next paragraph, "far-reaching" and "sounded off" (both terms used inappropriately) are used to inconsistently refer to Muth's views on Linux.
"'... the weaker I think the value proposition is to consumers'". What kind of pseudo-authoritative gobbledy-gook is this? Muth is hardly better than the journalist.
"Muth delineated two main technical reasons".
"delineated" and "main" are used inappropriately.
I won't even go into the over use of emotive language, jargon and the overall lack of logical flow in the article. It is poorly researched, poorly presented and fails to have a point.
My high school English teacher would give it an F.
Cautionary tale for the young 'uns. Read fewer articles like these and if you must, examine them critically. If I catch you writing drivel like this for a technical report I have anything to do with - yer out on yer bum.
-t.
I was just over at:
http://leb.net/hzo/ioscount/
"The Internet Operationg System Counter"
and here is what I found:
===============BEGIN DATA===================
Date : Jan.`99
Host OS recognized (grouped, sorted) 09/98 %recog 01/99 %recog +/-%
------------------------------------ ------- ------ ------- ------ ----
1.( ) Linux 223441 27.6 287093 30.8 +3.2
2.( 4.) Solaris/SunOS 109579 13.5 178350 19.1 +5.6
3.( 2.) Windows 95/98/NT 190726 23.6 171829 18.4 -5.2
4.( 3.) BSD Family 170228 21.0 150961 16.2 -4.8
5.( ) IRIX 43987 5.4 52941 5.7 +0.3
===============END DATA===================
Folks, sombody is sure using a lot of Linux out there and it may just be us. After all I have 7 Linux systems running off the last set of CDs I picked up. My boss wants to put it on a high end server host that is not being adequitely used and then pull some older 200 MHx Pentiums out of the parts room and let anyone who wants to play have one. That looks like another 10 systems. If anything the numbers are way too low.
Is that the super OS that has been in development since 96 or 97, and that is supposed to come it in 2001?
I meant 5.0
This, folks, is what happens when people read and believe their own press releases. Let me answer some of this foolishness...
Mr. Edward Muth states that
"People want more integration," he said. "They want to take a bar chart from Excel and put it in Word. On the server side they want strong queuing and security. This is all done through integration. Linux has a low degree of integration. Linux is basically a big step backward for those two reasons plus others."
And MS Windows has such *STRONG* queuing and *SOLID* security. For integration, CORBA is, of course, chopped liver. For desktop/chart manipulation MS is still way ahead. Unfortunately, it is a house built on sand.
In comparing the two, he sets up a straw man by stating:
"Let's say, for discussion, they are equally scalable," he said. "And let's assume applications are available for both, and setup time is the same. Given all these factors as equal, the best you could hope for is about the same cost per transaction between servers."
This is so ridiculous that I'm apoplectic. "equally scalable"? Hem! "setup time is the same", LINUX is more (at first). "applications are available", yeah but for LINUX, most, if not all functionality, is FREE!
From this interesting opening he goes on to state:
"The problem with [Linux is] that is there are fewer applications available for Linux, there's no long-term development road map, and there's a higher technical risk in using it," he said. "You could cut Linux some slack if it were sharply lower in cost per transaction than NT, but that's not the case."
Obviously, Mr. Ed "Mush-for-brains" Muth thinks that, GNU, Apache, compilers of every shape and form, database programs, log analysis programs, countless POSIX and UNIX programs aren't 'available' because you can get them for free. He also seems to think that MS has a "long-term development road map". HAH! He also assumes that having an open source platform is higher risk than being dependent on a single source provider for *all* your technical support/bug fixes.
Concerning development he states:
"I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free," he said. "Without a long-term technical road map, without multi-million dollar test labs, someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
Regarding "Long-term road maps", MS has no long-term technical road map other than "Every few years/months we're going to f*** all MS developers with new API's, 'standards', plug-ins, and OS architectures. He fails to note that people develop on/for LINUX, not because they can give it away free, but because they can get the *own* work done better/faster/more reliably. And then give it away for free.
Mush-For-Brains finishes with some statements about the OS market :
"There is extraordinary competition," he reiterated. "The market is a rich mosaic of parry and thrust from the vendors. We have to earn our stripes every day. That's how it should be."
Yeah, right bud. The only reason you can't shit on LINUX is 'cause LINUX/GNU/freeware doesn't buy anything from you, or sell anything to your platform. If they did, like Apple (MacOS and MS Office), Sun (Java) etc., you would have bought our technology, sold us a bill of goods and hung us out to dry. Go spread your puke in your own alternate reality universe.
Daniel "Enkidu" Lee
daniel@enact.com
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Is it me, or are the M$ employees that are hanging around here posting pro-M$ messages acting a bit weird? Don't they normally seem to post reasonable sounding messages without shouting? Do they strike any of you guys as a bit odd this time around?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Darn! I guess I wasn't logged in. This was me who wrote this, btw.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Your thoughts on this have, as others have stated, have no ground.
..you will realize that there is more to business than just _the most stable platform for running your servers_. Microsoft is all about MONEY. So are businesses [at least the last time I checked]."
"I realize Slashdot is mostly College kids (as am I) who come from preppy ass upper-middle class homes in the richest parts of U.S. cities and small cities."
Yes, I am a computer engineering major at the University of Kentucky, but, college isn't cheap, and fortunatley, im not a trust fund baby, so i have to work, and pay my way through school, which, guess what, puts me in the "real world"
First off, people choose MS out of ignorance. NT brings nothing to the table other then marketing.
"
Your right, buisness is about money. But, i don't think you understand how it works. The name of the game is to produce the best product or service at the lowest cost. And this, speaking only in terms of economics, is where linux beats NT hands down. Which is why linux is becoming increasingly popular in the buisness sector. It cuts cost in start-up, hardware, down time, software, etc.. NT is an expensive bloated beast of a system, that is proving itself as a horrible buisness solution.
"But I would like to say this: don't ANY of you give a fuck about MONEY?"
No. There is more to life then money sir, and the sooner you realize this, the better off you will be. I would prefer to make a far lower salary working on and coding for linux, then to be stuck fixing and coding for M$. There ARE people in this world, believe it or not, who do not agree with the Redmond philosophy that Money determines your self worth. What a wonderful world this would be if greed and money weren't used as the deciding factor on a person's character. Personally, I find Mr. Gates, and all the other country club, CEO, trust fund babies rather disgusting. Im not sure i could live with myself knowing my anual income was greater then the wealth of 3rd world countries. Im couldn't sleep at night, in a house, far beyond my needs, with 60+ bedrooms knowing that there were people in this world happy to find a dry alley to sleep for the night. So, no sir, i do not care about money, and no, i do not agree with the Redmond philosophy. And it is rather disturbing that so many people in this world do.
Lynx.. Everything else is for perverts
Thank You! This is beautiful!
-- hgc
-- hgc
Linux: There is no infringing code.
Muth should have read his own company's memo which said FUD wouldn't work against Linux. Yet here he is spewing a huge wad of FUD and sending his spam-monkeys to slashdot with their usual "Microsoft is so awesome, Linux sux" bullshit that no one here is going to buy anyway. Should we assume based on this that MS is settling their antitrust case?
BillGs own employees admit he will commit fraud to protect his monopoly!
On the other hand, the last time Bill did an OS demo, it was Win98 that crashed. So maybe his programmers are not even bright enough to doctor the Linux source code enough to crash on demand.
I hate microsoft. Wanna know why? I don't want them and they're extremely agressive (and IMO immoral) marketting techniques forceing me to use a shabby product. I won't drive a car that crashes on at least once weekly, and neither will I run an OS which does the same. MS's goal is NOT to futher the computer market, they are out to make money and nothing more. Let the dumb people drop their change on microsh*t. I'm gonna use what I want, when I want.
/.? This is a LINUX oriented page, you KNEW you were going to get flamed up one wall and down the other. WHY PISS US OFF? To make a point? You have made no point. You've proven yourself exactly the opposite of what you said you were, rather intelligent my butt, more like a f*cking retard. Sit on it and rotate!
He said something about taking a great big backwards step? Why the hell not? If you run too fast you trip and bust your nose anyway. And thats beside the point, I don't see how he can call linux a step back. I don't want my browser to be part of my OS. IMHO, an OS should do one thing-- DEVICE INTERFACE, and linux does just that.
MS is only there cuz they got lucky and they realized, "Hey, I bet we can make a pretty penny off dumb people"
And one more thing, what the hell are you doing reading
Andrew Moenk
Who says we can't write code for it? I have coded under win32, then I found linux and said 'screwit!'
Ed Muth said, "I find it hard to believe that some of the best computer scientists in the world will want to do their work for free. Without a long-term technical road map, without multimillion-dollar test labs, someone wants me to believe these visionary programmers and developers will want to do the best work of their lives and then give it away. I do not believe in that vision of the future."
Idealsts picked this fight, but pragmatists will finish it.
What MS forgot is that the first line of users isn't Mom and Dad, but other programmers, trying to write good code in short order for the operating system. Coders haven't been served well by MSDOS and Windows.
Linux serves coders, and those coders get a kick out of contributing code to the public, getting feedback, and honing their code for users or other coders. It's a highly recursive, parallelizable algorithm which virulently proliferates service and goodwill.
Or put another way, it's a pyramid scheme of goodwill. Linus gets the most goodwill, followed by the kernel contributors, application developers, and then Linux users for helping to make it a mainstream operating system.
Maybe that's not right, but it's the real world. Been waiting all my life to say that without feeling ashamed.
=-ddt->
> IT has to be good if 95% of the computers in the world run it.
"Eat feces, 200 trillion maggots can't be wrong"
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
>Of course Windows is 'easier to use' for most people. It was built from the ground up for 'user friendliness'. (user candy)
This, of course, isn't true either--Windows wasn't "built from the ground up" for anything. Maybe you could say it was "an afterthought, hacked to run as a shell on top of DOS and be user friendly".
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Wow, 3-4 months. I am jealous of you. I ran an NT box that did Win95 filerservering (Good volume on it) and Win95 printing (Lots of volume too). The thing had to be rebooted every other day. Drove us crazy since us Linux guys had personal machines on the Internet that did a good amount of volume too, with 5 month uptimes. We took them down to change the kernel.
After awhile we were like dogs at the Microsoft door, waiting for the next fix to be fed to us.
After 8 months of that, I quit and the next interview I did, I stated that I would not run any NT boxes and explained my problems with NT. Needless to say, got the job! However, I am bored, my Linux machine work all the time, because they always work once you set them up.
PS> Part time school job, so nothing major.
Linux O Muerte!
It sure looks to me like he is saying, "NT is better than Linux because it has more market share."
To put it another way, Microsoft is the smarter choice because it is a monopoly. No operating system could possibly be a better choice because Microsoft is a monopoly.
Are they just giving up on the case and chasing Linux now, or what?
Vidi, Vici, Veni
>You remind me of all those ms haters at work who use amipro...
[SNIP]
>I work for microsoft and Bill is expected
Don't make me puke
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q 216/6/41.asp
Chris
So Buddha walks into a pizza parlor and says: "Hey, make me one with everything."
You know... A message like this posted on a pretty much pro-linux site... Hmmmm. I think someone just wants to cause some trouble.
.ad.
Either way.
Everybody, laugh with me at OLE as loud as you can... You know you want to. Not only that, you can't help it.
Old Bill Gates had a farm
W-I-N N-T
And on that farm he had some FUD
W-I-N N-T
With a FUD FUD here, and a FUD FUD there
Here a FUD, there a FUD, everywhere a FUD FUD
Ol' Bill Gates had a farm, W-I-N N-T.
And that's all I have to say about that.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Well, I can't write anything in OLE (hehe) or (bwa...bwahahahaheheh!) COM...
:) Oh yeah, and all the software I'm using is free.
I'm sorry. They make me laugh. Let me try again.
I can't write anything in OLE or COM (horrendous design infuriates me), but I am (right now) writing a database library generator in Perl. That is, a Perl program that takes in a database specification and outputs a set of Perl code that allows fast, easy access to that database from Perl. Do that with Virtually Basic.
So, I'll keep my tools, ignore the toys, and you can stay in your little VB box and watch as the world passes you by.
- the mad hawk was here
"Let's say, for discussion, they are equally scalable," he said. "And let's assume applications are available for both, and setup time is the same. Given all these factors as equal, the best you could hope for is about the same cost per transaction between servers."
:)
Exactly what is this guy on about? Does he mean each e-commerce transaction or what? More Microsoft Fud, and ZDNet seem to publish tonnes of this shit happily lately. Obviously they are part of the Microsoft Brainwashing Team. They make typical claims of no application support, and lack of integration and consistancy. OK say maybe all X programs bring up the same Dialog box for opening files, but neither does windows.
MS give the example that users want to be able to paste a spreadsheet graph into word, and that if linux cant do that then it cant be as good as Windows. This is obviously Fud aimed at desktop users who are using bloatware like MS Office.
Its obvious MS are out to brainwash us all into believing their shit, but unfortunately I think the Media's ability at brainwashing the entire earth population with their commercial money scamming crap just isnt going to work on me
meridian at tha.net
He claims that they have less than 15% of the $100000-$1M server market (and thus they're not a monopoly!), but do they have anywhere close to 15%? Does NT run on anything that cost that much? I would suspect they would have maybe 1-2% of that market.
And it still supports my ancient printers! I hope we'll soon have the complete suite on Linux.
I resent that!
:-)
(j/k
iSKUNK!
"We've got a mind of our own, so go to hell if what you're thinking is not right"
...get the picture.
............
I know you are being sarcastic, and I agree who gives a flying fsck what ZD thinks. I have problems believing that they printed M$ opinion on Linux, which bunch of morons are they targetting.
Then again if you tell yourself something often enough you begin to think it is the truth, sane people call it being delusional. Those who ignore the whistle of the oncoming train
And the comparison to NCs, they will see the difference when we leave our collective feet in their
Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
Regards,
Bill Kocik, Blackspring Communications
http://www.blackspring.com
-BK
Chemical Blog
Let's talk about modern operating systems for a minute....
disk quota's
multiuser
remote administration
loading libraries and kernel mods w/o rebooting
POSIX (without a seperate resource kit)
Doing anything without rebooting...
Supporting world standards, not writing a proprietary one and saying everyone should standardize around it.
Come to think of it my favourite shell utils and apps that I have been using for 15 years on UN*X boxes don't come built into NT boxes.
not writing databases so that Joe Anycoder thinks he's an instant expert and writes queries that couldn't scale to save his a*s!!!
M$ is running scarred my friends. We should have a community rebuttal site for this kind of FUD. I hope some info for this article and the many more that will follow show up on unix-vs-nt.org I've already told everyone in my IT department to look at it.
Arrogance is Confidence which lacks integrity. -- me
My War! You're one of THEM!
You say that you're my Friend!
But you're one of THEM!
One of THEM!
How about KDE? The KDE developers how created an extensible and easily programmable environment for Linux. The intent was not just to be used for the programmers involved but, to help the linux community. I have been learning how to program KDE apps and becuase of the way that the system is designed this is very easy. KDE is more stable, runs faster, and is more configurable than the windows desktop. One of the primary purposes of KDE is to make linux more used friendly so that newbies can use it and this includes the suits. That is why all options can be configured from the gui and not require the commandline.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
I'm glad that something has come out to quell the now abundant linux fires. If the hype about this "New OS" gets to big, it'll just be another flash-in-the-pan and no one will even care in 6 months. So keep the criticism coming! The numbers and facts will prove them all wrong. Lower total cost of ownership? Homosaywhat? $500 OS vs. FREE? Charge up the ass technical support vs. volumes of free resources on the web? What a blowhard.
-davek
6th Street Radio @ddombrowsky
I have also had personal experiences with NT, none have been good so far. I reboot several times a day on my NT Workstation (at work of course, I couldn't imagine having to put up with it at home)-as a matter of fact, the MS Proxy service causes my PC to lock up every time I try to read Slashdot (but serves me right for goofing off at work), /. is not the only one however-it locks up on other sites as well-that's another story though. One thing about Linux is the fact that it is NOT taking the path that Microsoft has taken-it is where it is today because of that fact. If Linux had a "roadmap" and confirmed everything twice before it actually did it (without an option NOT to, I might add) and gave your the configuration for your hardware that it thought was appropriate-we might as well call it Linux NT. That's the whole point-it does what YOU tell it to do, it is 100% user configurable, and you have every option in the world at your fingertips. I have experienced NT and Linux both on a 400+ user network-guess which outperformed? (expecially print services)-By the way-I don't know which distribution you installed, but I have never installed Linux without a graphical menu interface, without any type of help file available for each option. There are always updated video, sound, nic, etc.. drivers available on the web-did you happen to even look before you made your judgement? I will have to admit-a server configuration can be much more complicated than a workstation/home config, but I believe it is well worth it. I'm glad that the only thing that article has done is spark some laughter and piss a few people off. Looks like the desperate attempt of a sore loser to me.
Couldn't agree with you more....
Ignorance annoys me.
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware.
Wouldn't that be interesting. Didn't we learn anything from the AT&T breakup? They broke up into a bunch of mini-bells, and now, everyone is merging back together again!
I guess it would be interesting to see what would happen if they did break up, I suppose. Any thoughts or predictions?
Linux: Because rebooting is for adding new hardware.
Umh, when will M$ learn that Linux can't be killed. It is a FREE OS, as long as SOMEONE cares, it will continue, and personally, I think that there are too many ppl that want an alternative OS (I was forced from the Amiga to the PeeCee).
I think what scares M$ is that, while they have to wait a year or more to get out a new OS, Linux can be updated within a month.
The only hope for M$ to compete(sp) with Linux will be to release their own version.
BTW, anyone out there know of a M$-DOS -completion (file names) program?
"We feel that 2 to 20 percent of Linux shipments turn out to be 'shelfware,'" he said. "From what we can tell, real-world deployments of Linux are very thin."
I would be happy to provide Mr. Muth with my shelfware copies of Windows 95 and Windows NT. I do not, however, anticipate a refund...
"Half of this game is 90% mental."
. . . and here I was impressed that they had end space at Best Buy. Wow. Thanks, MicroSerf. Ye've made me day! =)
----
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
No, Microsoft should open its source, put thousands MORE people to work for it (indirectly, of course), stop causing inflation, enrich the computer business, and greet everyone with a big warm fuzzy hug! Let the world help it with its Y2K problems, and prove it wishes them well. THAT'S it, AC.
:P
But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
Nah,
It seems Betty Ford wasn't sucessful.
if you think of how many times the wheel and the fork were being reinvented in the software industry only to be burried again in another closed source code program?
...and i obviously have root previledges on the pentagon mainframe. do us a favour. next time you wanna talk out of your @$$, dont move your mouth so much. oh yeah, it helps to know just a little bit of signicant information about the subject too.
Didn't read the story - i got better things to do with the time - like pick my toes.
Its the best coders that have an idea and will run with it till its a working idea. Thats exactly why this free software we have is the best.
We've got to have something to do after we've finished our mundane day-jobs.
__// `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
Dear Ms. /.:
Thank you for submitting your quirky idea.
Unfortunately, it is inconsistent with our long-term mission statement:
To proactively leverage our world-leading customers' technical investments to provide
multi-tier innovative solutions for the next millennium.
Please return to your current maintenance duties.
Yours sincerely,
HP.IBM.M$.DEC.
Microsoft is at it again. Same FUD tactics differe nt operating system. Ed Muth just slamed Linux, but he didn't say why NT is better. Down with the evil empire.
MS Backoffice server (25-user) on Pricewatch.com: $1199. Includes mail server, SMB file & print services, SQL, Proxy, internet services (secure web/ftp/etc), and some directory services.
Recurring costs:
Want to add a user? $40. Each. Want to upgrade to a new version? A few hundred. Service pack on CD? $20.
Similar linux (commercial installation):
SQL (PostgreSQL): free
SMB file/print sharing (Samba): a pizza coupon
Proxy (squid): free
Mail (sendmail&cyrus): free
Secure Web (Raven): $350
The rest of the stuff to keep the system running is mostly GPL.
Number of users? As many as your hardware can handle. Want to allow more? Get a new CPU.
Oh, and the Linux system configured with everything will run on a P-166. Backoffice needs a dual PII-266 so it doesn't crawl to a halt.
Sure, initial costs aren't all of "TCO", but I want to see what ass Mr. Muth pulled his numbers out of. It looks to me like NT costs a wee bit more.
Wait a second, all costs aside: Let's assume you have a NFR copy of backoffice that your reseller-licensed company got for $100. So you've gotten a great deal. What do you do now? Install it. Want to change something about the server? Let's add and IP alias for one of those virtual hosts you'll inevitably be running. Oh no, time to reboot! Change something in the Exchange Administrator? Go find the control panel entry for it, stop (wait two minutes) and start (wait two minutes). You're fixed!
Linux?
ifconfig eth0:3 10.0.4.48 up
route add -host 10.0.4.48 eth0:3
killall sendmail
sendmail -bd -q15m
Whoa, both changes in thirty seconds. That was fun.
-Chris
(who had a bad day with an NT machine today, and just HAD to vent)
File sharing? Can we say Samba? Web servering? How about Apache? Sorry to have to dis you like that. Mabey try running a linux-based server before knocking them next time, ok?
Ok.. MS has more products that have good quailty, but linux can do some great stuff that Windows cant... But i'm waiting for Freedows OS to come out so I can have the best of both world.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
It's been in developement since the late 80's.
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Actually I think NT went into developement in 88.. I had 3.1 all on floppies in 89.. Even though the mother board I was using was a POS.. It held 16 meg, but couldn't really manage it worth a damn.. So I never got that version to run..
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
They have lots of fat.... =>
I ate my tag line.
-=Ellis (D)25=-
Name one totally new creation, period. Depends on what you mean. It's easy to argue that nothing is really new.
But with a less demanding definition of free, Usenet comes to mind. So do any number of other networking applications. Many things originally developed at universities were open source before open source was cool. Real-time Internet chat, the web, the concept of software archives, a good chunk of e-mail... those are all arguably open source projects.
You have a good point, and maybe a subtler one than you intended to make, though. Everyone says that Microsoft doesn't do anything new, that OSS doesn't do anything new... that Apple didn't do anything new, just took interface ideas from Xerox, etc. The underlying principle here is that the nature of software is that most of what you're doing isn't new. Reusable code and all that.
What would you prefer, an application that's stable, works day in and out, and lets you accomplish what you're spending your time doing today, or a program that has a lot of cool features that you may (or may not) need tomorrow, but crashes all the time? I know which one I'd take.
And that's what OSS needs to be good at, to produce the software that people will want to use rather than write press releases about. The innovation and features will come without being obsessed about. Those of you who are programmers know what I mean. It's almost impossible to keep yourself from coming up with new ideas. Getting them tested, working for everyone else, documented, and stable is the hard part. And while Microsoft isn't very good at it, we're rather spotty at it ourselves. No one in the software industry is very good at it yet.
OSS isn't some magic formula to make us better at this than Microsoft is. Writing stable software is work. It takes time, energy, and a willingness to forgoe features to get the software more stable. And we're just as susceptible to not doing that as Microsoft is, if not moreso because most OSS projects don't have a team of professional docwriters in the wings whose job it is to document things.
This is just another part of their FUD campaign.
Did anyone catch the article in Windows NT magazine (Dec 98 by Mark Russinovich) talking about how Linux was only suitable for the small server market. The reasoning being that the kernel is single threaded and hence Linux will never be able to "fully utilize" multiple cpu's...etc..etc.
Its the IT managers et al that actually purchase servers for the data centers they need to keep in their camp. If M$ wins the data centers, they win the game. Period.
**** Sworn to Fun, Loyal to None. ****
There's no way that Australia can absorb a Microsoft. We've got a serious shortage of programmers already (must be due to the real sand, real sun, and real surf up here in sunny Queensland) and we're only a 12th the population size of the US. They can take over Cambridge or Peking instead where they've already got labs.
Lawrence
Maybe us Linux people like installing stuff ourselves, and not have some stupid Windows program take over our computer for hours while it downloads things and installs them for us!!
:)
File sharing??? Ever heard of FTP?
Web Sever???? Apache maybe? And by the way: they're both free
m$ ya gotta love em.
strong like bull......brain like streetcar.
You're an idiot.......
This guy is MS's veritable Mauna Loa of FUD.
I simply chuckled.
This will be their eventual undoing.
Just watch.
On that point:
This article almost reads like it was written a year or two ago, judging from the MS' "view of the world" that it expresses.
Has MS's view of the world really not changed at all in the last year or so, or is this just an example of desperate thrashing on their part?
A little of both, maybe?
After reading /. I got this fortune cookie ...
"Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause"
Redmond's cause is getting weaker by the day.
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
Well then you just go right ahead and continue lap-dancing for Bill and company. Who knows, maybe he'll actually put a dollar in your G-String. (Don't hold your breath, don't you know in "Club Gates" you pay to dance naked, not the other way around?!?) What a fscking idiot! Please stay away from Linux, you'll water it down.
Best OS around, your joking not??? It is expensive and unstable. For about $75 you have a complete Linux system with pop, www, gopher, ftp, archie servers, firewall support and lots more. Do you get that with NT. I think you only get www and ftp server there. IIS. Linux has Apache inside (sorry intel). Was elected best webserver...
You don't mean that, do you.... But let's get to the point. 1 major advantage of linux: Free, 1 major advantage of most linux soft: Free. IBM supports Linux, Compaq: Supports Linux, Netscape: Supports Linux, Oracle: Supports an writes for Linux, Corel: Supports and writes for linux. Apache: Most used webserver around. elected best webserver. Standards.... duhh... Microsoft does everything to change internet standards, while linux does support TCP-IP: "THE INTERNET STANDARD" as the way it was designed.... Java...sounds familiar. Was used to created a standard you can use on every platform. Microsoft instead, changed it so much its own version of Java (own version???, Java = (c) by sun) only works on a Windows computer with a MicroSoft browser........ I call that misuse of monopoly position....
Tech Journalist say: "Linux is gonna beat WINNT"
What is this I just read?
"when Bill wrote dos..."
you have overlooked a very important detail...
this infamous Bill character didn't write shit. He BOUGHT dos from some programmer in Seattle for 20k and marketted it. Correct me if i'm wrong, but Microsoft is in many ways similar to VHS and Beta. Beta is obviously superior, but because of better marketing, VHS quickly ruled the market. Sounds striking similar, doesn't it?
What is this I just read? ;-)
"when Bill wrote dos..."
you have overlooked a very important detail...
this infamous Bill character didn't write shit. He BOUGHT dos from some programmer in Seattle for 20k and marketted it. Correct me if i'm wrong, but Microsoft is in many ways similar to VHS and Beta. Beta is obviously superior, but because of better marketing, VHS quickly ruled the market. Sounds striking similar, doesn't it?
Oh, and as an answer to your last questions:
there are no programs "as good as" microsoft.
only better.
They did it to NDS..until they copied novell, they did it to Sun until they stole their JVM. Those bastards at Microsoft dont know their ASS from a HOLE in the ground and they would not know a scaleable OS for the desktop if it bit them in the ASS. They should have taken MOnicas place since they suck so good.
Nilo
Linux is easy to install if you know what your doing. The worst part about a redhat install is partitioning the drive and thats easy to. It always pays to do a little research before installing any new Unfamiliar OS.
I admit linux has aways to go before someone like my father or mother could install it however that time is coming.
B2
Can ya feel it....the power of linux is at hand!