Slashdot Mirror
Open Source + Competition = Lean and Mean
Lycestra writes "CNN has an article on why Linux is and Windows isn't. We all know this, but it's broken down for the non-geek to understand why the better OS comes out of basements and not Seattle. Its all about competition and what works. Also references to a few of ESR's writings. "
Alpha Linux is 64-bit.
SPARC Linux is 64-bit in the kernel, but there are issues relating to a microcode bug in the UltraSPARC I CPU preventing the userspace from going 64-bit. (The same issues caused Sun to prevent Solaris 7 from running 64-bit userspace on UltraSPARC Is. Suffice it to say that Sun has its own "F00F bug"....) Sun is refusing to release details about the microcode bug, so it's not possible to try to devise a workaround a' la the Pentium F00F bug; and the SPARCLinux team seems to have decided not to go the Solaris 7 route and block 64-bit userspace on UltraSPARC Is while permitting it on UltraSPARC IIs.
IIRC Intel is already working on a Linux port for IA64.
-- brandon s. allbery, sysadmin @ cmu electrical & computer engineering "Think, youth, THINK!"
From: Joe Barr [joe@pjprimer.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 1999 8:02 AM
To: sales@mindcraft.com
Subject: Industry Scum
Hey, Mindcraft
I am writing an article about asslicking whores in the industry.
You know the sort, they bend over for folks like Bill Gates by producing totally false "benchmarks" based on liess, mistests, biased hardware and software, and scores of other unethical, deceiptful, dishonest, duplicitous means.
Like your reviews of NT vs Novell and Linux. Classic cases of professional prostitution.
Cock sucking the geeks in Redmond.
The question for you maggots, whores, whatever you prefer to be called, is: how much does it cost to buy one of your benchmarks?
tHANKS,
Joe Barr The Dweebspeak Primer
How many people actually have 4 ethernet cards in their servers?
I don't. And you probably don't. Linux beats NT except when you've got multiple ethernet cards.
Windows 95/98 are a huge technology step - just cause they run on top of command.com doesn't mean they aren't. Think about it.
Preemtpice Multitasking, Preemptive Multithreading, memory protection, networking etc. They have more 'advanced' OS technology than MACOS which doesn't run on top of dos (or a command line for that matter).
If you work in a company that isn't totally 'technical' you'll find it's cheaper to buy an OS that's userfriendly and has obvious and natural features for normal people, than to shell out for a 'free' os that's not user friendly. Training is very expensive (for me anyway).
Or did you try and make up numbers anyway?
I have a 64MB machine (K6-200). Running W2K professional, my machine boots very quickly, i can log on evn quiker. W2K professional is a workstation, if you noticed during the setup, it did ask you if you wanted a one user workstation, or multiuser (that's nothing to complain about).
I have IIS, MTS, Telnet etc services installed (I like lots of toys), and It's taking 80MB memory.
And what's this about I hate ignorance? LOL Look who's talking.
You don't think Windows 2000 allows you to add a new device? HAHAHAHAHAHA
The control panel applets aren't 'hidden', microsoft have centralized administration. You can find the new device manager in Computer Manager (which allows you to manage EVERTHING). Right click on "My Computer" and click manage.
Or use the icon in Administrative tools.
And even if you couldn't find that (god knows why not), control panel has a "Add/Remove Hardware" applet, is that too hard for you to use to add your com port? Just say, I want to add new hardware, and choose communications port...tada
YOU SHOULD GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.
Just cause you can't work with an 'idiot-proof' OS (to quote another linux weenie), doesn't mean Windows 2000 is worthless.
Are you the same person who claimed Windows 2000 has less features cause you can't find the user administrator? haha one word - computer manager.
Who the hell is Jesse Bersts anyway?
I liked the article, but Barr failed to make a key distinction when discussing Microsoft's OS competion.
True, Microsoft faces no competition on the desktop. MS has a monopoly here.
However, Microsoft faces significant competition on the server (previously Netware, now UNIX and Linux). MS does not have a server software monopoly.
This article is a double-edged sword. If Microsoft ends up being split up into smaller parts as a result of the anti-trust lawsuit, that same competitive spirit that is so vital to the growth of Linux will once again be a part of the Microsoft community. Rather than being a big bloated machine that we can all laugh at in our ignorance, it will become revitalized and a better player in the computer market. Something to think about. Comment?
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Your point is of questionable doubt for a desktop OS and of no concern for a server. The KDE desktop is close enough to Windows that any reasonably intelligent person is going to be able to sit down and go to work.
On the server side,if you work for a company with any Unix specialties, you'll find that using Linux will not require that much training. Especially considering that many of them run it at home and even at work. In addition more NT administrators are needed for fewer boxes. Thus while it may take me more time to configure one box than an NT administator (and that's questionable if I know what I am are doing), in the long run I'll be able much more valuable than 2 or 3 NT administrators. And where are you going to get normal people to administer a network?
Come on kids, IA64 is so delayed it's comical. Even with another NT-5 length production schedule, MS will beat IA64 by ~ 1000 years. When the Merced finally does ship it will barely be able to compete with the IA-32 branch. The Register got ahold of a Compaq roadmap and they say the following:
"The estimate for the Alpha 1GHz 21264 is that it will reach 60 SPECint95 by Q2 of next year. Merced will (may?) enter the picture at 46 SPECint95, while the Xeon 8XX will tip in at 39 and the CuMine 8xx at 32."
So it looks the IA64 architecture is all hype.
Q: With numbers like these, will you want to move from your speedy Xeon boxes to only slightly more speedy Merceds?
A: Only if you run linux, since that will be the only way to have > 2Gb files.
Q: If you want 64 bits for either Linux or NT, what's the best choice?
A: The alpha.
Q: If the alpha is so great, how come the merced gets more hype?
A: I have no idea.
Q: Ok Shoeboy, when was the last time you bathed?
A:
My personal situation is different... I have set up a dual-boot machine with Windows98 and Debian 2.1 Linux. I use Windows98 for games and occasional other items that only run there, and I use Linux for all my serious work (and a few games that run there, like FreeCiv). I am a programmer/developer by profession, so Linux fits my work needs well. I have a hand-assembled machine: AMD K6-2 380MMX, 256MB PC-100, 19" CompUSA monitor (documented as capable of 1600x1280, I use it in 1280x1024 - it was enough), SoundBlaster AWE 32. Configuring hardware does require some work in Debian (and Slackware, the only other distruibution I have worked extensively worked with), and XFree86 setup can be a little furstrating the first time, but it does appeal to my hands-on personal preferences (and yes, I like stick-shift transmissions also). By contrast, I have had problems in Windows with double-registered devices, things that can never be completely uninstalled, etc. - and I find wizard-based admin annoying and limiting.
Anyway, what to I spend most of my time doing in this machine?
- Editing in emacs.
- Using the shell in Xterm.
- Reading email/Surfing the web in Netscape 4.5
- Using other utilities I have written myself in perl/Tk.
- Telnet, ftp, etc..
- Using the Citrix linux client to log on to Citrix/NT Winframe servers that my employer uses.
- Occasionally I will play a CD or otherwise use the sound card.
But mostly I program, and the Linux I get from the Debian CD is all I need - no need to dip my toe in the murky waters of downloading binary packages from Freshmeat or simlar sites (I prefer to custom-build sources, if I branch out). I have heard enough complaints about RPM's to prefer DEB's, despite the current funky dselect front-end. I upgraded from Debian 2.0 to 2.1 without rebooting and barely a hitch - I have heard that is impossible for other distributions.So Linux fits my work needs like a glove, I am very happy with it. So what are you doing that makes using Linux difficult? Why do you need to download bleeding-edge RPM's for shared libraries and otherwise muck with the internals of your distribution? For that matter, I don't know what RedHat does in /etc, but the Debian /etc layout is pretty logical and easy to administer (Maybe you should consider using another distribution? After all RedHat != Linux).
Note, I am not saying that radically changing things is wrong, is just carries a higher level of risk. Distributions exist to provide assembled, stable snapshots of Linux. Debian is quite conservative in this respect - annoyingly so in some cases (Perl revs come to mind). But the payoff is stability.
You do seem to have a strong need to run Windows apps, this could be an issue - Wine is still under development, the few times I have tried it it usually didn't work so well (except for FreeCell, my favorite worktime deversion!), and I never had enough interest or need to put any real effort into it. Since filesystem access is usually all I need (i.e. mount/mtools/smbclient), or an occasional Citrix session, this is not likely to change.
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
A huge technology step? Unix has has these things since the 1970s. Dr-Dos also beat MS-Dos to multitasking. If Windows has such wonderful memory protection why are apps always causing the OS to crash? If you think Windows 95,98 has wonderful networking, you must love Linux because it's networking capabilities are ten times that of Win 95/98. Are you actually grateful to MS for allowing you to pay $100 a shot to upgrade your shell?
Uh, excuse me? 80 megabytes (16 megabytes of swap) for basic OS services + a few processes running in the background waiting to be called up? Your telnet, IIs, and other toys aren't even taking up any signifigant amount of memory until their daemons are called up. No thanks why even bother? This is nothing to brag about.
Why does it always have to be "us vs. them?"
Be serious, Windows is not getting cheaper for either an OEM or an individual buyer. If you've been been following the MS trial you'd realize the price has been rising. Who ever paid $200 for a copy of DOS or Win 3.1? And just because you found one copy on Egghead for a bit less does not change this.
And the fact that Win 95 and Win 98 are still Dos with a shell invalidates all claims of cheaper pricing. If you've been following the Caldera trial, you'd realize that Win95 runs on top of Win95 no problem. From Win 3.0 on up, you've basically been shelling out big $ for a new shell+bug fix.
How can you get financially abused by any corporation so much and still defend them so adamently?
--That's what Linux is like; imagine Macho Man Randy Savage advocating Linux!
.
== WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
I guess this just goes to prove the article's point about competition, just in a larger context.
--
An esoteric scratched itch:
Homeworld Map Maker Tool
Admittedly, this was a pretty good article, even if it tended to be a 'rose colored glasses' sort of view.
My problem is, do we really want someone like Joe Barr as a public spokesperson?
I've read some of his responses to the Mindcraft debacle, not to mention many of his posts on the am-essentials forum, and his statements are often the worst form of childish, crude, and vitriolic invective I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
It's bad enough when this kind of garbage is posted by the usual trolls, but to have this kind of attitude in a visible (even more so now) 'advocate' does our cause far more harm than good.
While the current article managed to avoid this trap, what if some of the readers from CNN or LinuxToday decide to see what else Mr. Barr may have written, and come across some of the above examples? Any credibility that he might have had just went out the window.
We have enough children in the Linux community as it is, we certainly don't need them representing us in any form of official capacity.
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
IIS etc are running.
Of course, it could just be that you're making up this story. This seems to be a frequent tactic of Linux advocates. :(
This happens.. I've seen it myself. It really depends on what kind of hardware you have (Nothing specific from what I've seen though). NT runs decent on some hardware and chokes on other hardware. Linux does not have this problem.
This is a good question. But I suppose it did, because either Win NT or Linux would flood a 100 MB card rather quickly.
None of the Unixes (BSD, HPUX, Dynix, SunOs, Mach, OSF/1) I ran back in my "dark decade" :-) were anywhere near as stable as NT 4 has been for me. The problem with unstable UNIX instalations seems to be a direct result of people not knowing what they are doing UNIX does require more tweaking, but it is much more stable. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but UNIX is not for your average "Jon. Q. User".
>That's intersting, because in my experience NT
;)
>stability peaked with NT4SP4 and has gotten
>better since.
Read that again. It peaked, and then got better? What? I'm confused now... I always thought the peak was the highest point... so therefore there couldn't be anything higher than said peak.
I guess some of us have different definitions....
>I'm running Windows 2000 Server and Professional
>at home on my LAN, and both of these products in
>their Beta form are faster and better than any
>previous NT version.
Better in what way?
In a position to take over what? The server market? Perhaps. But that is just a drop in
the bucket to MS. The real money is in desktop
software/OS's... there are more "normal people"
using computers than high end servers using NT or
Linux. Linux will never have a chance to compete
against Windows, MacOS, or even BeOS when it comes
to normal users... GUI GUI GUI. Unless Linux is
rewritten from the ground up to be user-friendly,
it will be confined to the server/geek market.
Besides, why does Linux have to "take over"? It'd
be nicer if all the major OS's each had a roughly
equal slice of the pie.
It's surreal to see Linux advocates yelling about
a Microsoft monopoly and wishing for a Linux one.
Irony, no?
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
How many servers do you have that have multiple ethernet cards in them?
According to a German magazine benchmark, Linux smokes NT except when you are dealing with multiple ethernet cards.
All the benchmarks I've seen before the Mindcraft/PcWeek ones (in Smart Reseller), etc., Linux beat NT.
When we fix the TCP/IP threading issues, we'll get over that problem too.
Even though I never used 3.51 at all myself I know that
:)
many people who did said that it was much more rock solid
than anything they have produced since then.
The reason is that they with version 4.0 brought a lot of stuff
like the device drivers into the kernel which earlier had
resided in userspace. If a device driver did something illegal
in 3.51 it never brought down the whole system as it can do
in 4.x.
And since the device drivers are written by the hardware
manufacturers with very little help from MS, stability can
vary quite drastically depending on what hardware you
are using. Can actually be quite hard to solve since MS
don't have access to the driver source and the driver
manufacturer don't have access to the NT source. I guess
a number of "-It's your fault! -No, it's yours!" arguments
must have rised because of this...
The reason to bring it into the kernel was of course to
make the system faster.
/ Tord
We never paid for IIS... it comes with the OS.
FUD from the anti-FUD crowd. Interesting...
-WW
P.S. I'm so goddamned sick and tired of reading
about OS A is going to kill OS B, and OS C sucks
because it doesn't have the ULTIMATE feature D.
Software is just a tool! Get over it.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
Well I can piss further than you.
(After all, this *IS* just a pissing match, right?)
::sigh::
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
As someone as already pointed out, Joe Barr is by no means a nuetral writer. Judging from his hatemail to Mindcraft, he's a FUD machine.
.
His comments on Windows 2000 promising to be less stable is laughable (has this guy ever seen Windows 2000, or does he hang around slashdot collecting notes from Linux advocates). Maybe he just makes it up
His talk of Windows not improving because of no competition is just plain stupid. Windows went from Win16 to Win32, and Win64 is in the works by some of the smartest engineers in the world. He confuses Microsoft's marketing division with Microsoft's development division.
Windows has consistently been improved, while getting cheaper and cheaper. Web integration, more hardware support, speed and stability improvements. Sure linux's momentum is very high atm, but don't let that fool you into thinking windows has and will still remain stationary. Windows 2000 has been in the works for quite some time, and will be released later on this year. And the amount of features it has will blow Linux away (for a while).
It's interesting (to say the least) at how Joe seems to define competition in the Linux community. Linux is supposed to be succeeding cause of cooperation, not cause of competition. He's an idiot. People work on Linux cause they are proud of their work, and they submit their work for improvement and examination by others.
In a sense, MS workers are also proud of their work, certainly seeing the beaming smiles on their faces when they see Windows 2000 boot after they upgraded the first PDC at Microsoft is an indication of their pride in their product.
MS engineers aren't tied down by MS marketing and told, hey, you make Windows unstable and you can't be proud of your work. And Linux kernel hackers don't wake up ever morning preparing for battle with other Linux hackers.
All these praises from people for Joe's article is blind. Look at his email to mindcraft and tell me if you think this guy is worth listening too - regardless of what camp you're in.
Windows 2000 doens't use FreeBSD's tcp/ip code. Microsoft wrote it themselves. Is this crap from the same source that said it was based on linux's tcp/ip code? I guess that can't be very true now.
What's next? Windows stole notepad from vi?
I am not talking about NT4, 95, 98, etc, I was informed that Win 2000 does use some FreeBSD code!, by someone who is a beta tester for Windows 2000. Eat dirt!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Mulitple ethernet cards are traditionally installed to communicate with two distinct networks not to increase the speed of a server. If one is serious about speed go with gigabyte.
ummmm I hate to point this out, but isn't the Linux frame buffer technicaly graphics in the kernel. While this dosent need to be enabled, I can see the day when some programs may require this to be enabled. I agree that graphics shouldent be in the kernel, and I dont use the frame buffer. but I would hate for this to be a required part of the kernle in say Linux version 3.2 or something.
Sooner or later MS will be history, when IA-64 comes along, linux should be in a position to take over
"A Linux Cult is like a herd of cats"
:)
What? Nonexistant?
The only cats that I am aware of that engage in any truly social behaviour are lions, and prides of lions are generally small groupings. So Linux users are like lions?
Well, I guess that would mean that they roam office buildings in small groups at night, the females hunting food while the males bicker with each other. And then they try to do as little as possible during the day. Unless there are some Wildebeest around (I like that word! Wildebeest! A very woody word, not at all tinny).
Nah, I just don't see it
--
Posted with Mozilla
Care to name some of these advanced features so so can all run out and buy WIN 2000?
Oh, what's that Win 2000 hasn't been released yet? Yawn - vaporware.
It's nice to see someone in the mainstream press quoting a well-reasoned and balanced article. Barr's comment that most Linux users would purchase a comercial product if it was superior to an open-source product is right on target. Until major retail outlets realize this, however, we're going to be stuck with seeing only Linux distros on the shelves...and the one I've seen so far is always a version or two back (e.g., OfficeMax has Red Hat 5.2 on the shelf). it would be nice to see WP for Linux and Civ CTP for Linux on the shelves as well.
Who am I?
Why am here?
Where is the chocolate?
What is your Slash Rating?
Linux is in a good position to be used in alot of situations. How many people need a web server that gets 1500 hits/sec? How man people need a web server right now without shelling out the license fees? We hav been running a Linux server since Redhat 2.1/Caldera Network Desktop 1.0 preview 1. We don't get hits like that so why does it matter? If I was hosting a site that got 1500 hits/sec I would be making so much $$ that I would have a major support contract with sombody that I could blame when it didn't work (I wouldn't choose M$). Linux is here, linux is good, Linux will improve. NT is here, NT kinda works, you will reboot NT today.
How's that for rambling?
Have you checked out Zoid.com yet? Zoid.com
Um, can you say pro-Linux? This is just about as positive as an article can get. Seeing something like this on CNN (with it's brand name) is pretty impressive.
Lots of good points, such as
"Likewise, we'll buy commercial offerings when it makes sense to do so -- that is, when a commercial version offers enough additional value over a competing free or open source offering. By the same token, vendors attempting to peddle Linux wares that are of doubtful quality, or that are only as good as open source equivalents, are going to find it very hard to make a dollar. We, the Linux community, win in either case. "
Competition breeds better stuff. Look at nature, look at pro sports, the wide open competitive spirit will result in EXTREMELY good software, especially for those basic, every-one-needs-one apps. The GPL makes it sure that new stuff is better than old stuff, and if it isn't you have NO excuse. Good signs.
LL=Linux Lover
+&x
I saw "Quake II for Linux" advertised. I was shocked. Not only were they stocking a version specifically for Linux, they were advertising it in the paper. They must perceive a market.
To me, this is a strong indication that the change is taking place.
--Lenny
Microsoft is paying people to post to slashdot? Cool - Where do I go to apply for that job?
This may be seen by some as a nit to be picked, but this appears to be only a link from CNN to Joe Barr at LinuxWorld. This isn't exactly what I would call the attention of the mainstream press, unless embedding a link is the equivalent of an internally generated story. I'd be much more impressed if it were an actual CNN correspondent who didn't already have the interest in the topic that Mr. Barr does (and a fine writer he is). The fact that they think enough of the subject to link to it is one thing, but it isn't quite the full editorial weight of CNN.
I'm more interested in seeing what Josh Quittner at Time has to say as he undergoes his baptism by Linux fire. Anyone out there offer him any help after his Linux article a couple of weeks ago.
No, the iMac has 2 *USB* ports (on the unit itself), 1 10/100bT jack, 1 RJ11 jack (modem), 1 reset button, 1 interrupt button, 1 audio-in, 1 audio-out.
--
Posted with Mozilla
This article sounds more like a marketing brochure than a technical evaluation. And maybe as it should be - for the non-geeky out there. But I would urge people not to cite this as proof that linux is winning, and microsoft is losing. When you have a small army, any victory seems like a big victory against a intractable enemy.
Keep it in perspective, everybody.
--
They need to put more things like this in there T.V. reports. I love seeing positive articals like this. Wonder how much we'll here about RedHat's IPO on their fortune program... oh well any press is good press. :)
ATTENTION ATTENTION!!! IRC.LINUXNET.ORG is now open for the public for questions concerning Linux. All people are invited. On staff reliable technical support at no charge from the developers themselves. To connect to our network you must have an IRC client. Then when you get on irc type /join #linux
/server irc.linuxnet.org and you will be connected to the developers network. Once connected to the irc server type
Sorry that this is off topic.
But "cheaper and cheaper" when the time frame you are talking about spans win16 to today? Not so.
- Sam Ruby
Heck, my son has a 64 bit Nintendo...
- Sam Ruby
I still don't understand why the first version :-( )
of NT was 3.1. Oh, well, I gave NT 4.0 SP4 30 days on my machine (PII-400, 128 MB of RAM, 12 GB of disk) It blue-screened every friggin' day! I swapped the memory, swapped the motherboard, searched the Knowledge base, talked to people on IRC, updated drivers. Linux has been running happily on this machine for six months. At least
my copy of NT 4.0 was free (after I shelled
out $1000 for Visual Studio
Most of the Linux users I know aren't Star Trek fans. They're mostly B5 and Star Wars fans with quite a few Star Trek:TOS fans who detest what the pro-Wesley Crusher crowd has done to Trek thrown into the mix.....
bullsihit OS/2 costs under 90.00 for the full version.
Win 95 runs on top of DR-dos no problem.
This is just plain wrong - at least for my part of the world. When I bought Windows for Workgroups 3.11 + DOS 6.22 OEM early in 1995 (or late 1994, can't remember), it cost me approx. USD75, which was less than 5% of the cost of my PC. Today, I could get an equivalent PC (compared to what the best available system would be today and would have been in 1995) for less than 2/3 the amount I paid for the PC then, while Windows 98 OEM is actually more expensive than WfW was (Win98 OEM costs ~USD100 here).
Web integration, more hardware support, speed and stability improvements.
Hardware support mostly depends on 1) what hardware is available at the time and 2) how much money the hardware vendors choose to spend on operating system support (OK, I can credit MS for USB support...). As for speed improvements - that's just plain ridiculous - Win98 crawls on my PII system compared to Win95 on a P133...
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Win X soon to be released is much more stable than Win Y that was released some time ago with the promise of it being more stable than Win W which was our offering at the time.
Don't you ever get sick of empty promises or shelling out more money to the beast at Redmond?
Should have been am-info, not am-essentials :/
Here's a link. Do a search on Joe Barr, and you'll get his posts. Not all are as crude as the mindcraft crap, but there are some pretty bad ones mixed in with the less offensive posts.
http://lists.essential.org/am-info/
Nunc Tutus Exitus Computarus.
Yeah, what about basements in Seattle? There's a LUG here, too.
Windows 2000 doens't use FreeBSD's tcp/ip code. Microsoft wrote it themselves.
a rticle.html
Data collected from detailed analysis of TCP/IP stack response (via nmap, the port-scanner, OS identifier, etc.) shows that Win95, Win98, NT3.51, and NT4 all responded identically (as in, unable to distinguish between them) despite testing for really minute things, which were frequently buggy responses (as in the most broken TCP/IP implementation yet seen by humankind). I'll bet the Mindcraft benchmarks were run on a new TCP/IP stack (probably the one they stole from Free/OpenBSD).
However, supposedly "completely rewritten" NT5/Win2K betas all respond with an initial TCP window size identical (and previously unique to) the Free/OpenBSD's TCP/IP subsystem. Odd, huh?
Take a look here, if you don't believe me.
http://www.insecure.org/nmap/nmap-fingerprinting-
And I'll bet cash that port-scanning the NT systems used in the infamous benchmarks would have responded with a peculiar new TCP window size, too.
And a side-note: The author of nmap, unable to distinguish between 95, 98, NT has suggested an additional test to find the specific OS: try all of the exploits in chronological order. Start with Ping of Death, then Winnuke, etc, then move up to the Teardrops and Land. Just follow each test with a ping to find which one crashes the machine. Then you can even figure out the specific service pack or hotfix applied.
So even if my company was in competive field of serving a few hundred million static webpages a day from a single server (with a nice fat OC3 for a pipe, mind you), we could hire a monkey to run the latest, greatest, automated script to BSOD our competitor's Windows NT box. Of course, if they were smart, they'd set their NT system behind a Solaris-based firewall -- like Microsoft does.
That's definitely Joe Barr. He's written similar offensive stuff to other places in the past.
I have yet to see someone climb higher up a mountain when he reaches the peak.
By the way you GUIsers are all the same. A bunch of short-term memory dependent ingrates. How the fuck do you expect the code for a speech recognition program to be written without a text editor which is all Visual Studio is. Text editor, half-baked help system that can't answer serious questions like reading a manpage can, bunch of icons and controls which really don't help much since you don't read, and that nonsense about paying $61 for a resizer control any idiot can create.
Have a fun Blue screened odyssey.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
What, did you ever see him whip out a mouse and go gui? He spouted verbal commands at a computer capable of parsing natural english. It's not exactly the same as command-line, but it's much further from gui.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
They may have written their own tcp/ip stack, but they aren't adverse to knicking BSD code when it suits them:
[root@localhost windows]# pwd
/dosc/windows
[root@localhost windows]# strings ftp.exe | grep Cali
@(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
Least they coulda done was knick the telnet client code too. Someone please tell me that win2000 has a better default telnet built in.
The more you know, the less you understand.
If you hang around Linux people for very long, you're going to hear some bickering about whose widget has the best kung fu: "My distribution will always be superior to yours!"
Why, that one's easy to answer. Slackware is the best of course.
(It's a JOKE folks, let's not start a distro debate over this comment.
Linux people have opinions of their own and they aren't known for being shy about expressing themselves.
Which is one of the reasons Linux has become such a success. It's not necessarily a matter of "This is better than That", but the point is that the competition is there. And it's friendly competition, which only drives both sides to make their product better. In the end, we all win.
The only competition Microsoft has seen in recent years has been the trivial feuding between the Windows 9x and Windows NT development groups.
I can't see this as competition, mainly because Microsoft touts NT as "The SERVER OS of choice." Home users don't necessarily want to run NT, because it's not really designed for home use. So, where's the competition? Windows 9x would choke as a server, and NT isn't really a sensational multimedia platform.
If you want to do some kernel hacking to add a fix or improvement or polish to the Linux kernel, fine. But your code won't be automatically accepted and made a part of the next kernel release.
Not necessarily a bad thing. So if your feature isn't implemented in the next kernel, you still have it for yourself. And you have the freedom to distribute it to those out there who would like similar functionality.
Quality of the code isn't important. Instead, the holy grail -- marketshare and money -- is reached by embracing competitive innovations, thereby extending the Microsoft monopoly and eventually annihilating the competition.
*Cough*Cough*Windows Media Player*Cough*Cough*
I think most users, like me, would buy Linux applications[...]even if they weren't available under the terms of a free or open source license.
Absolutely. The point of Linux as an alternative doesn't have to mean that you go broke supporting it.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
That's odd. In 4 years of working with NT, installing it on several hundred desktops and servers, I have only had perhaps 3 or 4 occasions where the install would not work, or it resulted in a severely unstable system.
:(
In all of these cases I was able to resolve the problem.
Of course, it could just be that you're making up this story. This seems to be a frequent tactic of Linux advocates.
Umm, I think I will not put here the Obligatory War Cry. =)
>Linux: written by the best programmers who can't find jobs.
From going to LUG's I have found that it is often programmed by those who had a job but are now retired, and now want to expirement on their own.
It is also written in conjuction with a job as a hobby... or as a job for that matter ( eg. @ RedHat or at a Hardware vendor for device drivers etc. )
We use GNU/SunOS.
Tha-a-a-at's right. Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy.
Your last sentence aside nothing to rip apart. The last mainly for there is probably not much innovative in Windows. NT has some good ideas though, yes. Personally I've been using Linux for my desktop machines for years now and I do know why. But, again, personally I think it is much more important to work together than against one another. Use whatever suits your needs, it is the only right thing to do.
joe works pretty good through windows telnet :-)
though. They must have missed something.
It takes a high and mighty Linux user to refer to it as a $300,000 case. You know so much about Yew-nicks that we should probably all climb the mountain to ask you questions.
Sure, you come from a hardware background where the case is a cheap piece of tin with a $12.50 power supply wedged into it. We're really, really impressed how far you've come. That $14 case is quite an improvement. Maybe next you can upgrade your mouse. That $3 one skips on your "Come Home ET" mousepad.
I'd like to know who has 400Mbps worth of upstream pipe and can't afford to put their servers on an internal Gigabit backbone (giving the Linux box a single NIC ).
Ok, first a disclaimer: I'm not a Linux user, but I've been following the hype surrounding Linux closely, both here on Slashdot and elsewhere. I've heard how fast and stable Linux is compared to Windows, how NT web servers crumble under the force of the Slashdot effect, etc. etc. I'm excited and interested in Linux.
Then suddenly the Mindcraft benchmark comes along, showing, to put it bluntly, that NT kicks Linux's ass. This was justly criticized by the Linux community, but later verified to a large degree by ZD Labs testing.
I know that the open source model has many advantages and even if Linux doesn't currently beat NT, it may very well do so in the future.
But my question is: why didn't the hype surrounding Linux live up to the current reality as remonstrated by recent benchmarks? What went wrong? Was it all lies?
The better race car comes out of a garage in some out-of-the-way spot. It is designed and produced by hand in a custom shop. It isn't produced using Mass Production techniques. It's far superior to the average Ford Taurus on the racetrack.
This analogy can also be applied to an OpenSource(tm) versus Commercially Produced software package, or operating system.
We've heard the preaching again and again. The "show this to your boss and s/he will really start to like GNU/Linux stuff.
Unfortunately, this kind of advocacy is probably doing more to make people look like fools to their direct superiors in the workplace than anything else.
Absolutely. Microsoft's main campus is on the Redmond/Bellevue border. It's possible to step directly from the MS campus into Bellevue.
Microsoft's headquarters is in Redmond because land was cheap there once upon a not-to-distant time. That's probably why Eddie Bauer, Safeco, Nintendo of America, AT&T Wireless, and a few other big companies also have their headquarters in Redmond.
Well, in my opinion, the current GUI is trash. Mice are too innacurate. Drag and drop means doing mouse tricks so that the window you need is on top. And hierarchical menus are more hassle than it's worth.
I think GUIs need to be more keyboard oriented. I am not talking about cryptic UNIX commands (thought it should be possible) or 50 keyboard shortcuts, I am talking about logical commands that give you the same feedback as the mouse, without memorizing more than a few keys for common tasks. This way, anything you want to do can be done instantly without doing hunt&click with the mouse.
Also, the current keyboards are quite old. We need "virtual" keypads, something like small flat monitor with touch screen and is angled the way most keyboards are. This way, you only see the keys you need. At one moment, you have a querty keyboard, the next you have controls for a flight simulator.
Of course we don't have these kinds of thing because that would mean Microsofts software would become obsolete. I am just hoping that something like this happens sometime.
--
The OS/2 Warp 4 Upgrade is $149.95
The full version is $249.95
Windows 1.0 was released back in 1985 for $100.
But you also had to pay for DOS...
Hmm...
Let's stop arguing with the astroturf campaign people.
Give the opponent a name you've coined. Stereotype the opponent labelled by that name.
Very cultlike behavior.
Problem is, a Linux Cult is like a herd of cats.
Safeway has free bread for anyone who wants it.
Rosaurs(sp), who is the original designer of the free bread, asks that users pay $1 per loaf.
Assuming we are cheap because we choose not to pay for what can be had for free is a very offensive attitude. Maybe, just maybe, give people the benefit of the doubt and allow them to make their own choices instead of forming your own offensive stereotypes.
This story sounds made up to me. I've run NT 4.0 since it first came out and I have never ever have it crash on me (outside of the driver I develop, that is :-). None of the Unixes (BSD, HPUX, Dynix, SunOs, Mach, OSF/1) I ran back in my "dark decade" :-) were anywhere near as stable as NT 4 has been for me.
I know which dead horse I don't want to carry with me into the new millennium (a Unix legacy). Go ahead and beat it if you like, though. Keeps the maggots down.
In my Linux gateway server, I have a 10 Mb card :-)
hooked up to a cable modem and a 100 Mb card
hooked up to the internal network. But, then
again, samba only runs on the 100 Mb interface,
so I don't have to worry about multithreaded
TCP/IP stacks
OS/2 costed(not sure if thats real english) $80 when win95 cost $90 just to upgrade. Besides, BeOS, *BSD, and Linux cost less than windows does. The only competition win95 has that is more expensive are Macs, but that would be mostly becuase of the hardware, right?
I know I will be moderated down for this, but . . . Vincent
I had a good experience with Linux today. When I telnetted to it from my Windows 98 box I was able to run hello.c successfully again.
Also, the Linux machine has proven useful as an NFS server for installing NetBSD onto machines here that don't have CD-ROM drives (my laptop, for instance, and some old 486 boxes.) It has such a nice loose NFS implementation that it's simple to mount NFS shares to other machines. Loose and easy, like last night's whore. None of the security issues (i.e. the presence of security on a default installation) I run into trying to set up an NFS server on NetBSD are present when I set up a Linux NFS server.
Yep, it's all just astroturf. Nobody who dislikes Linux knows anything about it. Nobody who prefers Windows knows shit about anything.
Ignore this post. Or drive a wooden stake through it's heart. Either way, don't dare to question your faith.
Open Source is lean and mean. Like beef jerky.
Commercial software is like a nice New York strip.
I'm not sure what the baked potato has to do with anything, but I find myself not hungry anymore.
Gnaw away, Linux cowboys.
who cares? should have no gfx in server kernel
That's an ideological judgement, and nothing more. Sure there are functional reasons why no graphics in the kernel is an improvement. At least it is in a wide open kernel where pieces are added and removed to such a degree that the kernel is as shaky as a 14 year old poodle.
Imposing limits that are practical in a 'charity' operating system like Linux (which requires regular donations from volunteers to grow) on other systems is ludicrous.
If you increase the population size of anything, be it white rats, operating systems, or automobiles, more discrete problems that result in what is seen as a common failure will occur. Linux doesn't have a BSOD because it dumps core instead. Which hides the problem, requiring you to open the core file in a debugger. This reinforces the need for a "priesthood" to fix problems. Mere users need not apply. I've reviewed the info on a BSOD and fixed the problem (often hardware related) before the next reboot.
I don't think that will be Linux's only lasting legacy, though. It will eventually become a safe backwater for luddites of various stripes.
However, that's not the point of this post. I've convinced myself that none of the current computer interfaces are near what they could be. So I've made it my mission in life to create a new UI that is to GUI what GUI was to the command-line (hey, a guy's got to have dreams, right?). And reading Slashdot and the Linux pages has convinced me that if I do make the next-level UI, I should Open-Source it.
The only problem is that you're supposed to make money off of OSS by selling support services, but if I do a good job, there should be no need for support services! Taking this concept further, the economic markets will push OSS companies to make difficult software so that people must buy their services. Some would argue that because it is open source the unpaid, independent programmers could write a better UI. But if you are a programmer, you know the inherent flaw there; most programmers would rather add functionality than make the current functionality more usable (I know that I am guilty of this).
What all of this means is that, if I'm right (which I hope I'm not), then OSS will *never* break into the main stream because it will always be difficult to use. As a warning, I haven't had a chance to get KDE or Gnome up and running on FreeBSD, and I haven't even installed Linux, yet. If you feel that my opinion will change once I use those, please say so.
Thank you, Tom Panning tpanning@vt.edu (sorry about the length)
The "Halloween" documents are from last October, right?
Don't let your weapons get too rusty, or your supporting documents too stale.
given the mindcraft letter, the only equine I think of when I think of Mr. Barr is Jackass.
Go to auction sites and check out the legit Microsoft Office 97, pro edition. You can get them 20 bucks a CD, it has cd key and everything. Why? Because everybody else is given away office software. You can get Corel preload from some of the PC ventor for free. And you can get StarOffice free (yeah I got the win32 version. It's basically a WinOffice copy but the find-replace function is weak.)
Now go back to OS, can you find a windows 95 at a low price? You can't! I'd tried. There's not way to get a legit win95,98 for less than 55 dollars. Do I have to remind you that there's no competition? The list price is a joke, don't use it please. Look at the real price.
As for multimedia encyclopedia, you can get them free after rebate from CompUSA every other week.
If MS had a monopoly, Windows should be very expensive.
It is.
(OK, some i sound like a microsoft marketing guy :P)...
Duh?!
CY
We never paid for IIS... it comes with the OS.
The OS which you paid for.
I miss Meept.
Arghhh!!! You are talking about the home market. Yeah, linux will probably always be a hard sell to a home user. But the business desktop is another matter entirely. Windows is frankly totally unsuited for business use. A linux desktop at work, whatever you want at home.
Well, for everyone to have a chance, linux does have to "take over".The more popular linux gets, the more popular Be gets. All I really want linux to do (market-wise) is knock windows off it's throne. Windows doesn't belong there. I don't want to annihilate Micros~1, but they are right now in a position to do whatever they want, and that is extremely bad. Do you really want to find yourself in year 2015, and be confused as to why drive "d:" on your coffee machine is drive "f:" on your computer? Linux may even force them to "fix" windows if it eats enough of its market share.
I just see linux and the internet as forcing the application/os market to adhere to open interfaces. This is a necessary condition for other operating systems to flourish, or even to have a chance at all. The current system simply does not allow this and it is suffocating everyone. BeOS has therefore no chance without linux. And neither does anyone else.
I don't care whether Micros~1 lives or dies. I just don't want them to be the only game in town. The current system is wrong, wrong, wrong.support gun control: take guns from cops
Let's stop arguing with the astroturf campaign people. It gets old after awhile, and sometimes can make you angry when dealing with Microsoftians. And when you get angry, and spout a bunch of insults us look stupid. Better to just ignore them, they may eventually go away. Just contuing to use Linux and posting your good experiences with it or contuing to develop Linux (if you're a developer) will probably give the Linux community a better image in the long run.
CNN and IDG (y'know, those dummies books...?) have a deal where CNN uses IDG's content for a lot of it's tech stories. IDG mags include InfoWorld, ComputerWorld, PCWorld, MacWorld, and yes, LinuxWorld. It is quite common for CNN to run an IDG article, but CNN gets to choose which articles they run: they don't have to run any particular article. So, yes, it's interesting that they choose to run a Joe Barr linux article. Linux is the mainstream now.
I know which horse I want to carry me into the new millennium. What about you? :)
Hehe... I chose mine 5 years ago
And i don't regret my choise hehe...
Are we seeing press releases from MS detailing how W2K will be more stable and require fewer reboots than NT4.0?
Now, if NT4.0 didn't have stability problems, why would MS suggest that there were any?
nuf said, amazing, most people can say their 2 cents in the subject, but /. won't let you submit a subject only, commentless post. Here's a tip to save you giga bandwidth and improve /.'s useability: allow 0 lentgh comments, color code the subjects of zero lenght comments so users don't waste time clicking on them, and force the moderation level of bandwidth saving 0 length comments to at least "1" (the carrot).
motjuste@briefcase.com
Well, I have two ethernet cards in my workstation. If you consider a machine running Windows 98 a workstation. One is 100 MB, the second is 10 MB.
The NetWinder has two ethernet ports built right in. I think even the iMac does, for goodness sake.
/.
Hrm, and immature little nerd like you running a computer with a $300,000 case... yeh.
You're probably the person microsoft was talking about when they mentioned how you could crash the system by pulling out motherboards (without telling the kernel)
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Mainly because, again, Linux is seen partially as a Windows competitor. My believe is that might end in a kind of Unix NT syndrom, one size tries to fit all.
... it works, reliable and 24/7 behind the scenes, unobstrusive.
... if they were allowed to do something useful instead of wasting time making things incompatible to the rest of the world.
Lots of features though, especially security related ones, are not required in user land. Aside from that this continues the "a PC on each desktop" technology which makes less and less sense given the already available raw CPU power.
In a way *nix is user friendly already
Minor not article related remark, I cannot even see the need to "destroy" Microsoft. Mind there are for sure quite some bright people there who could create a lot of good stuff
Might be the main differenct, Linux is better since it does what people want instead some management telling people what "Here is what you have to want today".
True, there are high quality results produced by intense competition, but it uses up a disproportionate amount of human effort. Wonder if there is a system where all this hard work would pay off more than it is now.
I like the ads at the top of Slashdot. Now that's cool :)
Linux doesn't have a BSOD because it dumps core instead. Which hides the problem,
Saving most of the state of the failing program in a file...
requiring you to open the core file in a debugger.
... which can be inspected by a tool designed to help you find the problem - that is hiding the problem?
This reinforces the need for a "priesthood" to fix problems. Mere users need not apply.
Oh come on, "mere users" can't fix anything that causes a BSOD either. And the BSOD is less informative than a core dump.
I miss Meept.
Thank you mr. obvious. If you read the original
post I was responding to, the person stated that
you pay for NT and then you pay for IIS. That is
not true.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
That would make me puke if I was a Linux freak.
Since you seem to be a Windows Freak you better start stocking up on your barf bag collection for the coming months as Linux overtakes MS's OS technology (and I use the term technology loosely). See http://fly.to/barfbag/
I wish people could read better.
Note the original person said you pay for NT, and
then you pay for IIS. As if they are two separate
expenses.
-WW
P.S. I hate Microsoft, but I hate FUD even more.
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
It can do this 100 times in 2 months, because even with Linux's openness only so much can get done 2 months. So basically each of those 3 times are one and the same. In other words, your reasoning flawed and the number of times is irrelevant.
But the raw data are not irrelevant. They show Linux catching up fast. Rematch in 6 months?
--
Linux user since early January 1992.
Do you work for microsoft?
Yo guys! Let's just keep it straight. There is Seattle, a kewl coffee goin' hip place to live (and, the skies really do like like those from Austin Powers ;), and Redmond, an over priced yuppie-ville. Microsoft exists in Redmond (or the greater Eastside) where the housing market is equivalent to San Francisco (but everyone still has large houses) and everyone in the family drives their brand new BMW or Mercades. Seattle, is the happening city of all incomes and walks of life, lots of music and art, and general happy smiley culture.
:)
Oh yea, and I'm not gonna generalize here at all, but the two are different.
Keepin' it real,
Lego
That sort of thing exists everywhere. To say it is specific to Linux is to say fenders are specific to Hondas. The reason Linux is so popular is because it's Linux. To be more specific, it's because of its history -- Linus Torvalds writing his own kernel because he didn't like what he could use at the time. He released it under a 'free' license and for some reason, people began flocking to it. Eventually, it became the big hip thing.
The Emacs vs. vi vs. ed, ksh vs. csh vs. sh, ANSI vs. K&R, etc. all existed way before Linux came into existance.
You can bet your butt they do. It is common knowledge that they did this in the OS/2 days, they admitted to as much. The seeded Fidonet with trolls to constantly post negative comments about OS/2, in an attempt to make it unenjoyable for OS/2 folks to hang out there. I remember this. Now they are doing it to slashdot.
If you doubt this, there was an article about it on ZDNet somewhere, this info came out peripheral to the MS/DOJ trial. They did admit publicly to doing this shit. I can't find the article right now but will post it later if anyone wants "proof".
There isn't anything you can do about it. Slashdot used to be a place for linux and nix folks to hang out. Now we have to listen to all this pro-MS off topic crap all over the place. Sad.
support gun control: take guns from cops
That's funny, it's daylight and I'm not made of stone. Just because I hold a different viewpoint
does not make me a troll. Obviously, if you really
thought I was a troll, why would you be dumb
enough to respond?
"Arghhh!!! You are talking about the home market.
Yeah, linux will probably always be a hard sell to
a home user. But the business desktop is another
matter entirely. Windows is frankly totally
unsuited for business use. A linux desktop at
work, whatever you want at home."
Is that a new rule you made up? Actually, I was
talking about the DESKTOP market, period. What the
hell kind of office do you work in? A programmer's
office, a network management office, and IT
office, etc. All those offices I could see Linux
in. But your everyday, common office is filled
with people that want a good GUI that is
consistent (user-friendly) across applications.
Linux does not fit the bill.
"Do you really want to find yourself in year 2015,
and be confused as to why drive 'd:' on your
coffee machine is drive 'f:' on your computer?
Linux may even force them to 'fix' windows if it
eats enough of its market share."
I don't quite get your analogy, but if I had my
way, then my home would be networked with Java,
not Linux or Windows or BeOS. Java and Jini.
I think the problem is you're assuming that when
I criticize Linux I'm also supporting Windows.
Not true. I hate Microsoft. I would love to see
BeOS, Linux, Java, etc. get more of the market.
-WW
--
Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
What the hell is that? Interesting? This is a troll. What in the hell is going on here?
support gun control: take guns from cops
Held steady on price, with added function I could have lived with.
A single "cheaper" might be technically accurate, albeit a little misleading.
Cheaper and cheaper is simply wrong.
- Sam Ruby
Even if Linux's only lasting legacy is to revitalize development on Windows while simultaneously exerting a downwards pressure on prices, then the world will be a better place.
- Sam Ruby
Linux is a work in progress. It is being developed
in full view of the world. Everytime linux has a bad day it's detractors jump to say "see we told you so it sucks!" They don't pay attention to the
fact that linux improves daily, and that it will
continue to improve. Other os'es get worked on behind closed doors. Then the companies marketing people set up some test that they know that they can win,and yell to the world "look how good we are!" . These companies are around to make money, not make the best os. Their best os is the one that makes them the most money. Nothing wrong with making a living,so I think its important to remember to take any test about any product with a grain of salt. If linux had creamed NT we never would have heard about it.
We never paid for IIS... it comes with the OS.
Really?
When you buy a $20,000 steering wheel, does it come with a free car?
When I buy computers at work, they come with Windows 9x installed for "free" -- and someone has to uninstall it.
That'd be me. (I almost wish I didn't work for a hardware company so I could take advantage of Windows Refund Days.)
--
QDMerge -- generate documents automatically.
how to invest, a novice's guide
I can't even rent a car off that site! you suck!!!!!
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
- Sam Ruby
what about the low end computer with a quarter gig of ram? did that have more then one card to? I don't remember
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I wouldn't count on it if I were you. Any telnet implementation is better than the horrorshow that's shipped with Windows-95/98/NT. Gotta love a telnet that won't let you use vi because, apparently, Win-telnet can't deal with cursor positioning, won't let you use emacs because you can't get out (^X-anything can't get past the XOFF you just typed), features a vertical scroll bar that doesn't work. This was put in Windows merely to satisfy someone's requirements checklist. I can't believe this software was actually evaluated for it utility.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Lets not forget that Nintendo of America is based in Redmont to, that sort of offsets the "evilness" of it all :)
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
"Enough though. This is LinuxAdvocate Central, they say. Have at it, dudes, Rip everything I've typed apart. You won't convince ME that Linux belongs on my desktop. It's a great server OS for those places where you're not trying to do anything particularly innovative."
Why should they? Bsically it boils down to "I like Window and here are my reasons". Someone else would be "I like Linux and here are my reasons why". Both believing in their choices and neither being convincing enough to change the others mind.
Sounds like reality to me.
From what I've read, Microsoft still allows some buggy drivers though, beacuse otherwise, they would never get done...
This is what Aliex St John has said, I belive.
but then he was always a microsoft lacky...
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
I don't know... if you hit then enter while still in the subject box, the comment would automaticaly get submitted, for some reason I've done it about 4 times today...
I'd bet you end up with a *lot* of missposts that way...
_
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
And of course, we have no reason to believe that
you're exaggerating the stability of w2k beta.
BTW, a freshly installed MS OS always seems
"rock solid," but use it for a while, install 3rd
party software, kick the tires a little, and the
rust starts to form, and it ain't so stable
anymore. This has been my experience w/ MS OS's
whether at home or at work. Of course, you'll
tell us that your experience w/ MS OS's has been
completely positive.
The term, BSOD, wasn't coined for nothing. BSOD's
do happen to a lot of people. MS OS's have a
reputation for being relatively unstable. Do you
deny this? Maybe you ought get your head out of
the sand and get it checked.
No I admin ERAC.com
Excuse me but I'm a SUN E1000* person.
Yeah after NT has smoked Linux 3 times in a rowe, I don't think I will allow it as a server in my enterprise eather. I just can't see anything being worse than NT hahaha.
Well, its TOO bad that the test wasn't fair.
Its too bad that they didn't test FreeBSD.
But, I can understand why that didn't happen. Think of the whining that would insue when *BSD was in there, and trounced 'em both.
As said at the M$ vs DOJ trial -> "FreeBSD what is FreeBSD?"
Uhh not. I'm a SUN OS freak on the E10000*'s series.
Can Linux out perform that?
didn't think so.
btw, SUN has told us that NT is going to be ported to the E10000* series. Then NT can do the same thing haha. But I hate the GUI so go sit on it potsy.
The author makes a comment that NT stability peaked with version 3.51 and has gotten worse since. He then alludes that Windows 2000 is going to be even worse.
That's intersting, because in my experience NT stability peaked with NT4SP4 and has gotten better since.
I'm running Windows 2000 Server and Professional at home on my LAN, and both of these products in their Beta form are faster and better than any previous NT version.
I don't see the purpose in making statements which are based on a 'stick your head in the sand' style of logic.
The article is otherwise interesting, but doesn't really say anything meaningful.
The author did not EVEN bother to mention how:
1) The competition isn't a 2 way deal. Its a MANY player deal.
You have (in the pure opensource arena)
FreeBSD vs OpenBSD vs NetBSD vs GNU/Linux vs (all the others I've forgotten)
In the partial OpenSource arena you have
BeOS and Mac OS X (using a BSD core)
In the mostly closed operating system world
QNX, Solaris, SCO, some Microsoft products
In the things called OSes we have
MS-DOS (program loader), THEOS, PICK, etc la
2) With Mac OS X being a BSD based product the biggest players are now:
Microsoft, GNU/Linux and BSD.
As Mac OS X client ships, the biggest CORE is going to be BSD instead of GNU/Linux, unless GNU/Linux growth outstrips Apple's ability to ship AND the ability of the *BSD crowd to promote.
(Cartoon maker Steve Jobs could be filmed relaxing by sticking is feet in the toilet bowl and flushing said toilet (he used to do this), the resulting bruhaha sending Apple stocks into the toilet)
So if you paid $179.99 for 3.1 and whatever it was for DOS 5 or 6 you could then pay $89.99 or $98.99 or something like that for the Win95 upgrade, resulting in an expenditure of over $300 for the equivalent of a product selling for $179.99? Then 3 years later you could increase your running total to over $400 to get the Win98 upgrade so that you can have the same software your neighbor got for about half that price because he bought the full version. Don't you just love the way MS rewards the faithful by letting them subsidize first-time customers?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
one thing windows has over linux in spades, and one reason it'll stay, #1, is because it's programmed to be easy to use by the average person. I've had red hat 6 for two months now, and I've given up trying to get dial up to work with it. I stick with Win98 cause it works time and time again, and I haven't got to go examine a dozen different config files to figure out what's wrong. Linux has the benefit of people working with it and on it that can put up with it being unrelaible.
I am surprised by how some people automatically dismiss NT. I have seen quotes like NT isn't a virus cuz virii do work, and such. But I would like to point out that for media, NT is probably the best. Win9x will run all the Windows media apps, but not very well. NT runs most of the 3D packages, most of the digital video tools, and very well. For these people a 2 week uptime is certainly enough, and the NT interface is not slower than KDE (on my machine (pII 400 64MB)anyway) Lastly, Linux has some problem with interfaces. Most linux rendering apps just don't have the intuitiveness of say Truespace of MAX. So don't automatically dismiss NT becuase it is not the worlds best web server, it has its good points.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
First off windows3.1 was designed to run on top of dos so NT 4 and w2k are not even in the same class in OS terms. Second off my w2k beta3 server installation at home takes over 700 megs of hard drive space and over 108 MEGS OF RAM and OVER 375 threads and OVER 2200 handles JUST TO BOOT WITH NO NETWORKING EVEN INSTALLED. Ya thats innovation and better software quality then NT4.
The only thing faster about NT4 is that it boots up faster and thats it. On my 64 meg machine I timed everything and the logon screen takes over 4 times as long to actually log in and the installation is over 6 times longer. THe security by default in wk2 lets any user hit cancle without logging in and gets him or her administrative privledges and it crashed twice on me.
STOP READING JESSE BERTS COMMENTS ON THIS AND LEARN FOR YOURSELF. I hate ignorance.
The professional edition takes only 36 megs of ram to boot but I have not yet installed netwroking and NT 4 only took around 13 megs of ram to boot without networking installed. THats almost 3 times as much ram. Microsoft hid all control panel options so I can't even install a com port to install a modem to install dial-up networking. Add new hardware didnt detect my com port and there are no options avaible in w2k to even say install a new com port.
What a piece of trash.
Just get your facts straight. I once believed that my 8 meg 486 was actually faster in windows95 then 3.1 becuase I read Jesse Bersts comments and ms marketing hype. It took me 4 months to relise that it was slower. I predict that this brainwashing craziness will continue to after w2k is released and after a year or so people will discover the truth and hopfully fall in love with linux.
In a step that will surely shock both of us, I'm gonna have to side with tummyX. Joe's article has major problems. The assertion I like is that NT's stability peaked with 3.51. Based on my experience, this is laughable. I've had NT4 servers (running SQL 6.5 with 300 concurrent users) go 12 months with only 2 reboots (and those were service pack upgrades) OTO, the 3.51 servers I admin'd had to be cycled regularly (once a month to once a day) or they'd explode in a fiery ball o' bits. NT4, espescially SP3 is one hell of a stable OS - if you configure it properly. (I supported ~130 NT/SQL servers at MS, only ~6 of those ran 3.51 - so while my data isn't statistically relevant, it's _good_ anecdotal evidence.)
I'm still not wild about NT5 (oops win2k) though. And lets not forget that MS has been trotting out the "Cairo->NT5->win2k will release later this year" line for going on 3 years now.
--Shoeboy
First off microsoft felt the heat from the mindcraft test so they decided to pay zdlabs to verify there results with hardware that they chose because mindcraft refused a retest. zdnet agreed to do it because it would be a great story so they used simular hardware that mindcraft used. Pcweek wanted to make sure if linux was really faster then NT so they let microsoft chose the hardware because they were first to volunteer the test. The trick they used is this.
NT has an add-on experiment and very alpha service to bind network cards io to each cpu present. THe readme file says use at your own risk but the marketing folks at redmond told the ms technicians to use this becuase linux didnt have an equilevent.
So basically ms made sure that each server had 4 slow ethernet cards instead of on fast one. THis criplled the i/o in the linux server so they disk pages a second wnet down in heavy testing and the NT machine began to shine while the linux machine chocked.
Part of it is linus's and alan cox's fault. IT was known for awhile that they should get the tcp/ip protocol to thread so it can use serveral netwrok adapters at once instead of locking one card at a time in some sort of spinlock cycle like linux does now.
If they chose 1 network card then linux would beat them at every test. If they even turned that alpha ehternet card binding then they might of even tied but its the tcp/ip stack is what keeps freebsd winning against linux. 2.4 should compete head on against freebsd and NT.
Linux is faster as long as your server is not multihomed or a router. GO test it out for yourself.
If iis was better then half the web would actually use it wouldnt they.
Remember microsoft even calls linux best of the bread of unix's and considers it supperior to NT according to leaked internal documents. I use them as proof as linux is really better. They are called the halloween documents and you can get them at www.opensource.com
I've been using linux of many variants for quite some time (4 years, not an old timer, but no newbie either.)
Some things to understand about linux/Free Software development:
1) As the poster above pointed out, all happens in FULL view, which means that any serious flaw can be pointed at, and hoisted by the marketing dept of [insert company name here as proof fo "how bad linux is." Personally, I prefer seeing it all out in the open. I learn something, and get to watch as the problem is tackled (more learning, which is a personal hot-spot for me. :)
2)Linux develops based on needs and flaws found during use. I.E.: "I'm using linux for A, and found that when I do B, things go real bad. Can I/we implement C?"
Now, I'd wager not to many people are serving a single static web page off 4 ethernet cards to a LAN. Why would you? If you need to serve THAT much content (or lack of content, if you will :) what you are serving is probably mission critical. And that means multiple machines in case one goes down.
Yes, what Mincraft pointed at IS a problem, but it's currently a NON-ISSUE in most (all?) installations. It's like worrying about whether or not you can drive your car underwater (at least, for the time being.) Which is why it was never addressed before. But since there is an efficiency gain to be made by improving the kernel's network threading, and it's been pointed out that that IS the problem, it's being worked on. Which means the non-issue will be fixed, because fixing it will only be an improvement, and a technically correct one at that. That's one BIG advantage to Free Software... technically correct ALWAYS wins.
So just because linux currently has a problem with 4 NICs at unrealistic high loads doesn't mean it's worse at working with one (or 2, as needed by firewalls, routers, etc..) and it doesn't mean it won't fit your needs better. It may NOT fit your needs better, but only YOU can evaluate that. Not some benchmark. The same is just as true for the benchmarks that show linux is faster (which actually seem to be the majority, if you insist on worrying about them.) No benchmark will fit what you are doing, unless you set up a real-world benchmark for yourself (which I invite you to do... the results I've gotten have turned up much useful info, and helped me tune both linux and NT in the LAN I take care of. I'll leave the results to your imagination ;)
And remember, if you do decide to give linux a run, you CAN improve it. If you do not know how, you can SUGGEST improvements, or pay for someone to put them in. That's the WHOLE POINT. I really do believe that linux will do 90% of what people need to do at any given time, and do it well. It's a function of the licensing, and the culture.
If you do NOT give linux a run, all I ask is you do the favor of not being a troll here or anywhere else (about ANY topic, linux or not.) It does no good, and is quite rude. Imagine going INTO the MS building, finding an engineering meeting, and bursting in every 2 seconds with "You suck, MS sucks." That's what's been going on alot lately and it's getting quite tiresome. Yes, the internet IS the meeting room, for all to see (not implying Slashdot is the place linux developers discuss issues, but alot of linux/freeBSD/etc. users do.) Do, however, feel invited to come and share your well stated opinions/questions, no matter WHAT you use (such as the question you asked here.)
Thanks for listening :)
The halloween documents are very accurate because ms reffered to 2.0x kernels as being best of the bread and supperior to NT4.
If 2.0x series was better then think about the 2.2x kernels. They are even more scalable then the first and forget about w2k becuase the test was with NT4 and sp4 which was available last October. However even if sp4 was still in beta, there is only a slight difference in n4sp3 vs nt4sp4. The kernel is totally new since then.
If linux was so bad, then why do most web companies delete nt/iis on there new servers and install linux/apache on there web servers instead?
Linux is just plaibn better as a web server and these tests just show that linux makes a crappy router/multihomed server compared to NT.
My eyes dont lie.
The halloween documents support this and the fact that ms is doing these tricks are proof that they are scared. How often do you see be vs NT or freebsd vs NT? Never. They are just a blimp on microsofts radar. I feel priveldged to be noticed. Being noticed by microsoft is a sign that they know something is up.
Go benchmark linux and NT yourself. Linux only loses if there is more then 1 adapter. A german computer magazine showed this and salon magazine just switched from NT/IIS to linux/apache because linux was faster and more reliable. Name one bussiness that swtiched from linux to NT for speed/stability?
That is all the proof I need.
Firstly: This isn't "mainstream" press. CNN went and got a Linux-psycho to get hits exactly as they have. That's the beauty of media: You don't have to worthy about being reasonable or fair. If it's "hit-worthy" (which beating on Microsoft always is), they print it.
Secondly, it is always disturbing to see Raymond's bizarre and ridiculous ranting in the horribly written and conceptually a nightmare "Cathedral and the Bazaar". Has anyone actually read this piece of tripe? Ironically it's 90% him telling how incredible he is and how he single handly implemented XXX, YYY, and ZZZ in a mail server. What a GREAT example of the open source movement! Oh, he has plenty of sly little chops at Linus in there too. This is the new mantra?
Scary.
Thankfully Linux is on its downward descent and will be crashing into the ground very soon. I have a feeling BeOS will be the next geek bitch.
While win2k is supposed to be faster than NT4, there's a compelling reason to doubt this. MS has not posted any TPC/C benchmarks with win2k. This is very un-MS behavior for when they have a superior product. TPC/C benchmarks for SQL7 were being posted for several months before the official release of SQL7 simply because SQL7 blew away all competing systems even while still in beta. When MS has favorable benchmarks, they always publish them - but when the benchmarks look bad they don't. This is why MS has not published TPC-D,TPC-H or TPC-R results for SQL7. They aren't willing to admit that their superfast OLTP oriented RDBMS won't scale to the extent demanded by large data warehousing apps. If W2K server was faster than NT4, we'd have proof instead of hype.
--Shoeboy
If you read the original post I was responding to, the person stated that you pay for NT and then you pay for IIS. That is not true.
Fair enough... but what I replied to was:
... which, taken alone, is almost as inaccurate as what you were correcting. But it was late, and I was tired, and should've paid more attention to the context.
I miss Meept.
I know its not open source and some linux freaks are gonna kill me for saying this, but isn't BeOS a better choice than linux?
I mean, admittedly, no one's ever heard of Be, no one out of the techie circle, that is. And not alot of programs seem to be forthcoming for it, but...
Be has a central mind behind it whereas linux has many, many developers all going in different dirrections. And I think that Be, even tho it isn't open source, is very committed to being a cross between a bazaar and a cathedral...
Or I may just be totally wrong, I wouldn't doubt it, I don't really have the time or patience to install a new OS to try it out, I'm a soft-core computer guy.
We are bringing E-Commerce on line on Aug 11th. You will be able to rent a car and have it brought to lyour door.
No other rent a card service does that right now and we will try to be the first.
Posted by Scott Francis[Mechaman]:
:P
Considering that I live in Redmond(or at least in unincorporated King County near the outskirts), I have yet to see BMWs and Mercedes stretching as far as the eye can see. In fact, the '77 Chevy Nova still at our house has outlasted two Citations, and has never needed anything major beyond a tranny overhaul long before I started driving it. The kids at my HS however, were livin' large with their fancy-ass sport cars and trucks.
I've always had the opinion that the MS Complex is closer to Crossroads than it is to Redmond. And something that may shock some people, is that it's easy to spend a day driving around downtown Redmond and not see a thing relating to MS.
The only scary thing starting to happen to Redmond is the "zombie housing", as a friend of mine from California notes. That is, the blocks of tiny apartment sections sprouting up everywhere, even downtown. Kind of depressing when I go near that street and remember that in the early 90's it was a school bus parking area(not even a lot, it was all grassland).
There is a saying you get what you pay for. WIth Linux you pay a LOT less than what you'd pay for NT. Linux = $50 for a web / file server, where as NT = $$$$ for IIS and NT Server edition, I believe th at the server edition is $500 to $1000 plus IIS which has major security holes in it I might add, costs several hundred or so. Solaris also costs money too. Windows 2000 also uses some of FreeBSD's TCP/IP code. So wake up and smell the UNIX. UNIX is way better than NT and it is only a matter of time before Linux kicks NT's ass off the planet.
Only 'flamers' flame!
It's nice to see someone else understand that the advantage of open source software is the added value and economics. If RMS want's to make it a religion, fine, but the path to wide spread acceptance is in the economics, not in the obscure morality that not everyone will agree with or desire.