Slashdot Mirror
Dvorak On Linux And "The Big Time"
Cyberllama writes "John C. Dvorak's latest commentary is up at ZDnet. " I've been seeing this story came across quite a bit today. Dvorak offers an insightful commentary on Linux and "The Big Time" (He uses IRC servers as an example), although one that I don't necessarily agree with. In a switch from the normal take, he sees strong growth on the desktop, while predicting Linux won't grow in the workhorse server area much. Can anyone confirm or deny the allegation the IRC servers and Linux mentioned in the piece? Update: 09/21 06:29 by H :Click below - proof is below that Linux does at least some of the machines.
[root@brain:~]# queso -p 4400 dallas-r.tx.us.undernet.org
204.178.73.175:4400 * Linux 2.1.xx
[root@brain:~]# queso -p 6667 Haarlem.NL.EU.UnderNet.Org
194.178.232.52:6667 * Linux 2.1.xx
...according to Dvorak. Try telling that to HR people trying to find programmers to hire. It should be easy, according to Dvorak.
The nature of the computer business is shitfting, however. Shifting away from shrink-wrapped software and into custom solutions, and open source.
"Without the Net, the computer business would have been in the toilet years ago." What a stupid statement. That's like saying without railroads, the locomotive engine would have died out.
Stephen Molitor steve_molitor@yahoo.com
No matter how trite or irrelevant Mr. Perens' comments may be, they will always get moderated up as insightful or interesting.
I used to hang out with the Sysadmins of the IRC servers on EFNet(Like 5 years ago), and I can tell you, they WERE BSD nuts. However they also wouldn't link Solaris server either(only SunOS) because Solaris had some sort of limit in their networking stack. I remember hearing over and over again about how bad Solaris was, just because of this one problem. If a person with a @sun.com address came on-channel, they would spam and bombard them with comments like, "fix your sucky OS", etc.
:-) Petty-Power-Trippers comes to mind as a description. :-)
I agree that IRC servers take a pounding, but much of their pounding is due to poor initial design of the ServerToServer/Client protocols.(The coding is good, but you can only improve a protocol so much through code optimizations)
IRC ops, especially EFNet and Undernet have very long memories and hold grudges like you wouldn't believe.
Linux isn't great for all things. I fear that Windows 2000 will replace a lot of Linux servers in the future. So prepare to Wave 2 when Linux takes the desktop.
Desktop? Yes. There are far more hackers with desktop machines than with server class machines to develop software with. So the desktop is natural. And I really doubt Microsoft will be able to make the convergance between NT and Windows/DOS systems smoothly enough for the regular user. And by then GNU systems will be able to do anything Windows can do now, and better!
Notice I said GNU systems. In competition against propietary software, I really doubt Linux based GNU systems hold all the cards. Come on guys! we have 2 or 3 other very capable allies for the free kernal, why exclude them simply because they don't have the public eye? Software is much better at cooperating than competing, so why compete if you don't have to!
--
Hmmm, let's see, the busiest site running freebsd is yahoo.com
Ahem, I said please tell me WHY it's better, without anecdotal evidence. By your logic, Microsoft.com is running IIS and has minimal downtime, so therefore Windows is better than BSD, right?
Please tell me WHY you feel BSD is better. (I am genuinely curious; that's why I asked.) I am interested in using other OS's, based on merit. If you could truly show me why I should spend my time and money getting it to run, I would. (As it is, I tried, and it wouldn't run on my hardware.) Instead of trying to help me understand your point of view, you insult me, which just tells me that you don't have any reasons. (Which doesn't mean that there aren't any - although the more I keep hearing people like you, the more I'm inclined to believe just that.)
Just saying "XXX is running BSD, so therefore it's better" is NOT a reason why, it's bigotry, plain and simple. By doing that when people ask for facts, you do more to harm your case than help it.
As for your NIC, try getting one that was manufactured during the 90's
It was manufactured during the 90's. (1995, to be exact.) What a sad, sad creature you are. I pity you that you have such a narrow view of the world.
Blind advocacy such as this gets the Linux movement *nowhere*. A thread earlier tore into a FreeBSD user because he voiced his opinion that FreeBSD was a better server solution for him; rabid Linux advocates said they'd believe it if it were backed with facts. Well.. where are the Linux facts? Don't throw stones through your glass walls, ladies and gentlemen.
This is how the *BSDs get along.. they all develop in 3 directions then merge their progress.
Anyhow, if you want portability run NetBSD.
-bugg
Dvorak article is one sided, incomplete, unfounded, subjective, and seeks to destroy a 'technological-ideology' if you will.
... just think about it. 90% of linux related posts come from immature linux zealots who refuse to acknowledge any other OS for their strengths, blindly defending their choice of linux variant as the end-all of every computer related problem. Well, to those who this applies to, before you blast Dvorak for his stance, please re-evaluate the way you present your opinions. As it is now, you look just as stupid as he does.
And you know what?? It sounds very, very familiar.... Maybe not his point, but definately the style.
I know, I know!! It is the typical over-zealous linux supporter's statement, except reversed!! This time, the table has been reversed, and linux is getting unfair treatment!
All the slashdotters read that article with their hearts nearly stopping, wondering how could anyone be soooo uncompassionate, and so blind at the same time.
Really
To the small minority who constructively defend Linux, while acknowledging its weaknesses, I commend you. If Dvorak was to have had a more open mind like yours, I know his article would have been much different, celebrating Linux for its true strengths.
Those who can love linux and acknowledge its shortcomings are the only ones who will help us overcome them. Those who claim it's perfection and deny it's weaknesses are only hurting our cause, and not promoting the positive growth of Linux.
-Pika
There are a few things to note here: Once, many a year ago, Linux sucked.. and still does, depending on what kind of bugs you have up your ass. Old-school UNIX admins tried Linux way-back-when, and obviously saw that it didn't live up to the load. Well, no shit. They went back to their sparc 40s and laughed about it. The TCP/IP implementation in Linux is arguably on par with BSD's at this point (which wasn't true before!). If you want to talk trash, BSD is still using that braindead mbuf model and you'd be bullshitting yourself if you thought it was truly multithreaded, so shut up. The reason that Linux isn't used so much in IRC servers is that it requires a fair bit of tuning to be able to handle the load. Each irc server (on EFNet) probably pushes ~2000 connections at a time. That's going to rape any system not prepared for it. While we're on the subject of rape, most of the ircd was originally developed on Sun hardware/software. It will obviously show bias. Back to the assholes who call themselves IRC operators, they have that age old image that Linux can't handle it and BSD is where it's at. If you want to go further back, the only way you were going to be allowed onto the network was if you were running ircd on SunOS, and it wasn't for performance reasons, it was because of their fear of incompatibility. These people are still stuck in this mindset and they refuse to let Linux servers near the hubs, because in doing so they'd admit they were wrong. Or they're just too lazy to make it do what they want. In that case, I'm going to say FreeBSD performs like shit on my 486/66 and once I installed Linux, it was so much more responsive. This obviously means FreeBSD sucks. Not. --Michael Bacarella
Do you really think Dvorak sits alone in his house and comes up with this stuff. No, he talks with the movers and shakers in the industry. His column is what the CTOs, COOs, and CEOs are thinking about computing. They may not understand the tech comletely, but in alot of companies these are the people calling the shots on these matters.
OK, so how do you refute this? Well, you may want to address his point directly. It doesn't matter that eBay or Deja use linux, cause they don't have 5,000 loners having cybersex while 5,000 warez dOOds DCC each other TPM or the latest and greatest ISO image.
Dvorak is like a weather vane. Do climb on the roof and beat the hell out of it when it rains a little? Well do you?
Yahoo has countless boxes server their site. Slashdot has how many? one or two
The FreeBSD developers wouldn't agree with your sentence. FreeBSD is not "necessarily a superset of linux"
FreeBSD provides a syscall emulation layer which means most everyday Linux apps can run on FreeBSD.
Since most everyday Linux apps are GPL or BSD, and therefore come with source, who even cares?
IMHO The Linux development model is better, and the code for both is Free, so I support the one which matches my philosophy best (Linux)
The only *BSD machines we have in this lab are testing IPv6, they seem fine but a bit old-school for my liking. Takes all sorts though.
eBay runs Solaris for web servers? I think not, my ignorant Sun advocate:
sterwill@lister [~] telnet www.ebay.com 80
Trying 216.32.120.133...
Connected to pages.ebay.com.
Escape character is '^]'.
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Server: Microsoft-IIS/3.0
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:41:02 GMT
Content-Type: text/html
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Last-Modified: Tue, 21 Sep 1999 21:30:02 GMT
Content-Length: 17437
Connection closed by foreign host.
--
I remember the days when John C. was pushing OS/2 2.0 as the next OS of the world. Perhaps he just feels burnt for taking a strong stance on a non MS OS. I am sure he took a lot of flack over the OS/2 flop. I am hoping the Linux community does not fall to the same fate as OS/2 since it was clearly a better OS at the time then MS DOS/(Win 3.x).
We assumed this might be so, but why so few IRC servers in the big nets?
.... *CRUNCH*)
No, I can't spell!
-"Run to that wall until I tell you to stop"
(tagadum,tagadum,tagadum
-"stop...."
IBM's JVM is looking very promising. It's far better than Blackdown's, that much is certain. We're running the IBM JVM for our servlet-based apps with JServ 1.0/Apache 1.3.9
I assume by "effnet", you really mean EFnet (Eris Free Net). Usually the splits (not crashes) are attributed to network problems, rather than host problems. You can have the bestest(tm) box in the world, but it doesn't take that much effort for someone to fill your pipe.
There are very few Linux IRC servers on EFnet. I know in the past, Linux has not performed well as a large scale IRC server. Many things have changed since then, and they probably have gotten better, but people still go with what they know. Seems to me FreeBSD is the flavor of choice for EFnet nowadays.
-B
AMD _did_ have some problems with its supply for a short while, especially if you bought your CPUs from the grey market. However, I've run Linux on the K6 and K6-2, and have had no problems whatsoever. This includes both server and workstations machines, and there are MANY people from my local LUG who do the same. BTW, both of my machines use components from a small computer shop who _does_ in fact buy "OEM" CPUs, and so I would say that even these are not widely a problem any more. Perhaps your friend bought CPUs which had at some point fallen into disreputable, remarking hands. AMD CPUs have no multiplier lock, remember? --Ray
Looks liked John leaped before he looked.
The Undernet's Central US routing server handles on average 1/3 of the Undernet population and is running Linux with kernel 2.2.11.
And there are other server in the Undernet running on Linux, plus the preferred development platform now seems to be Linux.
This is a long way from Never running Linux on the Undernet.
It seems that with the newer versions of Redhat, SuSE, Slackware, Debian, etc.. that they want to focus their marketing on personal desktops. Thus, that's where the code is being developed more. You don't see too many RedHat distro's default config'd for 4096 file descriptors. But I still think Linux has the potential, in most cases it needs some time to tweak and modify certain things. That's usually why BSD can handle it because you don't see too many people buying BSD distros at Best Buy like hotcakes.
Quick, rabid Linux advocate patrol to the rescue! Didn't you listen to Johnny? Say something bad about Linux, and somebody will pop up spouting fire and brimstone about how some other OS sucks worse. Grow up, pal. You're not doing your OS of choice any favors. Not to mention XWorld doesn't have the number of users compared to EFnet :)
Anyway, be sure to stop by SlashNET's #slashdot channel if you get a chance. It's fun, or something.
Windows:
Download the EXE file, click on it
Click Yes, Next, No, Proceed, Yes, Next, Next, OK
Watch the entire machine reboot (huh?)
Linux:
Download the RPM file (not my fault if you choose to make your own life difficult and run Slackware)
Double Click on the RPM file in your graphical file manager
Ta da! No need to even logout (for simpler apps anyway)
Dallas-R.tx.us.undernet.org
Plano.tx.us.undernet.org
Caen.fr.eu.undernet.org
Brussels.Be.Eu.Undernet.org
Flanders.Be.Eu.Undernet.org
--
IRcGOD
Efficiency is Efficiency. If it works well on a pentium, it will work well on a 386, just a lot slower.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
It's just that, his tone angers me. He takes the approach that Linux is A Bad Thing because it has weaknesses. That's absurd. Everything has weaknesses. Linux just overcomes its weaknesses quickly and efficiently.
There's no need for taking an inflamatory tone when stating facts....he could have written the same article, state some of the same facts, and said merely "due to these shortcomings, there are times when Linux isn't the best solution." If he'd done that, I wouldn't be so angry.
Werd.
Why should anyone start to believe him now?
ZDnet is wrong, people have known that for quite a while and thats why most people take it with a grain of salt.
We run "truly intensive" applications here on Linux all the time. I think anybody would be hard pressed to find a more intensive application that a military combat simulation model with about 5000 entities. Linux chugs away and spews out the results we need when we are finished.
-- toolie
I mean, doesn't Walnut Creek use a BSD for the biggest honkin' ftp server on earth?
I'm in the process of nmap'ing a list of undernet servers, atleast 5 of them are running Linux.
Thus far, we have:
Dallas-R.tx.us.undernet.org
Plano.tx.us.undernet.org
Caen.fr.eu.undernet.org
Brussels.Be.Eu.Undernet.org
Flanders.Be.Eu.Undernet.org
Those that aren't are, for the most part, either a BSD variant or Solaris 2.5+. There are many valid reasons why Linux doesn't have the same server share. I think Dvorak is intentionally inflamatory.
there should be three linux types: desktop, mid-range server, and highly scalable smp ... i think load-balancing is neat-o ; dvorak should check it out sometime...
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Sorry, just curious for years.
He's speaking of Linux as if it's similar in scope, or attitude to Win32. As if Linux ships once every 3 years or something. If you obtained a brand new copy of Win95 in June 1995, and I obtained a brand new copy in August 1997, we most likely have two different products(Due to Rev. B and Rev. C). Linux changes at a much more rapid rate. When I went up from Kernel 2.0.36 to 2.2.9 there was a world of difference in speed and stability.
While it's true that Linux can't be all things to all people, it can be more things to more people than any other OS out there. BTW, I'm nut a linux fanatic, I'm not really much of an advocate, I recommend the right tool for the right job.
For some people NT is what they need. For others MacOS is what they need. For me it's a combination of 98/95/NT/MacOS/and linux.
As far as Dvorak's fear of flaming, I'd say that it's unfounded. Those people who know the most about linux are the ones who are most likely to rip somebody a new one for spreading misinformation about linux.
His comments are surprisingly similar to if someone mysogenist were making statements about women like "Women just can't hack it. Women are weak. Look at the evidence, women can't flap their arms and fly."
Someone then responds "Well, men can't flap their arms and fly either. YOU can't flap your arms and fly."
To which the mysogenist replies "That's not my point. Don't change the subject. I'm not talking about men, I'm not talking about me. You're personal attacks only prevent people from speaking the truth."
Dvorak and people like him are talking out of their asses, and someone should let them know whan they're wrong.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Well, I know _many_ small IRC servers do. Most IRC servers are running FreeBSD. But most developement for IRCd is done for FreeBSD. Posibly because awhile back in linux you had to apply patches to get many file descriptors. However, if you look through dalnet's old server descriptions you will find voyager.dal.net and ohare.dal.net ran linux. Both of those servers actually have quit dalnet since then. Albeit, I forget the name of the network they moved though. I'll see if I can find the URL for the server descriptions a little bit later.
Well, as it so happens, I work at Deja, and we use Linux for almost all of our servers, and believe me, Linux handles the (often quite heavy) load just fine.
As it so happens, in our reception area, there is a 1997 award for "Technical Excellence" in the field of Web Design. Gee, can you guess who gave us that award? None other than our friend John C. Dvorak! It's signed by him and everything; it's a real hoot. I guess Linux was fine for "technical excellence" back then, but it has somehow become less so now.
Someone else said it best; all he's doing is selling banner ads, not writing real or meaningful content. Not that there's anything wrong with that; you just have to go into it with your eyes open.
I was the one who originally ported ircII and ircd to Linux in 1992. Linux networking was just not stable enough at the time to maintain connections. I would lose my connections every few hours, so I ported everything to 386bsd 0.1 and everything was stable and rock solid. This is what originally gave Linux a bad rep in the IRC community. All the time I was running a 386bsd server, I was still developing for Linux though, because for all else, 386bsd was a dog.
I can't say that i've ever heard of any of the big three running linux, but i'm sure that they aren't running NT either.
I don't think that NT could handle the load very well. And - he sites the fact that the IRC servers are constantly under attack, it *seems* that the NT TCP based buglists are a bit larger than that of most unixen. They are most likely running one of the major unix os's, HP/SUN/etc. In a few kernel versions, linux may be ready for that, but as far as samba/web/dekstop machines go, linux is OK for me.
Five years ago, Linux couldn't handle the load. Not even close. File-descriptors were only one problem.
I would imagine that the "old school" effect also boils down to "Hey, there are a lot of shenanigans that go on in IRC land, and we've already proven X, Y, and Z work. The last time we tried Linux in any large way, it didn't work, so we're in no hurry to try it now."
All I can say is that I'm happier in Dilbert Land as an engineer than I was dealing with the stress of working at an ISP. At least engineers tend to be a little more rational than alot of the bozos you meet online. :-)
--Joe--
Program Intellivision!
Efnet and dalnet have few linux servers because the HUB servers refuse to link a Linux server. This has been the case for over 5 years. You have a couple choices. Use *bsd, use solaris or find a network that will link you.
This has little to do with linux's current ability to perform as an IRC server and alot to do with the fact that HUB admins are "old school" and of the opinion that linux isn't UNIX and its a toy.
-- You can be a geeklord too
ok that's understandable. Tho, my K6-2 350 runs at 30-45C and is rated at 70C, though I haven't compared that with the average. (A friend of mine had an Intel Pentium MMX, _not_ overclocked, and the top of the heatsink was always too hot to touch...) Btw, it's worthwhile to note that since AMD chips are often used in cheaper systems, it's not uncommon to see substandard motherboards (probably not in your case) that often cause problems. Of course, I'm by no means saying that AMD chips are perfect, or even better than Intel's... I just really don't trust Intel, and I see too many people who do.
Actually, what I really would like to see is average lifespan of Intel vs AMD vs Sparc vs Alpha vs etc chips when run 24/7 in server environments, but that may be too much to ask for. Seems the media is too concerned with benchmarking Linux vs NT to provide any really worthwhile information. Sigh.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
I am not sure I agree, while it is pretty obvious that Linux will shine long and hard on our desktops, I see the biggest challenge and NT war on the small department layer.
And there the answer is very simple, sure you have the databases vendor now taking first step but you don't really have the large choice of commercial software you can find on Solaris and NT. I am now contracting in a company where we are replacing NT by Linux with Jserv apache, in other words we developed under NT and now switch to Linux because it is in java.
Servlets are pretty easy but large corporate app servers are missing a strong support of JVMs on Linux
-- now pray and wait for IBM--
I'm sorry, but I've grown tired of Dvorak and his so called "knowledge" of the computer industry. Every time he attempts to discuss what "should be" or the way things "should work" or how something is going to "come out", I feel a sickening wave rising up from my stomach. And that ain't soup.
If he ever really understood this business, it was a long time ago, most likely back before his scalp was sealed over with asphalt. Anyone reading Dvorak nowadays for anything more than insider tidbits deserves the searing pain in the temple such an activity elicits.
Probably... He's just as weird looking :)
2-5 years? Umm... The K6 hasn't been out for 5 years. It was originally released in April of 1997, not even 2.5 years ago. Also keep in mind that they went from .35 micron to .25 micron, which reduces temperature (and thus probably increases life expectancy) at similar clock rates, with the 233MHz+ K6, at the end of 1997. So to claim they last 2-5 years is kind of premature, especially when they changed the manufacturing process less than 2 years ago. You could say that they usually last 2 years, maybe, but not 2-5.
Personally I'm happy with my K6-2/300, but it's only 8 months old, so I can't say much about the longevity of it.
He seems to toss aside the possibility of Linux taking on office desktops. Why? The graphical environments are much farther along than he gives credit, and products like Applixware, Star Office, and soon Corel Office Suite will give users real choice for office software.
Yes, linux will be present in embedded or low cost machines (empeg car) and your local mom 'n' pop ISP, but there's no good reason it can't take over at the office.
If we wanted another Windows then you are correct. I personally want a home OS that does not crash.
- Why is the ninja... so deadly?
Yes, a mistake. It's suppposed to be "MS people hate". But I wonder, do you not save your work? How could you lose 2 weeks of it with rebooting? I've had windows crash on me, and the worst it's done is wasting 2 minutes of my time. Big deal. I don't run any apps that have to up 24/7, so I don't mind the crashes. And now I'm not a geek because I don't prefer Linux? Boy, aren't we getting snobby now....
If you know how to properly implement server clustering, you can run quite large web sites with Linux that uses the 2.2.x kernel.
Fortunately, high-end server hardware are coming down in price, and a small "wall" of Dell PowerEdge servers running S.u.S.E. or Red Hat Linux with server clustering can even handle the front-end access to eBay. The nice thing is that by using a whole roomful of smaller servers, you can have server mirroring and other advantages of running many servers in parallel, so if one server goes down, shut down offending unit, replace with identical unit, and have the clustering software run an automatic rebuild process so we don't skip a beat! (^_^)
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
I code for DALnet, and yes - we dont like Linux on our servers, for a number of reasons I'll touch on in a sec..
First of all, I've seen a few posts to the effect that IRC doesnt eat much system resources. Allow me to be blunt - thats a load of crap. Our present version of IRCd (Bahamut) eats resources like a bitch, and it outperforms our old IRCd (Dreamforge) by about three times. Allow me to show you some stats:
Random DALnet server:
Current local users: 2081
35795 ircd 2 0 51768K 48976K select 161:22 47.95% 47.95% ircd
This is on a PII 400. The idea that Client servers dont require as many system resources as hubs is an uneducated assumption. Hub servers use substantially less CPU (and FD's for that matter) than client servers. They do, however, use slightly more RAM for buffering data flow.
One quick thing on the IRC protocol - most large networks are using TS3 at this point, which includes a few bandwidth-saving perks (such as SJOIN).. the protocol handles the ~40K clients on DALnet in about an 8MB resync.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. As far as i know, there are no DALnet servers running Linux. Most are running FreeBSD, and we have a few BSDi and Sun/Solaris boxes. Linux doesnt work for our client load for a few reasons:
- We need FD's. 256 (or 1024) just arent enough. And patching is a real pain.
- Security issues. Someone mentioned the fact that pre-2.0.31 kernels wont be linked. Remember teardrop?
- I've personally enjoyed the fun of occationally needing to hack sections of the IRCd to get it to compile - although this is rare, and no exception for other OS's.
I develop under FreeBSD. We work mostly under FreeBSD. Linux doesnt do exactly what we want. The same is true to a company that wants software X developed on and for SCO or something equivilent. Personally I think that Linux is an underpowered OS, but I havent played with it in ages.
One little sidenote - if there are any linux developers reading this - PLEASE make FD's a configurable option in kernel compile. Then maybe someone could easily stick up an IRCd and run up the clientload a few thousand and see how it performs. Until then, I refuse to expend extra energy looking into a different OS.
Note: My opinions. Not DALnets.
Epiphani@dal.net
First and second rev K6s are buggy under Linux when more than 32 megs of memory are in use; they give spurious signal 11 errors and allow the system to be crashed by any user.
... is that he isn't stable enough to run a decent magazine column, or capable of handling the heavy load represented by evaluating entire operating systems against each other.
case in point, there was a reply from a guy from a guy who has Linux crashing every 4-6 hours. I saw two posts later trying to contact him and help him with the problem. I've seen the same thing here a few times (once at the botton of 20 deep flame war). I replies to my own replies for fun and enjoyment.
(I just wish I could edit them...)
+&x
Imagine this strategy:
Find Linux's weak points and expoloit them.
Linux's weak points
Now, add an "independent" third party (re: Mindcraft or Dvorak) and you have Microsoft's strategy. Oh, and don't forget to exploit the competiviness between the users.
Classic FUD.
Meanwhile in Redmond....
"Hmm, we can't beat this Linux thing with
technical superiority."
"Agreed. And every time we try to manufacture
technical advantages via FUD those damn 'OSS
spokesmen' shoot us down and we look like idiots."
"I've got it. That FreeBSD crowd has a sore ego
from all of the press that Linux is getting. Let's
play on the zealotry of Linuxers and FreeBSDers.
At the least, they get into big flame wars and
look like complete idiots. At best, the division
becomes a way for us to spread FUD about both
OSes w/o bringing our own lack of credibility
into the mix. We'll divide and conquer!"
"Excellent. Lisa, get Dvorak on the phone
pronto! Muaah ha ha ha..."
(s)he mirrors Dvorak's commentary.....so Dvorak's entire article is "flamebait" too then, right? why the hell are we bothering to talk about it then?
I run the primary server for a small, but growing IRC network. (http://www.pfnet.org/ for information), and all of out servers run Linux. They've successfully handled quite high loads, with nary a complaint.
-- Veni, vidi, dormivi
actually, it's probably closer to 500 gigs a day =]
---
---
we stand in life at midnight, we are always on the threshold of a new dawn.
Dvorak is a knob.
In the Mac community we had to put up with him for several years - he was always whining and every third article or so was just SO far from left field it was puzzling.
My fav comment was the guy who wrote into the Mac magazine that was carrying Dvorak's column on it's last page. During shipping a subcriber lost his back cover and the last page was marred to unreadability. His comment, "I'd glady pay extra for this service every month." 8)
Funny!
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Man, it is good to see that slashdot still has a punch to it. Looking at the responses to the article, I realize we need to utilize /. more against ZDNet FUD. Lately it seems that there have been too many MS-Ideology (employees?) people commenting, and the real facts doesnt seem to get out. Not that I encourage giving them hits for free, but /. does manage to convey a clear, reasonable message quite often (while sometimes just flamebait, but...) TN
Perhaps moderator mode should hide posters' identity.
What is it with people insisting that there be only one window manager for Linux? I can understand the need for a default window manager for a given distribution, and most distributions support this (maybe tomsrtbt doesn't ;), but why must all distros pick the same thing, or disallow the use of alternate WM's at the user's request.
Explain this to me, please! If you're just asserting this because Windows and MacOS mandate the use of a particular window manager, then that's fine -- it's just a failure of imagination on your part. If you have a real reason for saying this, however, let's hear it.
--
Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
The way I interpret this guys article is "Hey, Linux people, don't even bother trying to get into the high end market. Your OS can't cut it and nothing you do will change that. Stick with the cheap AMD chips, will ya?".
If that's the case, well then BITE ME. Sure, the current version of Linux isn't suited for the high end server/workstation yet...but if we continue to work towards that goal, someday it will be a reality. Look at our advances already! Geez. Inch by inch, Linux is getting faster, more robust, more secure. If we stick to our goals, then I'm sure Linux will emerge as a dominant player in the high end market (if not _the_ dominant). Linux isn't finished growing...it's just started.
Actually, he's right this time. Even the iBook bashing contained a grain of truth.
But then would it have gotten linked here on
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
what database does google run?
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Is there a place to purtchess dvorak keyboards? Seems the only other alternative is to rip the keys off one and rearrange them and put super glue on them to get them to stick.
Write that down and post it on USENET .. spoof your e-mail btw to his :)
After all the news releases talking about IBM/Dell etc supporting Linux, I was excited about using linux on our new
We've been using linux w. samba on serveral of our smaller file servers and have been totataly impressed by the flexibility and performance offered by this low cost and easy to manage OS.
Unfortunately Dell won't support linux on their high end server (PE 6300) and RAID card (the PERC2). (usenet news group denizens claim Linux works fine on the PE6300/PERC2).
Work is flexible about the OS but they insist on Dell and they insist that the hardware/os be supported by Dell.
So we're going with NT and Linux looses another server.
The morale of the story:
If vendors are restricting Linux to low-end hardware, then of course the OS will not be used for high end servers....
That is All
As you stated, "both OS's wer not tuned in this test." A default installation of NT (server or workstation) boosts performance to the foreground terminal application. If there is a screen saver or even a login screen on, it would get preference in RAM usage over IIS. In case you forgot, a group of Linux systems that were tweaked for web serving vs. an NT server that was also tweaked for web serving ended up with NT winning.
Well, it's not just ads from Microsoft, but every other Windows software vendor that wants to take advantage of the Win2000 launch and the opportunity that that creates to get your product on Win2000 desktops. It's in ZD's best interest to hype up Win2000 as much as possible because that's what puts bread on their table (at least in the short term). At least much more bread than Linux ads would.
They only way for Linux to combat this is to have a thriving commercial software market that buys lots of ads,
Six months ago, this wasn't true. They wrote alot about Linux simply because writing about some pre-beta of Win2000 doesn't sell too many magazines. (As a reference, go back and look at the OS/2 coverage during the Win95 waiting period.)
Ironically, as Microsoft monopolizes more and more of the client software market, the number of advertisers and advertisements starts to fall. For example, there probably were many more office suite ads back in the day when WordPerfect and Lotus had a chance. Of course, as competitors fall, Microsoft ends up buying an increasing percentage of ad pages, giving them more leverage.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I've just checked netcraft and cnn appears to be running on Netscape/Solaris. ESPN.com is running on IIS4/NT4. There's a thin line between advocacy and misinformation.
Hey is this A/C Irwin Arnstein ???? The 800lb elephant turd kinda gives you away.
I think people have missed the point on why it is. Its not if Linux, BSD, Sun, XYZ... is better. It goes back to what was available to do the job when it was FIRST put together. If you have a decent running server on BSD or NT, why are you going to fix something that is not broke? When the IRC network went together, Linux was still in rough form. If they would put IRC together today, what OS's would they use? I do not know or Mr Dvorak would not know ether. I do not think you can draw a conclusion they way it was presented.
Linux is not running the IRC server because it was not available to the SysAdmins at the time. It's not running them now because it makes no sense to change it. There needs to be a definite return to make changes to a system that is running. Can Linux run the IRC? I do not know.
Jeesshh - Wrong conclusion as presented!
Believe it or not, I have a friend who runs Win95b on a 386. Yes, I said a 386. It takes around 20 minutes to boot, I believe. He's going to try NT4 next.
---
END OF LINE
USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TT STAT STARTED TIME COMMAND ./ircd
ircd 241 96.1 19.1 76772 74532 ?? R Fri09AM 3447:29.96
At the moment the server has 3200 active, open sockets. This server recieves over 150,000 client connections per day. It's currently running FreeBSD. Linux by default only supports 256 file descriptors (sockets) per process. Changing this is a complete kernel recompile. Not only that, but even after upping all the necessary settings, linux becomes unreliable after about 1024 open sockets -- the kernel randomly panics, runs out of memory, etc. Further, some kernel options simply don't work as advertised; setsockopt(SO_SNDBUF/SO_RCVBUF) cause a socket to block even if nonblocking is set.
Speaking of high-end servers, from my experience ircd has been an extremely poor performer on Alpha machines (running OSF/1); if linux fixed its shortcomings in the file descriptor area it would easily be able to run circles around OSF/1. Linux definitely has a driving force to fix this, however it's not a 'bug' per se. If FreeBSD works, which is also free, why pressure the linux developers into fixing it?
By the way, as a little offtopic note: a while back we ported ircd to win32, and I believe we even experimented with linking it to the network. One large problem turned out to be that windows would resolve machines to netbios names if they had no reverse for their ip, therefore making their address completely useless. Thank you, microsoft, for this wonderful 'feature.'
Nope he was wrong...both the logon screen and screen servers default to the absolute lowest priority("low" in NT parlance). They don't count as "foreground terminal applications". That game of solitare you are playing, however, does.
In general, FreeBSD is better for me than the Linux distributions I've used because it has an integrated source tree for the entire BSD environment (kernel and user). That means there's a single source tree for the bulk of what I use, and that the bulk of what I use is developed (or at least ported), maintained and distributed by the same people. Even where I have to use external code, the `ports' tree provides a mechanism by which it can be maintained, scrutinised and approved by FreeBSD contributors.
/usr/local for external files installed via the `ports' tree, rather than dumping them into the standard tree (shudder).
The bottom line for me is that the standard FreeBSD distribution provides a full, traditional UNIX environment, without all the unwelcome additions Linux distributions seem to add. My experience with Linux distributions was that they took up much more disc space, but provided much less that was actually useful to me.
From a technical perspective, FreeBSD is better for me in the following respects:
VM: On my systems, the performance of the FreeBSD virtual memory system under load has been much better (more responsive, better throughput).
Filesystem: I've run into occasional filesystem corruption on Linux, owing to its default use of asynchronous writes for metadata. FreeBSD doesn't use asynchronous writes for metadata by default, and its `soft updates' scheme provides a completely safe mechanism for writing metadata asyncronously (as opposed to the blind approach Linux takes, which can leave the filesystem in an unusable state).
Filesystem Layout: The Linux distributions I used had quite different filesystem layouts, all of which differed from traditional BSD and System V layouts. FreeBSD (and NetBSD/OpenBSD) uses the BSD filesystem layout, which has been around for a long time, and is fairly good (logical, consistent). FreeBSD also uses
TCP/IP: The TCP/IP implementation in BSD is the reference implementation, so its behaviour is better known and documented. It's also supposedly faster, although TCP/IP bottlenecks are not something I run into (I tend to run into memory and network-bandwidth bottlenecks), so I've not noticed a difference.
From a technical perspective, Linux was better for me in the following respects:
Hardware support: I've got one perhipheral (by a defunct manufacturer) that won't currently run under FreeBSD. I can get by without it, but I miss it.
On balance, FreeBSD's advantages make it much more useful for me. For you, it sounds like the reverse is the case. If, however, support for your hardware is added, you may want to give FreeBSD another chance.
Hmmm, let's see, the busiest site running freebsd is yahoo.com, famous for fast downloads....the busiest site running linux is slashdot.org - famous for either being down, or so slow that it isn't worth the wait.
What does that have to do with home machines? I don't think yahoo or slashdot qualify as home machines, and I don't think anyone else does either.
---
END OF LINE
I like Linux on my home desktop, but there isn't one person at my office of 300 who would be able to make the transition comfortably. Let's not forget that most people in the office using computers are not techies, but people stumbling through word processing and spreadsheet applications. There would also have to be major changes in the office productivity software market - MS Office is quite the stomper with its 90%+ market share. I can just see the people in my office who can barely use Windows trying to use Linux! Oh well, I can still pray for miracles.
The Dvorak keyboard is an alternative layout, not a superior one.
Free Mac Mini. Yes, I'm
Check out this reply on the TalkBack to see what I am talking about. Apparently Mr. Dvorak isn't quite as correct as he thinks.
It appears that both of your Anonymous Coward and named versions of your comments got marked as flamebait. Before you cry "Foul! Unfair Moderation!", why don't you think about what you are posting:
How long until linux users just bite the bullet and admit its better?
That is a groundless insult to the Linux users. If you are going to say X is better than Y, give a reason. An old DALNet post referring to an ancient version of Linux is not a reason it's bad, or should I disrespect all BSD users because of licensing problems with NET-2. It's just as ludicrous.
FreeBSD software is necessarily a superset of linux.
I don't think anyone would agree with that one.
So it's either flamebait or a troll, live with it.
----
----
Open mind, insert foot.
Honestly, I've been very unimpressed with the few Dvorak keyboard solutions that do exist. I use my QWERTY keyboard with the Dvorak keymap loaded in linux. The keys are mislabeled, but you'll never learn to type if you look at the keyboard anyways. Printing the keyboard layout for Dvorak and setting it next to the monitor, and look at that if needed, will help you learn to type without looking at the keyboard. Does anyone know how many people out there type Dvorak? (like a percentage of people or something). I can't even get the NT tech to load the Dvorak keymap files at school. Very few people I've met even know what Dvorak is, and I have yet to meet someone who actually uses it. (obviously, asides from myself) If anyone knows of a place that sells ergonomic, Dvorak keyboards, preferably without those damn m$ keys on it, for less than $50, I'm interested. I don't want any of those stupid internet buttons or any of that other crap either. A good keyboard is truely hard to find.
Try scanning the irc ports like so:
/usr/local/etc/queso.conf /usr/local/etc/queso.conf
dnsquery irc.newnet.net | awk '/IN A/{print $5}' | xargs queso -p 6667
216.73.223.100:6667 * Standard: Solaris 2.x, Linux 2.1.???, MacOS
192.108.102.221:6667 * Dead Host, Firewalled Port or Unassigned IP
161.184.244.38:6667 * Standard: Solaris 2.x, Linux 2.1.???, MacOS
207.34.179.6:6667 * BSDi 3.0, IBM S/390
204.122.16.98:6667 * Standard: Solaris 2.x, Linux 2.1.???, MacOS
207.227.236.5:6667 * Linux 1.3.xx, 2.0.0 to 2.0.34
204.137.237.3:6667 *- Unknown OS, pleez update
209.211.58.25:6667 * Linux 1.2.xx
209.140.33.20:6667 * BSDi 3.0, IBM S/390
207.176.172.16:6667 * Linux 1.2.xx
206.154.138.9:6667 * Standard: Solaris 2.x, Linux 2.1.???, MacOS
209.212.128.40:6667 * Linux 1.2.xx
205.216.80.23:6667 *- Unknown OS, pleez update
208.150.172.100:6667 * Cisco 11.2(10a), HP/3000 DTC, BayStack Switch
206.185.8.215:6667 * Linux 1.3.xx, 2.0.0 to 2.0.34
162.42.150.51:6667 * Standard: Solaris 2.x, Linux 2.1.???, MacOS
207.0.141.57:6667 * Linux 1.2.xx
199.103.186.10:6667 * Linux 1.2.xx
204.122.16.13:6667 *- Not Listen, try another port
204.122.16.4:6667 *- Firewalled host/port or network congestion
204.122.16.31:6667 *- Not Listen, try another port
Lowmag.net
> it's not harder to configure than linux, it's
> _different_. it's not harder to customize than
> linux, it's _different_.
I agree entirely. As someone with a UNIX background, I find the FreeBSD much easier to install and configure than Linux distributions (which tend to have `friendly' wizards that muck about with my files).
Actually, as far as installing is concerned, my favourite system is NetBSD, which is considered by many to have the least user-friendly installation scheme of any OS. To me, however, it feels much more natural than the others, and seems easier to use.
Not only wasn't 1.2.x good enough, 2.0.x wasn't either. It required patches just to get a decent number of file descriptors available (segfault.org was having some problems with this running the 2.0.36 kernel). Hence the various comments that Linux is not good enough for an IRC server. I'm not sure if 2.2.x improves things, but I hope so.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Finally the Linux community is being exposed to the kind of baiting Dvorak is famous for. In an earlier post, someone mentioned Dvorak's opinion on Apple, the company being dead at least three times if I'm not mistaken. (It's not--And remember, Mac are just as disgusted with Windows as Linux people are disgusted with Windows.)
Dig through Dvorak's column archives. What do you find? Constant baiting of Apple-loyalists, calling them (us? names, mocking our choice of platform simply because the Mac doesn't run Windows.
So my Linux brethren, welcome to the fray.
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
...have a word that, IMO, best describe Dvorak. That word, and please pardon any spelling error, is "pillock".
I would as soon accept his opinion or advice on computer related issues as tips on lovemaking from a eunuch.
Sorry for my being obnoxious, everyone. I just really have never read anything by this guy that has seemed the least bit interesting and in many cases his "facts" are opinion.
Killing spammers is too good for them.
Back in the dim dark ages when I was still using Windows, many CGI `scripts' for that platform were actually .exe programs (ie written in C/C++/whatever) simply because Windows (and dos) didn't come with decent scripting. Though I don't know what ebay actually uses, but it is entirely possible that their CGI stuff is actually compiled programs rather than scripts. Otherwise, I agree with you, I just wanted to point out this possibility.
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
How the heck does this story get posted as a major article? I think some moderators should be able to nix stories . . .
"For at least a decade, the only thing that's been going on is the debugging of old code. Without the Net, the computer business would have been in the toilet years ago." -- John Dvorak
Obviously, this guy doesn't know shit!
Hmmm, let's see, the busiest site running freebsd is yahoo.com, famous for fast downloads....the busiest site running linux is slashdot.org - famous for either being down, or so slow that it isn't worth the wait.
You neglect to mention, however, that Yahoo outsources all of its inline image transfers to Akamai and pays a pretty penny for it, too.
Also, if Slashdot is so slow it isn't worth the wait, why is it that you deigned to wait long enough to post a half-baked comment while hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym? Hmmm?
Whoopie. Who gives a shit about the front end webservers when the meat of the whole operation happens behind the scenes with the database transactions, which in this case run on Sun servers. (If they didn't they wouldn't blame Sun whenever their site goes down).
There is more to life than webserving, my ignorant friend.
SOmetimes, yes, I get flamed for a good reason. But I've gotten flamed by someone for merely asking if IE supports PNG images. And yes I think it's people MS hate. You refuse to use ANY products of theirs, no matter how good or bad they are, and automatically bash anyone who uses them, no matter how they like them.
Well, obviously, those apps aren't the reason that FreeBSD can run Linux binaries. Things like Maple, WordPerfect, and Acrobat Reader are. :-)
Works great for commericial developers, who can target Linux and get another OS for free. It would be nice if they'd spend an extra couple of minutes to make their installers work on a FreeBSD system, though. That's usually what needs a little hacking, in my experience. Fortunately, once somebody does it once, it often ends up in the Ports Collection and you can let that install from your media instead.
The only *BSD machines we have in this lab are testing IPv6, they seem fine but a bit old-school for my liking. Takes all sorts though.
Well, you know, Unix is kind of old, and FreeBSD developers generally like Unix a lot, and have considerable experience with a variety of different Unix systems. I think this is less true of Linux folks. Heck, I started with Linux, but have since embraced Unix in all forms. With apologies to George Orwell, some Unix are more Unix than others!
He is not getting it any closer to being a site I regularly visit. Which is what he actually should be doing to keep his editors happy...
WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!
They do not care about YOU! YOU are far too technically astute. YOU are not ZD's market! Nor are you M$ market! I posted something to this effect quite some time ago on ZDNN. Althought I was writing about M$, it is equally applicable to ZDNN. Rather than post a link to it on ZDNN and thus provide more grist for their banner serving mill, I'll just quote it verbatim:
I have come to the conclusion that MS isn't stupid, its just that MS has realized that people like you, myself and many of the other Talkback posters here don't matter. We are laboring under the false impression that it's people like us they want to sell software to. It's not! All the money of all the halfway knowlegeable/informed/technically astute folks out there is a drop in the bucket compared to the trillions of readily available dollars in the hands of those who know no better. The 11 million people who think AOL is the internet. The ones who still use Netscape 1.1, with www.netscape.com set as the home page, because thats what they got when they signed up with their ISP. People who dont know what drag and drop is. People running their $600 17' monitors in 640 x 480 mode, with Start buttons the size of my shoe. We simply don't matter. THOSE people are the great untapped market of future software sales - they will buy anything you tell them they need, and when it makes a mess of their system, they'll beleive it's their fault, because they readily beleive Bill Gates invented the internet, and TCI invented cable television, and that both televisions and computers are smarter than they are...
Bite My Ziff, Davis!
======
"Cyberspace scared me so bad I downloaded in my pants." --- Buddy Jellison
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
I think people who pay $200 for a computer have low expectations because there ain't much you can get for $200. When $200 will also buy you all the word-processing power you want, a 15" monitor, web browsing, the ability to run Quicken, and email (ie everything 96% of home PC users need) you're going to see real growth in this market segment. Two years ago $1000 wouldn't buy these capabilities, six months from now, $200 will.
My parents purchased a PII/350 for $1300 awhile back. They use it for email, web browsing, Quicken, and my dad writes sermons on it. Their next machine (a couple years from now)will almost certainly cost less than $300, and WebTV and WinCE won't be the OS.
While I wish Dvorak were right on this point, it is doubtful Linux will be the OS, either. I predict MS will do whatever is necessary to extend into this market share. Look at all the devel they did on IE (which I grudgingly admit is a good browser). They produced it for free, simply because they imagined a threat from Netscape. In my opinion, there never was a threat, the browser would not have taken over the desktop by now if they had not dumped money into IE, but look at MS's reaction.
There willbe $200 computers doing what $1000 computers do today. MS is going to do what it takes to be control the first logo you see when the OS is booted.
I was reading through some editorials on some distant web page one day when I came across something. Apparently the person who made the page was friendly with the head of ebay (some guy with a french sounding name). He did some cgi tutorials and such before he did the online bidding thing. What I contend is that since most cgi is based upon scripting languages and the most well known is perl than ebay (which uses these scripts) would work just as well on a well built linux system.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
Since a majority of us didnt like this article or didnt want to see it mentioned on /. How about setting scores for articles themselves and have readers give points to the article or stone them if they dont like it. I like the idea of stoning. So if an article is really bad, within 10 mins it would be reduced to a -1 (just like user commment moderation) and no one would need to see it again.
/.
...
I know there are ways to restirct arcticles based on topics, but giving the point based system would be an added bonus to this system. I think this would increase the quality of articles ppl would read on
Any more ideas on this?
--
I used to have a workstation running NT4. It crashed once, and I determined that was because of a buggy, non-Microsoft driver I had installed (a bad driver that runs in kernel space can destroy system stability on *any* system that uses a flat kernel/user VM layout).
My current machine runs Windows 2000 pre-releases (without a need for any non-Microsoft drivers), and it hasn't crashed once.
To quote internal MS email regarding netscape:
"We're going to cut off their air supply, what they are charging for we will give away for free."
Now think about that, and think about the Microsoft OS cash cow that this weenie refers to (win9x, NT, 2000, whatever). Linux is free to anyone and does far more than win-WHATEVER does for real money. They are charging for something that we are giving away... and their products are inferior in many respects. Netscape got clobbered by this tactic, and still hasn't recovered. MS cannot be immune to it themselves. Let's all watch it happen.
--
*BSD has been around approximately forever. Linux is new. It will get better. Linux is pretty darn good at lots of stuff and people seem to like it, so therefore deriding in favor of *BSD is pointless. I personally dig the Linux filesystem layout and the way you configure things at install, etc. I tried to install FreeBSD once. All those tar.gzs started to drive me crazy after a while...something about installing things in a particular order or something made me fail...oh well. Anyways, lets not make fun of Linux for not being as stable and powerful as a much more refined system, it is getting there on its own faster than any of us expected. Kudos to all you Linux developers out there, you are doing a fantastic job, often for free... Chris
I don't know much about IRC and big-time servers, so I won't comment on that. I do think that his conclusion that Linux will shine in the low-end desktop market is a bit far-fetched. Here's my thinking.
In order to have a good desktop system that my mother and grandmother can use, you're gonna need a GUI that allows drag-and-drop, cut-and-paste, standardized widgets and stuff ABSOLUTELY EVERYWHERE. I think the only way to do this is to have these features built into the X Windows. GNOME and KDE just won't cut it. Furthermore, there should be some way to force software makers into supporting this native desktop environment.
You're also going to have to do something with fonts and printing. There should be one centralized place to dump your fonts, and any font that X can display should work with your printer too. Of course, TrueType fonts should be natively supported.
Device support is still a major concern. Something should be done to provide a standard software interface for printers, modems, scanners, digital cameras, and the like. Scanners are pretty cheap these days, and digital cameras are coming down in price too, so it's possible that a low-end computer would need to support them in the near future. Even cheap-o devices (in fact, especially the cheap-o devices) should work reliably with Linux.
These are just some of the problems that need to be worked out before Dvorak's predicition of Linux on the desktop can be taken seriously.
Gotta go eat dinner now. Take care,
Steve
Cripes, Solaris has been in development for how many years now? With how many developers?
Linux is still basically a PC program that has been ported. PC hardware isn't designed to take this kind of load. The hardware itself can't keep up with it. Linux is not *designed* to be a massive server. It's meant to be a desktop for serious technoid users who like technical excellence in their home machines. It happens to make a good server because it's good software, not because it's really designed to be one.
The fact that it trounces NT so thoroughly isn't really an endorsement of Linux, it's simply stinging criticism of NT. Linux wasn't written to be a server: the fact that it is a better 'server' than NT (which IS meant to be a server) simply shows how low the MS standards have gotten.
The underlying technology is being worked on. Each year that goes by will see it get stronger and stronger. Someday it may run Ebay and IRC servers... but then again, it might not. And that is okay. Ebay is gravy.
There is a *reason* Solaris boxes cost $50K plus. And no, the reason isn't (just) that they are greedy. The hardware is designed for an entirely different scale of problem. Sun knows how to make servers, and how to approach the problem from the bottom up. Linux is an accidental server, pressed into use because it happens to be better than the only commercial alternative that most people can afford.
You might as well bash the VW Bug because it isn't as fast as a Ferrari and doesn't pull the load a Mack truck would.
Argh.
It will surpass them because linux is moving faster, much faster. Compare Windows 98 SE to Windows 95. See much of a difference? Me neither. Now think back 4 years ago. How much has linux changed? I rest my case. - Cyberllama
One problem, a lot of stuff doesn't come in RPM. Also, actually getting it to running it is more confusing in Linux. There is no set .exe file like in Windows. You have to sorta guess at the key word for it to load. Sure, you could read the README file, but how many people actually do that? : )
I do have W2k on my machine here at home (build 2072). It has not crashed on me yet, but my NIC disappeared. My 3c095b-tx was recognized when I installed w2k but it disappeared two days ago. There is no driver available for download for one of the most common NICs in the world.
Meanwhile my Linux and Solaris boxes would stay up for weeks at a time. The only time they went down was for protecting them from line surges from storms.
That's why I hate Micros~1 products. Because my practical work experience has shown me THEY SUCK.
"Microsoft is the epitome of innovation and product quality."
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
An lern sum gramatikal skilz. averything yu've writin today iz full ov errars. les time on lenux, more time on basik anglish skilz, plz
Why should users be installing software?
In a network of Un*x workstations, applications can be installed once by a knowledgeable sysadmin and shared using NFS. Another option is to install on a master machine and mirror it periodically using rdist, rsync, etc. Or just run the program at the server and display the interface locally with the X Window System.
Remember, the network is the computer!
Of course this advice may not apply to standalone machines administered by newbies.
"Yeah well
Run an Open GL screensaver and taskmanager and see what the CPU usage looks like. As soon as the screensaver starts, it spikes the processor in favor of whatever else is running. Regardless of what priority the file runs as, it still eats processes. BTW... to be fair this is true for Linux, *BSD, Solaris, or any other OS. No computer at my office that serves anything (files, HTTP, FTP, etc.) is allowed to have a screensaver. Blank screens only. Screen savers are simply a waste of processes on a server.
Office doesn't spell or grammar check IE or Netscape.
I've suspected it all along. In one of his early columns for PC Magazine, he referred to the Macintosh as an "easy to use computer for dopes." That was when I new that the guy was clueless (having done graphic design, I can tell you that the Macintosh at that time was a POWERFUL platform for that function...time has passed and you can do graphic design on just about any platform, but back then the Mac was the best machine for the job.)
/.ed sites run operating systems that I'm sure Dvorak would say could handle the traffic (like, say certain OSes made by a little company in Redmond, Wash. :) I'm sure Dvorak would not consider /.'s traffic to be anything less than heavy. And for that matter, the guy's probably never heard of Beowulf either.
Apparently Dvorak has never seen high-volume Linux servers in action. Slashdot has been pretty rock-solid, even though sites that get "Slashdotted" go down quickly. Some of these
That being said, he's right about one thing: Linux is not the OS for everything. But Linux is at least as capable as Windows NT, so certainly anything you would run NT for, you could run Linux for. And that means in some cases even enterprise servers, although Linux's lack of capability to scale beyond 8 processors might leave it out of the pack for some enterprise servers.
As for the claim that no IRC servers run Linux, thats just absolutely ludicrous. I've seen IRC servers running Linux.
My journal has hot
I've seen this guys name before, and I keep thinking... Is this the guy with the MS-Windows tattoo on his arm? I remember seeing a picture in a pc magazine of this insane zero with the windows tattoo on his arm, and I almost shit myself laughing, and thought, man bill must be proud. I mean. Does anyone remeber who that guy was, I wanna post his picture on the web, right next to a donkey's ass.
I just read the article, and then stopped by here... Wow. That's all I've got to say... Dvorak has really lost his place in this information age, hasn't he?
Personally, I think he sounds like a frustrated user who simply cannot learn *nix. I don't doubt that he has tried, but his attitude would suggest that if he can't learn it, it must be worthless and everyone who backs it is insane.
Guess the old dog really can't learn new tricks!
What really pissed me off is the crack he made at Linux and AMD... What a moron. What's the fastest x86 processor you can buy today? Huh? Did I hear the AMD Athlon? Gee, Mr. D... Musta slipped on current events in the processor world! Oh, wait, I forgot. If he can't figure it out, then it must be worthless and we're all insane for backing AMD. Silly me...
Danno
A company that decides to use Linux can choose from a myriad of interfaces. And they can standardize and train their personnel on one. If someone from the outside wants to use their computers but is using a different Linux distro, they can still fairly easily choose their favorite interface.
Just my $0.02.
"Microsoft is the epitome of innovation and product quality."
Sanity.html - Error 404 not found
I've seen the offical Alpha FreeBSD box, and it seemed to be working fine when I saw it. A friend of mine is a developer and thus has a login. I suspect they will announce a fully working alpha port when 4.0 is released.
That might be correct, depending on which Alpha he or she referred to.
Some systems (often marketed as NT/Alpha) use a boot system called ARC which isn't currently supported in FreeBSD. Thus, you cannot boot FreeBSD on these machines which renders the port virtually unuseable.
Btw, NetBSD won't run on these systems as well. From http://www.de.netbsd.org/Ports/alpha/faq.html#nt-
1. Linux was insecure and unmanaged.
2. Linux only supported 256 FD's, and later 1024 FD's.
The insecurity of linux in the begining was well known, it was a hackers OS. Plus, you'd have a lot of unknowns. No REAL packaging system besides tar files, it was a hit or miss proposition based on your admin.
However, File Descriptors (FD) is one of the major reasons. For all of the 1.x kernels, you only had 256 file descriptors. and it was a pain to hack in more. when 2.0 came out, I believe you were still limited to 256, but it was a bit easier to put more in. Some of the later 2.1.x kernels allowed 1024 by default, which 2.2.x does as well. Anyway, other OS's, like Solaris, default to unlimited soft FD's. (hard FD's are still at 256 though). For every IRC connection, you need a FD. So... by using linux, you're automatically limited to 256 or 1024 people. Even if you hack in more, you still have a hardcoded limit. Once again, it's the admin that makes the difference. and as the major irc nets take off, they want something more substantial than 'I heard this admin is good.'
Anyway, I base this on the fact that I used to run irc.ilstu.edu (EFnet) on an AIX machine. We could have ran it on a linux box, but it was just easier with the constant kernel thrash happening on linux to keep it on the AIX box. I now run chat.gamespy.com (and used to run 3dnet.net before it died) and that is on a linux box. and it was a pain to hack in the 4096 FD's we currently have. hence, I would have prefered Solaris at some points. However, Apache was much easier to setup on there, even though that required a lot more FD's as well. You have IRC nets all over the place that use Linux, it's just the history that stop it on the huge networks.
As far as the total article, I see things opposite, of less linux desktops and more linux servers. If you've seen the things that Cobalt is doing, you'd see what a server can do with a microkernel. But the business side of linux just isn't up to speed yet, so it will stay in the hands of geeks and out of the hands of biz guys. which is fine by me.
Gonzo "GoNINzo" Granzeau
--
Gonzo Granzeau
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
Uh, no. That's terrible logic on your part. It would be like a man going to a NOW meeting and saying that men are good, too, and then getting slammed for it. Of course, knowing NOW, that's probably a likely reaction, but that doesn't mean it's right. Unfortunately, Slashdot is very much like NOW in this respect.
As a timely example, I'm very curious why this post of mine from yesterday got scored down as "Flamebait." It seems that some people around here are more interested in sticking their fingers in their ears than in discussing current computing events. I wasn't claiming that NT is descended from the gods and that Linux sucks, but pointing out why a certain Microsoft purchase could turn out to be a good decision. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
I just finished reading all the comments to Dvorak's article on ZDNet.
It all profiled very closely to the typical stereotype of Linux users as a bunch of angry hornets when anybody they perceive as hostile gets too close to the Linux hive.
It's really sad, because it makes it look like Linux is the haven for a bunch of nuts.
It's a good thing the general public don't read columns like that one. Still, as Linux becomes more and more mainstream I figure the comedians will pick up on it. I can't wait for the "swarm of Linux zealots" skits to appear on Saturday Night Live.
That depends very much on your definition of ``runs on Alpha.''
FreeBSD and NetBSD run on almost all Alphas, but not on those which use ARC to boot. See my previous comment for more information.
Here's a free clue-pon for you, my ignorant Linux advocate.. it's well-known that the backend is driven by Solaris running on a Starfire system. The website is nothing compared to the huge database that backs the website. Research before you open your cakehole again.
Some like ais.net linked to from mo.net uses BSDI. Read the MOTD.
Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. Dvorak is a moron. And I don't even need to read his latest article to know that he has it ass-backwards.
Linux is Unix. As much as Unixware or Solaris or *BSD are. True the kernel is completely rewritten from scratch, but just how much code do you think that the kernel for FreeBSD and Solaris have in common? Or Even Unixware and Solaris, both of them being SysV4 based? Not to mention all of the libraries and utilities that go together with the kernel to create a functioning system. Unix is not an operating system but an idea of what an operating system should be. All of the unix variants, including Linux, align themselves with this idea to a greater or lesser extent. To say that linux is different from Solaris is true. To say that it differs from FreeBSD it also true. But to say that it is different from Unix is like saying that Solaris is different from Unix. Neither statement is true because there is no One True Unix to compare any variant to. At best there is Posix, and linux is Posix complaint.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Your theory doesn't fit with the empirical data at all. The commercial UNIXes and NT all have much more advanced kernels than Linux, despite the supposed legions of programmers developing Linux. The same is true in many respects of the *BSDs. Consider UVM on NetBSD, for example, or soft updates on FreeBSD. Are there any equivalent innovations in Linux, or are its developers still just reimplementing work that's already been done by others (usually by BSD and/or commercial UNIX developers)?
At the end of the day, imitation is much easier than innovation. Thus far, the only thing I've seen in Linux is imitation. In sharp contrast, UNIX (research, BSD and System V) has always been, and remains, a platform for innovation.
it runs all linux binaries (including civ and the like) after you add COMPAT_LINUX to your kernel and install the linux_base package.
/etc/make.conf and change CC = /path/to/egcs and (in my experience) it works fine.
Funny, I did that and it still didn't run everything reliably. What it did run was pretty amazing, but I'm disputing the word "everything" here.
it's not harder to configure than linux, it's _different_. it's not harder to customize than linux, it's _different_.
For me, maybe I'm weird, it was harder. Period. I'm not lying, I'm an honest guy. It really, truly was harder. Especially kernel configuration, even with a FreeBSD guru hanging over my shoulder.
i've never found it to be less reliable than linux, i'm not sure where you got that from.
As I said in my post... *I got that from USING it.* For weeks. When I said I tried FreeBSD, I didn't mean I installed it, booted it, and said "I'm a mindless Linux freak. I'm going to reboot now." I mean I tried it.
X works better for me on FreeBSD than it did on linux. KDE works better for me on FreeBSD than it did on linux.
Emphasis added by me
That's great it works better for you, but that wasn't my experience. It was slower, and actually locked up and crashed several times. Granted, the whole system didn't crash. I could telnet in, kill X, and continue as if nothing had happened. But it shouldn't have crashed to begin with.
kde 1.1.2 and x 3.3.5 are in ports, and i can compile and install them with my eyes closed.
This is a recent addition. They were not there when last I tried FreeBSD (when 3.2 had been out for a short while).
you did not compile and/or install your new kernel correctly.
To be blunt, you are wrong. I did. I had the help of someone who only uses FreeBSD, who has since version 1.something. He didn't understand the problem. This was with version 3.1. Following the same procedure with 3.2 resulted in perfect success. So, musta been a bug they fixed. But speaking about the kernel, it's really tough to configure. I can do it, no problem, but it takes too long. Yes, I can tell you are the kind of person who believes vi is the only tool you ever need, and I can see that, I can do that, but it's a waste of my time.
FreeBSD 4.0 is in development with egcs 2.95.1, the developers #1 priority is to stability, not bleeding-edge software.
First, it isn't egcs anymore. As of version 2.95, it's the official gcc. And OK, fine, stability not bleeding-edge software. What about gcc 2.8? Come on! There are important compiler features not supported at all by the default FreeBSD!
You can install egcs 2.95.1 from ports and then edit
Except, as I said, it isn't egcs. It's gcc. And what about pgcc? Maybe that's why FreeBSD was so much slower on my Celeron than Linux, because I've recompiled everything on my Linux box with pgcc? I have a suscpicion it was pgcc that broke the FreeBSD things, but it doesn't break anything under my install of Linux (SuSE 6.1). I put emphasis there, because other people may tell other tales.
so for all your real, actually experienced reasons, you're wrong.
Except... I'm not wrong. I experienced this stuff, you know. Are you saying I was delusioned? Perhaps I was hallucinating? Come on, how can I be wrong, when all I'm doing is recounting my experience? It happened to me, not to you, and I don't appreciate you passing judgement on it. What you're saying is that my opinion isn't valid. That's no way to communicate with someone. I was simply saying what my experience was, and why I made the choices I did. You have provided no evidence to the contrary... for me. You say it's not harder, it's different. Well, gee, I found it's differentness to be more difficult. And now I'll let you in on a little secret: I started out on FreeBSD. I used FreeBSD exclusively (I don't play games) for a year. Then I tried Linux. I liked it better. And if you tell me I don't have the right to choose what I like, then... well, it's not appropriate for a public forum.
Thanks,
Robert Thompson
> syslogd has problems keeping up with fetchmail/qmail, but otherwise it does it's job extremely well (firewall/ipmasq)
/etc/syslog.conf:)
Turn off fsyncs for your mail logs. (in
mail.* -/var/log/maillog
(notice the dash before the filename)
and -HUP syslogd
That'll keep the cpu load down a bit (especially for a busy site, but I don't think you'd be using a 386 if it was that busy, but it'll still help). If the power dies, you'll lose the last few seconds (what is the default fsync of dirty memory, 5 seconds?)
Or, you could use cyclog (It might be part of daemontools, I don't remember). I don't; I don't care for having to dig through the multiple files, and I pay enough attention to rotate logs when I feel that I need to.
Anyways, hope this helps
.Shawn
Flaming anti-Linux people by calling them commies? Geeeeesh.
I don't think mph was trying to suggest anything
by the George Orwell comment, more than the
literal meaning..
Adrian
So he's right (as far as he goes).
I find it interesting that he says that Linux doesn't fit in as the corporate workhorse and gives an example that clearly isn't corporate. What's more odd, he praises Linux with Apache, which is a corporate function. Like most of his articles, they are not very well thought out. In this case, he doesn't even make sense. Using his logic I can say things like, "I can't use Linux in my car because planes fly." See! It's obvious!
He oughta try Windows 2000 beta, it's a real ox on a P-III 450...
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
Doesn't newbrunswick.nj.us.undernet.org (which as a high-load server on a very popular irc network) run Linux?
I am really tired of seeing these comments by people who DO NOT KNOW WHAT OPEN SOURCE means.
"Oh gee, I can read the source" does NOT mean open: http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
tcboo
I use Linux on my 486 SX 25 laptop and on my K6, and will soon use it on my Athlon.
Low end, high end, anything in between. Just because it doesn't do 420000 CPU SMP quite right in the current stable release does not mean that
Linux is only good on the absolute low-end of things. It just happens not to be bad at it.
First off, whats with his using IRC as a basis for anything? Secondly, I know for a fact that there are many irc servers running in linux. PFNet(www.pfnet.org.. plug! plug!)'s servers all run on linux systems. I just think this guy wants somthing to hurt linux with, and he'll even make crap up to do so. But sure, linux isn't perfect for everything. But its perfect for alot of things. And its Free. So there. Nyahh.
Your mouse has moved. Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? [ OK ]
Here's a sampler of Dvorak predictions:
- OS2 will take over the OS market
- Apple is dead (more than once)
- Thin clients will take over business computer
- P6 won't carry the Pentium moniker
- on-chip X86 emulation on SPARCs and ALPHAs
- The days of the beige computer are ending
The guy is a rumor monger and has a penchant for stating the obvious as if it ought to be news to you.
That said, we should take Dvorak's predictions with a truck-load of salt, BUT, Linux advocates would do well to take his observations seriously- Linux support *does* need to get better, as does high-end performance
Just buy a really nice one. My Acer79g cost me $370 for just 17inces, but man, it was *so* worth it :) (120mhz refresh at 1024x768 :)
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
As an aside, I notice that Dvorak likes to accuse Linux advocates of being groudlessly optimistic. I in turn find him to be groundlessly pessimistic. Linux might not be the answer to every possible need, but it's more likely to achieve that end than any piece of bloatware that microsoft is likely to put out.
I am one of those Linux guys who complains that they can't keep their NT and Netware boxes up, but that is because I have very high expectations. I expect fatal reproducible TCP/IP bugs to be fixed before the 5th service pack. Admittedly both can work reasonably well in particular environments.
If IRC is proven on BSD why would you bother using Linux - they cost the same. If Oracle runs well on Linux why would you shift to NT? If NT or Netware are not suited to a particular task don't you owe it to yourself and your company to investigate the alternative.
So is Linux overhyped? In my experience, no. It has done everything I have asked of it and has proven very stable for a number of critial business applications. I would add that BSD is no lesser system and that most commercial Unix are very good as well.
The most overhyped systems come from Utah and Seattle - they work well in particular niches but their marketing people continue to push their use in areas they may not be capable of handling as well as Unix-like alternatives.
no, none.
#ifdef
according to rumor, the qwerty keyboard we all know was created long ago with the old mechanical typewriters, because if the keys were pressed too fast, the hammers would all get stuck, slowing you down. thus, the qwerty has key placement to effectively slow your keypress rate: common letters like e, r, and t are away from the home row, which instead is home to that most popular of letters, 'j.' the dvorak keyboard was developed later, when advances in typewriter technology helped prevent this.
in the 1930's, the u.s. navy was deciding on which keyboard they would use for their typewriters, and true to form, took the least effective one, which appearantly is why we still use qwerty today.
#endif
-- the opinions stated above aren't those of my employer. in fact, they're probably not even my own. you know what, ju
Something I've observed is that some of the "big time networking guru's" that Dvorak alludes to have been around too long! That is, they've been around so long that the first time they tried Linux is WAS a buggy system that couldn't stand up under high loads.
Many of them promptly went to *BSD for the market segment that Linux is targeted at. Also, I've got to say that BSD does seem to be preferred for MUD's, which are from a programming perspective very similar to IRC.
However, this doesn't really validate Dvorak's conclusion that Linux will not be able to compete in the server market. (I've been reading his stuff for ten years and still haven't seen him be right). IRC is a very specialized application that you don't see much of in the "real world".
I do think that Dvorak is right about Linux's big area of growth being the client -- there are just more of them out there. However, I think he's missing the boat calling for the low end client: until something is done about netscape and staroffice being pigs Linux doesn't run as well on low power machines as does windows '95.
The real need I see for Linux is more tightly focused distributions. I don't think every distro should try to be both a client and a server. This would result in much cleaner installs for both servers and much faster, more robust clients.
-- Slashdot sucks.
I'm somewhat curious as to where all this "Linux hype" is coming from. I'm certainly not creating any. I use it myself, but I hardly ever hype it. I don't reckon I've ever claimed it will ever do anything it won't. Well, Ok, I did claim that that using Debian will make your penis grow, on average, 5 inches (Which is hard on the few women using Linux) but there's still no scientific proof to show it won't...
But I digress. Anyway, this hype, yeah... Who's creating that? The press. And then some other press gets all up in arms about the hype. Some of them might even do some research. If they would all just shut the hell up we'd all be better off, I think. Let us enjoy our greatly lengthened penii in peace, eh?
Anyway, while I'm on, let me dispute the use of IA32 in any of the applications Dvorak's going in about. You can't put a damn Yugo engine in a Ferrari and expect it to perform. IA32 represents a set of toys, that is all. From the first 80386 (Anything earlier were REALLY toys) to present day Xeons, the big iron will still put the beat-down on them in an embarassing fashion. And the big iron tends to run UNIX (Or something esoteric like OS/400 or VM/CMS.) All along, the trade press has been trying to convince us that the next intel chip would deliver "Mainframe performance on your desktop." Well guess what, that's just bullshit. Todays PCs are still just toys, even compared to the mainframes I was working on a decade ago in college.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Wow, a writer says some unflattering stuff about Linux, and half of the comments to his article pertain to how stupid said writer is. I am totally shocked and suprised...just kidding. Reading this was a deja vu experience, back to benchmark flap from earlier this year. There is a grain of truth in Dvorak's words. If we can all be big boys and answer his criticisms like adults-- with action to improve the deficiencies he points out-- then we will all benefit from this.
heh. so what you're saying is that linux development exists mainly to tick him off? that sounds so satisfying...
-- the opinions stated above aren't those of my employer. in fact, they're probably not even my own. you know what, ju
Um... your paraphrasing of George Orwell cannot be construed as a favorable comment, considering the context in which the original was delivered. Orwell used it to illustrate senseless prejudice; if that's what you're aiming for, then fine. If it's not, I suggest you find someone whose writings you actually understand before quoting them.
Hmmm.... BeOS apps are growing. But there still doesn't seem to be enough. From memory, the other articles I've read by John Devorak it would appear he is chump that likes to get headlines, not neccessarily with the facts. I can't see how using one free OS over another free OS affects the price of a machine. No matter how little the machine costs despite the fact FreeBSD still doesn't support alot of hardware.
Many like to blame Microsoft's dominance for the death of competition
and innovation, but more likely, business simply pooped out.
2 lines Above = LOAD OF ASS
- no room for innovation?
- How about voiced based interfaces.
- True integrated with telephone and video systems for transmission of information.
- Multimedia/ Video/ Sound on demand - ie something like not having to go down to the video store.
- 3 dimensional visualization systems.
Computers
can be used to automate only so many things. Once word processors,
database managers, and spreadsheets were invented and perfected, what
else was there?
MORE CRAP - Perfected - I think not.
- How about the integration of a decent vector graphics package into the word processor.
- Multi lingual translations
- Proper export of documents to XML/ HTML/ XSL
- Death of the paper clip.
- Databases perfected - How about XML based databases, object databases, databases that can handle decent amount of binary/ media data properly.
- Voice to text systems.
Just games. The modem-equipped machine was good for
remote access; then the Web was invented, and now there is nothing
left to conquer. For at least a decade, the only thing that's been
going on is the debugging of old code. Without the Net, the computer
business would have been in the toilet years ago.
- The web conquored - I doubt it
- Bandwidth still opening up making more options available.
- Distributed processing and computing still a young field with huge potential.
- Personalisation systems still young.
- Without the Net, the computer
business would have been in the toilet years ago ?
Obviously has been studying the books of that guy that said there was a world market for perhaps 10 computers at the maximum.
One of my networking gurus said that he has never seen any
Linux system on the IRC-probably the roughest networking environment
on earth-hold up to the strain. In this instance, we're talking about
the three major IRC networks: DALNet, Efnet, and Undernet.
His networking guru must be a spaz. Looking through the list here were some of the ones using Linux. There seems to be a spread of FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris boxes running the Undernet. Through the no of FreeBSD seems to be a bit higher than Linux, and probably a bit lower than the solaris usage. (Haven't looked through that many entries)
Undernet entries can be found here:
http://www.routing-com.undernet.org/
- improve.net
- vuurwerk.nl.2
- ihug.co.nz - using their old Quake server
As for the IRC creating the greatest load. Given the IHUG server is the old Quake server I would expect Quake to provide a bigger load. Though it is a slightly different kind of processing.
- Though I will admin these are probably not the IRC servers under the most stress.It looks like Linux is quite capable of handling quite of bit of IRC though.
FreeBSD maybe stable and handle load quite nicely, however it still has a lack of developers, and hardware support. Though it has got huge potential (I seem to remember pretty much the same thing being said about Linux about a year or two ago).
But my god.... there was so much crap in that article. That guy must write his articles by copying and pasting from IRC conversations all day.
In summary John is a schnock.... and FreeBSD is cool but articles like these aren't going to help much.
Dude. I run a fine dual celeron box. But when you get up to sixteen plus prcessors, there are better options currently. note the currently part.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
Can I rebutt it? Heck yeah I can! I have been via email for the last couple of days. Here in town, FDT sponsors THREE IRC servers using nothing but linux. irc.gymnet.com, irc.aohell.org, and irc.seminole.net.
:)
I truly resent his implications. IRC runs best on linux. PERIOD.
Plus, his assertion about linux on low-end AMD's is insane. AMD K6's are notorious for being poor choices for linux, as for SOME reason they die after two years or so under the strain.
Linux is a real man's OS, and needs to be treated as such.
I use to have TONS of respect for Dvorak. I waited monthly for the "Word of John". Never again.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Wow, the rabid Linux advocates are coming out of the woodwork today. FreeBSD doesn't run on the Alpha? Sorry, it sure does. Has for several versions now, actually. Get your facts straight before you post and look like an utter fool.
IIRC, some of the old DALNet servers were Linux when it was just a feldgling offshoot that was considered a joke by the Undernet/EFNet crowd. It's been a real long time since I gave a care about IRC archetecture though, so I could be wrong.
The fact that IRC is such a ridiculous hog is becasue the IRC protocol was really never intended for tens of thousands of users and thousands of channels. AFAIK they still require every server to know about what every user is doing. That in itself is sort of ridiculous for a system that is supposed to provide global chat, but you'll find no crowd, ANYWHERE, more unruly than the IRC folks when it comes to change.
-Rich
It looked to me like he was talking about eBay's *BACKEND*, not the front end. and he never did mention NT, not once. as far as I know, nither NT nor Linux could handle that much hardware, under those kinds of loads..
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Dvorak:There are numerous GUI shells for the thing, and there's no reason the Linux community can't standardize one and stick with it (except that there seems to be a rule against even imagining such a concept as agreement).
/usr/local/bin, will be in the path of 100% of users makes it a hell of a lot easier. But at the same time, choice between which program to use makes Linux stand out.
This is one of Linux most valuable assets. If you don't like a program, go searching, generally someone else will have written another one that might suit your purpose. If we look at window managers (or GUI shells as Dvorak likes to put it), there are so many that if one doesn't suit you, look for another. If I want to impress someone with Linux, start up enlightenment and show them a flashy window manager. If I want to do work, then I switch to AfterStep. Nobody is forcing me to use one particular window manager. By standardizing this aren't we taking away people's choice. Granted, there are some situations where there are places where standards are needed, for example directory layout, where if you switch distributions these will be in a standard place, and those distributing software will know that hey, if in my make install I know that
Anyone remember the Novell Netware screensaver? It graphically indicated system usage at a glance. Someone should write a similar one for Un*x boxen.
The requirements would be:
"Yeah well
"The fact is, Linux has yet to prove itself at the top of the food chain, and until it can run eBay, for example, it will remain the "in-between" OS."
Umm, the last time I checked, eBay didn't stay up all that much. Maybe they should try linux.
This was in 1998, I believe.
I'm a linux newbie but have worked with both cli and guis...that being said, I must say that I have had frustrating sessions within Redhat 6.0/Gnome that resulted in instability of X. I have had numerous sessions of attempts to configure basic networking settings where the linuxconf window doesn't close (although it will respond to a kill command as long as I've had the foresight to open an xconsole beforehand). I've used RH6.0/Gnome on a PC and a Mac (using Linux PPC) and the simplest configuration settings within the GUI itself do not seem to get transfered to the config files correctly. However, if you open an xterm and edit the files in vi, voila! The configuration works fine...
The bottom line here is that at least RH/Gnome (the GUI)is not ready for Joe linuxuser at this point, while the os itself seems fine underneath it all. It's going to take a while before the GUI really becomes as reliable as a cli AFAIC...
"...the effect of which is like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon wrapped around a large gold brick."
Nope, it was coyote-san, but since I just started at a new site I forgot to bring my password (and any tickler mail would be lost in the debian and kernel traffic without procmail...)
I think that Mr. Dvorak has an excellent point. In many cases, Linux cannot handle the huge workloads, but does that mean that it won't ever be able to? No, absolutely not. Linux development will continue to grow and emerge, so as far as the non-server argument, I think he may be wrong. Where he is right is in the idea that companies think they can't directly attack Linux because of all of the nuts out there that would freak out if someone said something bad about the holy OS. Hopefully, Linux users and Windows users, along with the more powerful UNIX variants will form a nice cohabitation that they all benefit from. But then again, that's just a dream, right? Where windows children and linux children play together....
Actually this should read "... in the same way we talk about everything non-Linux". Just look at the slashdot comments for example, the Linux users slam things non-Linux (including *BSD), and the *BSD users slam things non-*BSD (including Linux). I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, this is just what I have observed.
As far as Linux not making a good IRC server, there is a reason. A few years ago, Linux wasn't as mature as it is now (or as mature as other nameless unix-like OSes) and therefore was declared that it wasn't cut out to make a good IRC server that could handle lots of load. Most people took this opportunity to use a different OS as their IRC server, which has obviously worked for them.
If they are satisfied with what they have, why should they change? Why should you or anybody want to force Linux on them? Sure Linux is probably a lot better at being an IRC server than it used to, but do you really believe that it is leaps and bounds better than any other unix-like OS being used today to justify people pushing for the switch?
-B
The DalNet Server application has this to say about Linux:
The question is... how long has this statement been in there... and is it still true?
The reason people say "but NT doesn't do it either" is because Dvorak implied that because Linux isn't perfect, NT must be... if Dvorak had praised BSD instead, then people wouldn't be so upset. I have no problem with Linux criticism but it must be done fairly.
Gee, I thought Slashdot was "News for Nerds, Stuff that matters", not "News for rabid Linux cheerleaders".
RealNetworks is currently not doing advanced development for the RealServer (streaming audio/video/flash) in BSD. The new betas are in Linux, and some personal contacts I have at Real say that much of their server operations are Linux based.
I think there is something to be said about BSD for stable and simple stuff, but now and especially in the future, Linux will be where the bleeding-edge apps are developed. Moreover, the Kernel will keep getting better and better and better because it is open source and people can experiment and make it better.
This statistic is misleading because all the IRC servers have been up for many years, and their owners have no incentive to change to new hardware as long as what they're using works. (Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) What Dvorak doesn't say is exactly how many people have actually TRIED to run an IRC server on Linux!!!
Is there a place to purtchess dvorak keyboards? Seems the only other alternative is to rip the keys off one and rearrange them and put super glue on them to get them to stick.
Here is a perfect place to start shopping for dvorak keyboards, from the cheap to the heavy duty spring click keyboards. Get one with a built in stick pointer too!
heh heh heh...this made me laugh!
Linux, Windows, Mac, etc. Nobody cares what they are using as long as they are getting work done easily. Of course techies would rather customize and tweak every little thing possible, but 99% of the people just want to get things done! Just make Linux as simple as possible and as easy to transition to as possible and it could have a chance. That was always MS's strength. It gives the people what they asked for more than the competition at a price they were willing to pay. And no Linux is not even close to free nor are any of its apps when you consider the cost of training, support, etc. What is needed now is clean UI that is consistant on all computers and the easiest apps in the world--otherwise Dvorak is right, you have little chance in your niche market.
Yes, it's true, the CVS server (coder-com.undernet.org) runs Linux, the 'head coder' runs linux on his machines *.wolfspirit.org, the *old* head coder, Run, ran linux on all of his PPro machines, and yes, sadly at one point we ported ircu to WinNT just to see if it would work.. it didnt very well =P
Dvorak can go blow a goat for all I care =P
Just because you disagree doesn't make it offtopic or flamebait.
The company is called akamai and according to an article in wired, they serve content for ESPN, Paramount, and Apple amongst others. Sorry about not including the link before, but I could have sworn it was a slashdot post instead of being in Wired.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
There wouldn't BE a slashdot effect if it was easy to handle.
That said, I don't believe that Linux is the solution to every problem: I'm setting up a gateway for a home network and you'd better believe I'm putting NetBSD on it... I think that there is a great need for a good article summing up the pro's and con's of Linux vs. other *nixes, BeOS, even the reviled NT. This, unfortunately, was not that article!
I run a fine dual celeron box. But when you get up to sixteen plus prcessors, there are better options currently.
The relevant issues are far more hardware than anything else. Specifically how do you connect the bits together.
With a shared memory architecture the limits are to do with bus access, granulatity of interleaved memory access and cache consistancy.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
As much as I love and worship John Dvorak (my VERY first pc book was "Dvorak's Guide to Telecommunications" [side note: in 1986, this books said ISDN was about to become the wonderful digital phone standard...]), he has no connection to the Dvorak keyboard. That was designed by Dr. (something) Dvorak, who came up with the layout long before our Dvorak was ever born (as in pre-1900). :)
-Chris
"Why is Linux not used for X, when Y uses Linux for Z"?
That kinda argument completely ignores the fact that X may be completely different than Z.
Incidentally, the current crop of opers may be mostly newbies, but the Real Old crowd have been around for quite a long time, and they've know precisely how and why the *BSD and Linux TCP stacks suck.
It's also the devil you know vs the devil you don't, too.
the inadequate-support explanation creeps in for no other reason than to keep the lunatic fringe of the Linux movement from clogging the e-mail system with complaints.
Very very true. I've been flamed countless times for saying I like Windows more than Linux. You say anything bad about Linux, no matter the basis of it (be it flame or actually a good point), people will flame you. Maybe not every Linux user, but the fringe radicals spoil it for everyone. As Dvorak says, "Just hating Microsoft is not a good enough reason to promote Linux above everything else."
Unix started off as a project to get a desktop unix implementation because Minix just didn't work for Linux. Desktops are notoriously single user, yet unix is multiuser, this means using Linux as a server is somethat CAN be done but probably CANT be done in a very large scale (Hotmail running on linux most likely wouldn't work without a complete kernel rewrite). The BSDs are based off, you guessed it, the actual BSD version of unix which was based off the original code that popped out of Bell Labs. FreeBSD in particular has an advantage over linux in the speed/stability area because of this. Linux is damn fast and damn stable but you'll be damned if you can use it on a 4 processor box without frustration. Something else FreeBSD has over linux is that it's maintained by a single relatively small group of people, whereas linux is maintained by oodles of noodles of people. Even though all kernel changes are overseen by Linus, just about everything else it up for grabs. This is just my opinion though, I don't care if you don't agree with me.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Alright, if I can be called an ignorant Linux advocate, and told not to open my cakehole again, maybe you should have checked out how it was moderated... to: FUNNY. It was a joke. Linux can't scale worth a damn to much more than 2 processors (people say four, but I still think that it only does two good, send me a quad Xeon box and I might change my mind) It was meant to make people laugh, and obviously, some moderators thought it was, but someone like you couldn't read, and take a joke, and just _had_ to tell me I'm wrong.
I wish just one claim in that entire article had been backed up with more than an assertion.
"Linux can't cut it--period. Why is this never mentioned by the Linux proponents who flood
the critics with e-mail anytime anyone says
anything to disparage the OS?" - Maybe because they'd feel compelled to back up such a claim?
"The modem-equipped machine was good for
remote access; then the Web was invented, and
now there is nothing left to conquer. For at least
a decade, the only thing that's been going on is
the debugging of old code. Without the Net, the
computer business would have been in the toilet
years ago." - Mmm. Nothing like the taste of speculative fiction. I mean, this might be a good point - but why should I even listen to it?
"On a $199 machine, the OS can't cost more
than a few bucks." - I found something resembling a fact! Do I win a prize?
He claims that Linux can't handle the strain of running a truly intensive application, and offers not an example of Linux having _failed_, but of two applications, each with a handful of options, and the fact that none of those options is Unix. Obviously, PSOS is the only viable embedded OS because _every_ intelligent battery plant manager in the Telecommunications industry relies on PSOS! (Not that there's more than three intelligent battery plant managers available...)
-=Best Viewed Using [INLINE]=-
(Percent of totals servers, %change from previous survey) Sorry about the formatting. Check out The Internet Operating System Counter for yourself. (Too bad there isn't a more recent survey - the trend would be interesting indeed.
Hmm, now Dvorak finally concluded by allowing that Linux is likely to be a killer on the low end, so, hmm, I don't really see where he's coming from. He certainly comes across as pretty clueless this time.
Life's a bitch but somebody's gotta do it.
netscape 5 hopefully will be slim. staroffice
is rather hopeless, though. KOffice may be better,but it is still too early to say.
Grunt. Oink, oink.
Although he didn't mention it, a lot of those same people who have passed up Linux have turned to the BSDs - I don't need to go on out Hotmail, Yahoo, etc. in a Slashdot forum. I know why they do this - faster TCP/IP, supposedly more stable, a bit more secure, etcetera - but what I'm curious is what are the BSD folks doing that the Linux aren't? Aside from some minor changes in the development process (e.g. the twelve person committee), license, etc., they're both Open Source Unix implementations. Certainly it isn't by just random chance that these speed and stability refinements made it into the *BSD kernels. What has happened to make the BSD distros the OS of choice for the really massive sites? Who/what is pushing BSD in that direction, and why isn't Linux being pushed in that direction? Just a different philosophy in their respective niches? e.g. does Linus prefers a more versatile OS to a more robust, but more stable, one?
On that note, wouldn't it be smart to at least fork a kernel that is dedicated only to high-availability applications?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Yes, I currently have a HUGE itch to start a GPL MRP/ERP system, but have the coding skills of an AOL user :)
Dvorak is in the business of generating hits for their website. He's infamous for creating flame bait. See the stuff from a few weeks ago relating to his comments about the Ibook (calling it girlie...)
I could choose to dispute his claims concerning
IRC, others have done that already. Just look at the style of the article -it's completely incoherent. First - Linux can't be good because it doesn't run IRC, then he babbles about no standard choice for X environments (how that relates to IRC I haven't a clue), etc. It's just a strung-together bunch of inuendo and half-truths with no significant research behind it.
Just ignore him - we've all got more productive things to be doing - like writting useful free code!
Have you compiled your kernel today??
Although he never mentions it this article is really just another Windows NT vs Linux piece. Why? For a start any computer magazine that doesn't have either "Linux" or "Mac" in the title is a Microsoft Windows magazine. Secondly PC Magazine isn't going to offend their market (ie Windows users) by slagging off Microsoft. Nope, they're going to pat their readers on the back by letting them know what a great choice of OS they made. Lastly (and this is where NT comes into the picture) the article mentions eBay specifically. And guess what eBay is using? Yep, Microsoft IIS. Strange that hotmail wasn't mentioned though I'm sure it would get more hits than eBay.
The reason Linux used to not be widely used is that you used to have to hack and patch the daemon in. This really isn't the case anymore, though inertia, more than anything else has kept the big guys away from it.
I know at least a dozen smaller servers (my own included) that use Linux and run an IRC Daemon, along with services. The only service interruptions we've had has been power problems at the provider.
Far more stable than NT and that Conference Room garbage (I know for a fact, because I used CR as an IRC server before switching to Linux....haven't looked back yet).
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Dvorak hit the mark pretty well with his article. If it seems like he's baiting linux users, you're right. If you act suprised ytou need to kick yourself. Dvorak isn't a Microsoft agent as many people claim, and it's not FUD about linux, it's real world observations. You can't go around touting your opinions like they're fact. This reply is opinion (hence I think...) and I don't expect it to be taken factually. Linux is a very stable and well designed system and works great in the medium server class but because it was designed for PCs (thats Personal Computers) from the beginning trying to patch it onto a huge server probably is going to be alot harder than using something like a BSD. On the otherhand using FreeBSD as your desktop is a bit of a waste of computing power since Unix was originally designed for very large computers, BSD being able to work on such large computers. FreeBSD had the advantage of high-end knowlege but it also had the knowlege to be able to get it down to a desktop. Linux has had to start from the small PC and work it's way up to the huge high end servers. I highly doubt the Capt. Kernel Torvalds will ever try to get it up to the level of Solaris or AIX, at least not with Linux itself. Don't badmouth Dvorak because he hit a nerve, thats what he's paid to do.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
Whoever says SMP is not acceptable on Linux is simply wrong. I have been running a dual CPU system since 1997 (2.0.x) and it was as reliable as a BRICK. My current system is a dual P3 with a Raid controller. The hot swappable feature comes from the controller, not the OS!
If linux is no good on high-end servers as Dvorak states, then why has SGI elected to use a modified version of Redhat 6.0 as the new OS for it's servers? (http://www.sgi.com/software/linux/index.html)
While I am somewhat regretful that they are not carrying IRIX on to their new Intel based systems, I am glad that they have chosen to embrace linux over a Microsoft product.
Sure, other OSs (such as Solaris and FreeBSD) seem to be a bit more prevelant -- but I wouldn't say the reason is "Linux can't handle it".
Interestingly, while checking out the article on PC Mag's website, I came across a "Redhat vs. NT" test that shows NT leveling off well before Red Hat (both OS's were not tuned in this test). Guess someone forgot to pass those results along to John.
The article smells a bit fishy to me, but everyone's entitled to an opinion I suppose.
There is actually a very good reason that Linux has not traditionally been used on IRC servers. However, it is possible the reason is outdated.
;-)
The reason has to do with IRC servers needing one file descriptor for every user connecting to the server (along with a few others for miscellaneous purposes). Up until the 2.2.x kernel, Linux required extensive patching to handle more than 256 fd's per process. Not only that, but these patches were not well tested, nor were they great patches. While they allowed for additional file descriptors, they opened up numerous problems in that fact that the rest of the kernel wasn't ready to handle that many, especially not efficently.
I've followed and been involved with DALnet since late '95, and that's the reason there have been few (Note, 'few'. There have been some.) Linux IRC servers. Under low load (Read: When using a number of file descriptors that doesn't require the kernel to be patched and hacked) it's worked just fine. Under heavier load, other OS's (specifically FreeBSD, though NetBSD has occasionally made a strong showing as well) has been the OS of choice, simply because it has handled the file descriptor problem (along with a few other minor things) better than Linux.
Personally, I'd be very interested in seeing some testing done with the new 2.2.x kernel series. I'd have to guess it would manage *much* better, as I believe most of the patches to increase the number of file descriptors has been integrated and tested and fixed, so it's working properly.
To recap, running an IRC server with greater than 256 users is a Bad Idea, if you are using Linux and running a kernel prior to 2.2.x. Running an IRC server with up to around 1k users should be pretty good to go with a 2.2.x kernel. Above that, I don't feel qualified to say, as I've not tested it myself, yet.
If anyone has done any real testing with ircd on Linux 2.2.x kernels, I'd be very interested in hearing the results.
Topher
If I saw this article written as a comment, it would have been moderated down as flame bait.
Enough said.
Well there's a reason for his either/or take on subjects - he's an editorialist. His articles are supposed to incite emotion/response in people. It's not a "just the facts, m'aam" column, and it's not supposed to be either. Do you think that Dvorak really believes everything that he writes? I realized awhile ago that most of the time his predictions aren't right. I still like his column in PC Magazine though, because it makes me think about topics from a different perspective. Even if I know they're incorrect, it still provokes a little pondering on my part.
I really shouldn't continue to drag this further offtopic but hey :) While it is true that the studies were conducted by none other than mr. dvorak, I don't think the fact that they are questionable is quite the same as that they should be dismissed out of hand. Actually the layout has never been subjected to a real widescale test; based on the recomendations of dvorak the navy intended to buy 500 (or was it 5000?) dvorak typewriters, but for budget reasons they were never actually bought and put into use. I find when I type qwerty my hands tend to fly across the keyboard more. This is both a good thing and bad thing. It is a good thing since you have more of a tendency to have your hands splayed out everywhere across the keyboard and so hitting several keys in a row with one hand is easy. On the other hand, attempting to have good touch-typing hand position is impossible, to type quickly you pretty much have to break those rules and so you place more stresses on the wrists. With dvorak you simply move your hands much less. I will say this from considerable experience. For example, to type "considerable" on qwerty you have to go off the home row for c, o, n, i, e, r, and b. Dvorak you go off the home row for c, r, b and l. Less going off the home rom mean faster and easier typing, ("typing" - go off the home row for t, y, p, i, n, is qwerty, y, p, g in dvorak). I'd say the vast majority of people who are might try dvorak and switch back do so because they are afraid of losing their qwerty skills. This is not the case, however, you won't. I can type qwerty just fine with a little realignment of my thinking...
Ebay doesn't run. It crashes 7.5 times per summer. So the NT/Solaris combo doesn't work. (Yeah, I know the config is probably badly designed, but who's going to explain that to Dvorak?). So when he asks "when Linux can run Ebay...," it's like saying "when Linux can do fusion at room temperature." It hasn't been done.
That is if Microsoft already doesn't have a patent on a process to "convert matter into energy under ambient conditions."
The artical was about linux, not free Software in general. he prased apache at the same time.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Dvorak (and all the others who make the same point) aren't trying to take away choice. Far from it. They are trying to create a standardized interface, and that's something that big businesses like to see. Different Window Managers react differently and having 5 different WMs in a given company is a training nightmare. I agree that the ability to customize our WM is great, and I'm not willing to sacrifice it, but it would be nice if most of the distributions could choose the *same* WM as the default. If the user wants to change it afterwards, fine, but for non-technical types who just want to do their work, and don't care what the hell the window looks like, it will just get left alone. On other hand, I know this will never happen - oh well :)
Well, I don't know about IRC servers, but Mr. D's column seems a bit thrown together. I mean he states:
,well not really 'cause it uses command line and, as we all know, cli is just....blah blah.
"Where Linux shines today is in medium-strain server systems. It's a near-perfect solution for the Web site on a budget. It's close to free, and when combined with the famed Apache server software, Linux can handle almost any medium-size page service chore. This is probably adequate for most uses today, but ask the true networking superstars about Linux on big systems under big loads and they all shake their heads."
and then concludes that maybe Linux will be good in the sub-whatever bargain PC market, but
Uh, so he sees Linux development going from medium strain server to $200.00 el cheapo desktops, maybe?
One would think that logical OS development would advance in the server arena, where Linux is a good viable solution for more than just a shoe-string web server - what about nntp and email servers along the same line - medium strain, rather than reteat to the bargain basement, no? I find the whole article just a bit short of well-thought-out. But, then again, IANAP (I am not a pundit).
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
Any ways, to get back on topic, I am constantly reminded of that aweful group when I hear about anti-linux ppl getting attacked for pointing out problems about Linux(Or attacking sites not using linux). This is the kind of thing that will bring any thing down to its knees--even Linux. Linux is linux only because of the people behind it. Any mistake we make, we make it for Linux; every bit of damage we cause, we cause it on to Linux.
my 2 cents.
I can't talk on the IRC issue, its been years since I've used IRC, but I seem to recall there being some sort of an issue with the networks themselves, not with the robustness of the platform. In the early days of Linux, I saw that a lot for Usenet, IRC, and other network tasks that "old school" administrators saw as being the realm of the "real" Unixes. Sometimes it'd be tough to get the feed in the first place, not to deal with it once you got it.
The eBay comment, though, I thought was an interesting one. I could say with virtually 100% certainly that you could EASILY get a Linux-based system to perform more reliably than the current system, but that's not the fault of Solaris and itsn't a Solaris vs Linux issue, its simply a network application architecture issue.
Dejanews has the right idea, boatloads of Linux systems with a good application architecture, and you'll never have any downtime.
Admitted eBay has an interesting situation in that the nature of auctions where users can have bids automagically updated means running a lot of business logic on the database server, which can really move the bottleneck to the actual server software and the stored procedures, not the OS itself. My understanding is eBay runs Oracle, and Oracle has always struck me as being a real bitch to get good redundancy on and replicated servers that can cleanly fail-over.
A site like e-bay could easily be reliably run on Linux systems using a well designed architecture though, with database servers (running Oracle on Linux) that are handling only portions of the site, and a lot of inexpensive front-end servers. Adding a tier in front of that, made up of http-accellerators, would make the system even more robust.
Salon and dejanews both show that properly done, you can do high-profile with Linux. Certainly more so than you can with NT, particularly if you don't have millions to throw at hardware.
wow, talk about microsoft paranoia. The author never once mentioned windows NT, not once. He only made vague refrences to windows on the 'low end'. to me, that means windows 95/98. The comparisons were mostly to solaris, on the high end.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
"Much of the success of Linux, by the way, might be attributed to the fact that Linux folks are busy writing software instead of hanging out on IRC.."
Sorry Bruce but that is BS. Many, many Bot's are running from linux machines.
wayout
The only people who think Linux is best for everything are the kiddies. That being said, Mr. D needs to compare products in similar marketspaces. While Linux may not be able to run the heaviest irc servers or ebay, I doubt NT will either. He also says that Linux is just fine for the most frequently occurring server situations, then says that it belongs on super-cheap hardware. Given this scalability, I can't figure out why he says it doesn't belong on the corporate desktop pentiums. The poor guy misses the point that he makes himself. While Linux might not be able to handle the biggest of the big, its scalability and value proposition still make it a superior solution for the vast majority of applications. I guess that's *almost* Total World Domination.
Hmmm. I've never once had a problem finding out which file to run. Especially with RPM files as we are talking about. It really isn't that hard. Anything installed in /usr/bin can be executed. The executable for the program is usually the name of the program.
Uhh, Linux is a kernel and a set of system utilites, folks. I'm sick of hearing stuff like "Why dosen't linux have a standard GUI environment." It's like asking why dosen't NetBSD have one. Because it's OUTSIDE THE SCOPE of the operating system.
,reverse qq;):zrekcahzlrepzrehtonaztey; );"
Now, redhat linux, for instance, can make it's "standard" and thats fine. Redhat is a distribution.
Linux's biggest problem is the users right now. They're all migrants from the windows world who don't really get the separation between "linux" and a "linux distribution." These are users of the worst sort.
- Paradox
Man of the C!!!
perl -e "print join q( ), split(q.z.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
Nope. Furthermore the number of NT admins who appear unaware of the "Boost Foreground Priority" slider seems amazingly high.
Another classic NT Server default is the setting which hides all those scary DLLs and file extensions from the explorer. Those can sure confuse system admins.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
It seems Dvorak has missed the point yet again
The fact that Linux has so many window managers is an advantage, rather than a limitation. It ensures competition, and ensures that development will continue to happen.
I think the general opinion is that Dvorak writes not out of knowledge, but out of sensationalism. Look at the reaction he's got out of us
"No silicon heaven? But where would all the calculators go?!"
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.
,but for different reasons. Where does most of the development occur on Linux? Where there is an itch. How many people have an itch to run one of the Big3 IRC servers on Linux? Now compare that to the number of people and companies that use the multitudes of smaller systems that have been scratching for years to get rid of the fiberglass necktie that is Microsoft.
Most of the coders for Linux do it in their free time on their own equipment. Most of those coders don't run superhuge servers of any type, can't afford such systems, and if they did they would most likely be happier to pay someone big bucks for a solution rather than hack it themselves. But a $199 system...aahh, now that is what I call hackable. Everyone can afford one, and go hacking on the kernel. Before long, it works better on the cheap system than anywhere else.
Is anyone suprised by this? Development on Linux will take the path of least resistance. Lack of access is a big impediment; therefore, Linux will shine more and more on cheap systems. That doesn't imply that it will shine less on large ones, though. People there still itch, they'd just rather pay someone else to scratch for them.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Well.. I'm not too sure about the article, I have run an irc server on Linux that served about 50 simultanious users. It worked fine. Of course this is really nothing compared to Dalnet, Effnet, or pretty much anything else ;)
This is the third time /. posted an article from zdnet.com that pisses us Linux users off, that I can remember. I remember one of them being so obsurd, I thought, these people are either bored or looking for some readers. Very desperate. I refuse to look at that site anymore. They have none of my respect. Ignore them. They publish lame magazines and they use Microsoft to run their webserver.
Bah!
-Oy Vey
He's one of those guys that understood his 8-bit machine, maybe inside and out, then one day stopped learning, and now insists ridiculously "I REALLY DO GROK THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY!"
At this point he is resorting to arrogance in order to cause a stir. He knows he is missing the point, but as long as he has comments and readers, he has a column.
All of this ruckus about where to position Linux in the enterprise is foolish. A commercial OS might need to identify its niche, and justify it, but a free OS can crash the party anywhere it pleases, and screw em if they can't take a joke, if it doesn't work out, the worst that happens is the admin doesn't download it again. If only 10 people still thought Linux was keen a year from now, I'll bet at least one would still be actively developing it.
It shouldn't take that long, even on a 386, unless. I booted up windows 95 OSR1 on my computer with the l1 catch diabled (it benched as fast as a 386dx40), and it only took about two minutes
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Dvorak once again reminds me of why I've never liked his articles much. He has a real "either/or" perspective on...well, everything. He mentions that Linux serves well for midrange solutions, but rather concede that that could be a good thing, he argues that Linux is flawed because it isn't always the best choice for the high-end - and therefore needs to cater to the low-end. Setting aside my own opinions on where Linux is and where it should go, I really wouldn't look at the middle-range as a bad place to be. If Linux does work well in the middle range, it's not a mark against it, as Dvorak seems to imply. Certainly, if Linux were to start targeting only the low end, giving up on the high end and dismissing the middle-end as unimportant, it would have to sacrifice a lot of its greatest strengths. And an OS that's grown _because_ it is a good midrange sollution wouldn't be improving its chances by looking for greener pastures somewhere downhill.
Naked.
I disagree with his idea that Linux will gain power in the low end desktop market, while lose in the server. I don't know much about servers, but as a desktop user, I do not feel Linux is ready for the average Joe. Especially since the only people who really buy those super cheap $200 PC's are the people who are just getting started in computers. I know some people will disagree, but I find a lot of things that shouldn't be that hard in Linux, to be hard compared to doing it in Windows. And the bash prompt will totally lose most people used to GUI's, or at least they won't like it. I just don't see Linux dominating the client market for a while.
Disclaimer: I do not hate Linux. I think it's a very good OS depending on what you to do with it. But I do not feel it is ready for mass use by Joe Average.
Maybe we should be asking how many IRC servers are running NT4 ;)
I'd be willing to bet that you'd have to wait a very long time for those results, like 10 or 20 years. by that time, the results would be completly useless.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Dvorak once again reminds me of why I've never liked his articles much. He has a real "either/or" perspective on...well, everything. He mentions that Linux serves well for midrange solutions, but rather than concede that that could be a good thing, he argues that Linux is flawed because it isn't always the best choice for the high-end - and therefore needs to cater to the low-end. Setting aside my own opinions on where Linux is and where it should go, I really wouldn't look at the middle-range as a bad place to be. If Linux does work well in the middle range, it's not a mark against it, as Dvorak seems to imply. Certainly, if Linux were to start targeting only the low end, giving up on the high end and dismissing the middle-end as unimportant, it would have to sacrifice a lot of its greatest strengths. And an OS that's grown _because_ it is a good midrange sollution wouldn't be improving its chances by looking for greener pastures somewhere downhill.
Naked.
In the same way as his so-called network guru buddies like Bob Metcalfe, Dvorak is poking a stick in the Penguin cage, because he knows how easy it is to get a rise outta some people. ZDNet needs to bump up the hit stats to justify advert rates or soemthing, so they get some hack reporter that's so behind the times, he's hosed, to generate traffic for them.
Hey, the dvorak layout is not too bad. If your hands feel like pounding rocks after ten minutes at the keyboard, its something worth pursuing.
Now Dvorak, the com^Hlumnist, is another nut off the zdnet tree.
eBay may use NT as a frontend, but relies on Solaris for its backend. The backend is much more heavily stressed. When eBay goes down, it's most often the backend that is having problems.
Dvorak will easily adapt to the same sort of industry sea-changes as the rise of Windows, fall of OS/2, and the sine-wave-like fortunes of Apple.
:)
.5b
He'll just become a stupid, yet popular, columnist in the Linux-dominated business computer world, referring to people as "the same short-sighted fools who doubted the inevitable takeover of Linux".
Probably.
Eric the
Sorry about the double-post.
Naked.
I read the Dvorak article, and some of the parts struck me as wrong. The overall impression was someone incredibly frustrated who wanted to take out his frustration on something. That's just what it seemed, by the tone and infliction of writing. Lets take a look at Dvorak's article and see what we can come up with.
Well, information provided here isn't entirely true. I know of two servers down on Undernet running Linux. That alone right there proves that Linux can "cut it". As far as the Denial of Service attacks go, bring down all nonessential services. It's the first (and very useful) step in securing a server. For an IRC server, only run the IRCd, secure shell (ssh) and maybe BIND.
Dvorak does make a valid point with the first sentence. Hating Microsoft should not be the only reason one promotes Linux. Have reasons. I personally think that my uptime is a sufficient reason (at 65 days right now), which is also closely linked to system stability. I've run NT servers before, and I'm running one now. I just got done installing one about a week ago, and besides the persistent reboots from installing software, it is doing okay so far. It did crash numerous times during installing (It hated the ATI Mach 64 card, I had to replace it). We'll see how the new one goes, the other NT box I admin I have to reboot weekly. This isn't anti-Microsoft propaganda (well, maybe it could be viewed as such) however it is the truth. But back to the paragraph, the question on support is valid and not at the same time. I personally have never had to go to a support company, but oftentimes my problems with Linux have been misconfiguration issues that I had to resolve. As far as the eBay comment goes, well, I wonder what the eBay system runs for a backend. I would bet not NT, I would bet probably SunOS or Solaris on a nice Sun box.
Okay, another point which hits and misses entirely. Yes, Linux does perform exceptionally well on lower end equipment and older equipment. The performance is much better than with Microsoft software. Does that mean we jail it there? No. It almost seems (I may be out on a limb here) that Dvorak thinks since the MS software has been around for so long and has the user base (mainly due to lack of competition) the software has gained some right to always be the only thing running on higher end (and in Dvorak's case Intel) machines. Well, unfortunately enough (for Dvorak) the AMD chips perform just as well if not better (performance depends on environment and application) than the Intel chips, and MS software has no innate right to be run on higher end machines. Software has to earn the right to run on machines, it is not written (or "born") with that right. It is not like the Royal Family of England. As the processor levels go up, so does the performance on Linux machines. Of course, the same is true on MSOS machines, but because it is true there does not make it untrue elsewhere. The next point Dvorak makes is that Linux is still UNIX - Yes, Linux is a UNIX variant. True enough. The claim that it's primarily a CLI (command line interface) is another question. True enough, most remote administration is done on a CLI through telnet or SSH. Local administration and use is up to the operator. I know of many Linux users (mainly friends newer to Linux) that live and breath in the KDE and Enlight/Gnome window managers (wm), and I know NT server administrators that spend 90% of their time in DOS boxes. Dvorak's next claim that the increased usage of CLI is because of a lack of standard or common WM was incredibly hilarious and once again false. Choice is not an evil thing. Lack of choice can be considered to be, but is not necessarily the case. Please, Mr. Dvorak, lets not eliminate choice and free will here.
The OS running on a "VIC" is not the only contributing factor to the cost. They are also running with inferior parts. A lower quality hard drive (yes it makes a difference in performance AND reliability) and a lower quality processor (example: Cyrix) can contribute to the overall cost, reliability and stability of a "VIC". The cost, reliability and stability all go down. I used to work at a Best Buy store (as a technician who backed up to the sales floor), and I can reliably say that people looking for "Bargain Basement" (our term for VICs) computers were the first time computer users wanting to get a computer and see what it is like, without investing a lot of capital. After their first one, they would start looking at the higher end machines. Occasionally they would bring their machines back within the allotted return period to pick up one of the higher end machine. The reason given, most of the time was either reliability or performance. For our Best Buy store (at the time) the higher end machines were Hewlett Packard, followed by IBM, then Compaq, Acer, and then Packard Bell/NEC. The Acer, PB/NEC, and the eMachines were considered the "Bargain Basement" of the bunch - often run between $600 and $900. Cheaper should not be considered better. On the next point, the true competitor of Linux: How is Linux truly competing with anything. From the current social context of the word "competition" when related to business or computers typically comes down to sales and profits. Last time I checked, we could still get Linux for free from sites like MetaLab.unc.edu on the net. Now I suppose if you wanted to compare user bases, then all OSes are competing with all other OSes. Every OS has its various strengths and weaknesses, which will be discusses momentarily.
However, I would like to jump back to the IRC server question for a minute. I have played with the IRC source from the Undernet and DALnet servers before, on Linux machines with kernels ranging back from 2.0.32 up to 2.2.9. I will admit that IRC server performance under Linux (at least the 2.0.xx series) was not the greatest. Also, server capacity was limited. Under the 2.0.xx series kernels, by default you could only have 256 file descriptors per process, which limited the number of incoming server connections an individual server could handle. This is limiting in server performance for the higher traffic and load servers, such as DALnet. Now, I did cruise on through the DALnet and Undernet sites, and I grabbed a bit of information to share. This first quote comes from the DALnet site.
Well, yes, under the 2.0.xx kernels, it was not the greatest of things to run the IRC daemon under Linux. Performance from identical machines running BSD was much better, and so was the reason to switch over. Now, I have not yet run with a high traffic load on a server running the 2.2.xx series kernels yet, I was going to start to play with traffic load in a few days. I know that under the 2.2.xx kernels there are 1024 file descriptors per process, and that does help with the ability to host clients. A lot.
The next quotes up are from the Undernet site:
The only things the Undernet network is looking for is a Unix based host (Linux applies) and a minimum of 1024 file descriptors per process. Now, it is possible to adjust the number of file descriptors on the 2.0.xx series of kernels, I just never went that far. I will discuss this more in a minute. I have one last quote from the Undernet site, and here it is:
It looks like Windows NT is not considered stable or reliable enough (those are the reasons given for the decline elsewhere in the site) to connect to the live network. IRC servers run very well under UNIX, but performance differs from flavor to flavor.
I have a friend who administrates the box that a higher capacity web server runs on. He has upwards of 40 hits a second, and transfers 50 Megs of HTML and images in about 10 minutes of uptime to requests all over the world. He was running Linux, back when the 2.2.0 kernel hadn't been released yet. His server's performance was well below acceptable, and Apache was having uptime problems. After anywhere between 5 minutes and 10 hours, the server would "freeze up" and not operate anymore. It would have to be restarted (Apache, not the system). He had a UNIX programmer friend (mutual) come over and heavily mod his kernel. (The friend is an accomplished Linux and BSD programmer). He upped the file descriptors per process to 1024, and performed a large number of tweaks and optimizations to the Linux kernel. The server still wasn't performing as well as it should have been. I went in and redid his apache configuration file. We went through and optimized the entire machine. We still couldn't get reliable performance from it. We ended up switching the machine over to FreeBSD, where it also runs the Apache web server. The server is now performing acceptably, and has not had an uptime (Apache, not system) problem since. For reference, the server had 256 Megs of RAM, about 6 gigs in a SCSI U2W chain, and as I recall, a 300 or 250 MHz processor.
The point of the long, rambling paragraph being that Linux is not the only answer. I am a Linux advocate, and I will promote its use wherever applicable, however, it is not the only answer. Sometimes BSD performance is better. Sometimes (but rarely, in my experience - mostly limited to people who didn't want to go a different was) NT is the answer. Sometimes Solaris on a SPARC is the answer. We have to go with what works for the situation. With the continuing Linux development, for most things, Linux works just great! Fabulous even.
But wrapping things up since I've managed to confuse myself with the direction I took with this: Some of the points Dvorak made were on base. A lot were not. However, there are always two sides to an issue, and oftentimes more then that. We should look at them all, and consider the applications for it. Just because Linux may not be the greatest at hosting an IRC server doesn't make it any less of an Operating System. Windows NT can't do it reliably either. If you want to go out, and rewrite an IRC server and make it best for Linux, go right ahead. Do so with my blessing. If you don't, that's perfectly fine as well. We can't afford to get caught up in squabbles over which UNIX derivative is the best - all UNIX is good UNIX. Boost it where we can, support it where we can, because we of the Linux community are trying to show people another way. Its not the only way, but it is another way.
-Captain Keen
--
--
4 FreeBSD servers, 2 Linux servers, and 1 NetBSD server. Plus services run on a FreeBSD server along with the website.
Beware, Nugget is watching... See?
I'm just wondering if Dvorak even writes his own columns? From what I understand, Jesse Berst doesn't even write his columns anymore -- he has a staff of columnists spewing out columns and he is just sort the editor and the column simply bears his name which explains his flip-flopping on various topics.
- Dvorak seems to dismiss Linux/Apache as a server contender because he fees it cannot currently handle super high-load jobs, and is thus only well-suited for medium instensity servers. These 'in-between' servers, as he calls them, are the workhorse of the internet and represent most of the servers out there. I don't see how he can contend that filling this niche is not a victory for Linux. He doesn't attempt to address the dizzyingly fast evolution of this OS, or admit that it very well may be handling these high-end applications in the future. I am very happy to see Linux used for all but the most demanding server tasks, which are still relegated to Unix. This is a validation of free software, not an arguement against it.
- He thinks Linux will own the desktop because MS will sooner abandon its market share than price Windows competitively for $200 machines. There is no way MS will give up this market. They will either price Windows down, or come out with a cheap version in between what are now Win98 and WinCE to be used in iToaster-type machines. Expect it to be Win98 with a few key dlls removed (much as NT workstation is NT server sans a few dlls). I expect they'd price it at $10-$20 OEM. It is absurd to argue that MS is going to roll over and give up Windows on the home desktop without more justification than Dvorak gives.
- UnderNet may not run Linux, but my web hosting service (Hurricane Electric) does. They host a lot of relatively high-traffic stuff. I haven't noticed any down time in the two years I've been using them. They let me telnet in, run custom scripts on the server, have PhP and MySQL, and charge less than $10 a month. They're also really fast. I haven't seen anyone able to provide this price/service combination on an NT or Unix system.
Dvoraks columns seem to be hit or miss, sometimes he's dead-on insightful, but others I think he goes too far to deliver a viewpoint outside the mainstream. I fear this is more a case of the latter.Seems like Big D. is killing Linux with kindness. NOT A GOOD THING (tm?).
The low end is where Linux should gravitate. By this I don't mean Pentiums running in offices. I mean on AMD chips in sub-$200 computers with small amounts of memory and $50 hard disks. Under a normal load Linux is quite remarkable.
Kinda condescending no? I agree that Linux can run nicely on very underresourced machines - but it seems to run fine and be stable on some powerhouses (e.g. 2 x 500 mhz P-III w/ 1 Gb. RAM 60+ Gb disks and so on). I'm no kernel hacker, but Linux has been great fo me in clusters and on major workstations for crunchinng numbers.
Forget the low end.
"I believe the children are our future: nasty, brutish and short."
Folks,
John C. Dvorak is notorious for making provocative statements for many years. I've been reading his columns in PC Magazine and PC Computing magazine, plus his columns on ZD News Network for years, and believe me, he stirs up controversy frequently. I think he was the one who denounced the Apple iBook--boy, did it start a riot and then some!
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
ha, we've heard THAT sentiment before. Personally, I feel that the typical Wintel box of today, the latest and greatest, is a horribly backwards machine compared with what could be and will be. Ford may have mass produced and made an affordable car, but they have evolved tremendously since then - and the typical wintel box is still at a very primitive stage, w/ much room for improvement. It may take a revolutionary discontinuity instead of a smooth progression, but it will happen.
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
It's already where Linux is trying to get.
I mean, come on. All of the *best* sites out there are architected such that it really doesn't matter what the boxes are. Most of the big sites use hardware load-balancers (big/ip, I/Pivot, LocalDirector, HydraWeb etc). They use load-balancing "front-ends" such as Dynamo. They don't "hack" things with things like RR DNS, they have the bucks to spend on what is *right* for the job, when they have the money to spend. Right now, Linux is not *right* for a transaction-heavy DB engine. (Please, no flames about MySQL or other lightweight).
Sure - they don't use Linux boxes as databases, simply because the big DB's haven't been out long enough on Linux to prove themselves. So what if they use Oracle on Solaris on the backend and use 12 load-balanced Linux boxes to serve the web-content? That's fantastic IMHO!
Would you use a Linux box to serve TCP-based NFS across 25 switched Ethernet segments to over 2000 users? No way! Would you use a big Sun or HP box? Sure.
C'mon guys - it's all about using what's right for the job! Right now, Linux is not a *perfect* fit for certain things. People want as close to perfection as possible. Dvorak was wrong in his assumption that Linux is only good for the desktop.
But - that's not to say it's perfect for *every* server situation either. When I moved a major financial website from NT in Seattle to UNIX in NYC, I bought boxes that were right for the job. Few Solaris heavyweights for the backend, and many Linux boxes for the frontend. It works perfectly.
So let's keep this all in perspective!
--
main(v, c)char**c;{for(v[c++]="Rik Tait [rik@marketxt.com]\n)";(!!c)[*c]
The purpose of a commercial magazing (PCMag) is to bring a market to advertisers. Those advertisors pay Dvorak's salary and keep him in print. I wonder what the circulation of PCMagazine has done in the last say 18 months? Is there a trend that Mr. Dvorak is trying to reverse?
Has Mr. Dvorak ever tried to run a business using Windows (NT, 31, 311, WG, 95, 98 or any version in between)? Or for that matter using Sun/Solaris? + any commercial Db product? The behavior of the machines he is payed to promote is simply unacceptable in today's hectic world. And the license fees of the software running on them is just as bad especially considering the performance and quality issue.
The article was just flamebait. He needs the attention to keep his editors happy.
Adults are obsolete children. - Dr. Seuss
idiot.
I think Dvorak is still missing the boat on what Linux and the free unixes are supposed to stand for. An alternative option versus having your choices dictated to you. I'll agree that Linux has some difficulty standing up to huge amounts of simultaneous connections, but you can't even compare the stability of a default install Linux box with a "tweaked/nudged/doctored" NT box. Look at Walnut Creek for pete's sake... Over a GB a day goes out of that place and FreeBSD has been chugging along on it for years.
As for the $199 box, don't most of those include the wonderful WinModem? Last time I checked those things weren't worth the copper on the board...
In fact, that was the whole point of his article.
IMHO, he could have been talking about any of the "free" Unix variants out there.
His whole point was that even though Linux is supported (in fact, probably has the best support out there!), it's still not ready for primetime.
Why does everyone take these articles so damn personally?
--
main(v, c)char**c;{for(v[c++]="Rik Tait [rik@marketxt.com]\n)";(!!c)[*c]
I am not very knowledgeable on IRC servers, but I believe mr. Dvorak (otherwise a very boring writer) raised a few good points. For example, the lack of standard window manager. I think both KDE and Gnome (just to name the most popular ones)look really good, but I also feel that it's a pity that all this talent isn't bundled to make 1 outstanding standard. Considering Linux as the ideal OS for ultra low cost desktop computers but less for higher-end machines: well, computer training for all employees in a company is rather expensive, so that would offset the free OS. And I notice most people are fairly happy with their standard business computer (typically NT4 + MSOffice). For most desktop users NT is also stable enough. I can imagine that many not-too-computer-savvy users don't want to change. (but there's hope, KDE and Gnome are making Linux much more accessible). I believe the real test for Linux desktop acceptance will be when (if?) Windows 2000 comes out. all the best, Tom
I can remain silent no longer. It is time that the manufacturers of internal combustion engines accept the fact that no IC engine can drive the major steamships of today. These engines are fine for emergency power on your weekend sailboat, but it takes coal, lots of coal, to turn water into steam to move the Big Ships across the Big Seas!
It's time that IC supporters recognize the fact that there are exactly two modes of transportation in the world today, million tonne displacement steam ships and single passenger motorscooters (notwithstanding the fact I just mentioned a third, pleasure watercraft), and that since they can't drive steam ships (today or any day, so say I), then they should focus on the only other market niche in existence!
(Silly? No sillier than Dvorak ranting and raving about Linux's perceived (or simply alleged) failure to perform well in certain extreme causes while ignoring the 800-pound elephant turd in his eye that is NT servers pressed into duty to replace "doesn't require a 20-MB GUI front end, so it must be bad" Unix server.)
Since SMP is not quite perfect in linux, I would have to agree with his assessment on linux for high-end servers. But let's be honest, Would you run NT for an IRC server? HELL NO. You'd use some flavor of UNIX. Unix has had several years on linux with which to get support for these sort of things, plus Unix was made for high-end servers, linux was made to be free. Give linux a few years and you'll see it pass UNIX up in scaling support. -Cyberllama (Help I've forgotton my password AND what email address I gave /.)
The Dvorak keyboard was invented by August Dvorak of University of Washington, in 1936. This particular Dvorak was a cousin of the composer Antonin Dvorak.
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
Dvorak, Microsoft shill that he tends to be at times, does have some points. The point he misses is that Linux is still an evolving system and, I do believe, scalability is an important issue for future kernel releases - unlike Windoze whose whole evolution seems to be to add more bells and whistles and sell more Microsoft applications. I know that Linux in a Beowulf configuration has racked up some impressive stats as far as heavy duty number crunching goes, but that configuration doesn't work as well when applied to more straighforward server type applications.
Can I get a Dvorak Filter that works like a Jon Katz filter?
I mean, the guy reminds of the "way-out" college professor I used to have. You know -- the one who never combed his hair and wore the same sweater every day. The guy who used to stand in front of the class and say, "Now I would like to explain my theory which violates all known laws of science and common sense, but I tell you that IT IS TRUE. You will be tested on this."
Has the guy ever been right about ANYTHING? Actually, has he ever "predicted" anything that wasn't so far in the future that no one remembered it when the time came?
Geez, I need to get a job as a technology pundit. It looks a helluva lot easier than what I do now.
What do you expect? Seems that PC Magazine gets filled with more Microsoft propaganda every issue.
sup
I completely disagree with the importance of this comment. Yes, fine, informative, great. But it's not making the valid points that a lot of other comments are making here, so I don't see why it was used as an update to the article:
Wether there is or is not a linux machine somewhere in the world running IRC is irrelevant. What would argue the case for linux in a much better way would be a list of the best points made in the slashdot responses.
This one for example...
Proving the validity of an opinion comes from a balanced discussion, not from looking up who-runs-what
Ale
While it does have a slightly bad tone to it, the article makes a few good points:
1) People gravitate to linux because it's the underdog
2) Linux is not a top notch server
3) Linux is ideal for embedded and semi-embedded computers
Linux outperforms many other systems in serving in many situations, but it's not 'quite there yet'. (I know, it will be. Real Soon Now (TM))
I think a main reason for him to write such an article is to counter all the hype surrounding Linux. It is absolutely true that there are many people and businesses out there that are applying Linux to their problems because of the hype surrounding it. Many of them are failing, perhaps because Linux isn't a good solution to their problem, partially because they aren't putting forth the effort to make it work, etc. But mostly because they are being told from every angle that Linux is the new kid on the block that fits every hole possible. It's not there yet.
-Adam
"You stay here, while we go get help..."
Where did you hear the K6 information?
I have one of the very first K6s (1 week after release) and it's been running Linux just fine since then. Am I just lucky?
If linux really can't cut it as a Efnet IRC server, where are the facts? HUB admins have not allowed someone to link a major linux server so how do they know if it can not perform?
Or if there actaully is a problem how serious (and where, it has been know in the past for some operating systems to tolerate bugs in applications...) is it in practice. Is this something like the Mindcraft situation where when a real shortcomming emerged from all the FUD it was addressed very quickly.
Well, while i wouldn't go as far as saying the
only place for Linux is a low level workstation
i can definitely agree with parts of what that article is all about.
As a kernel developer with some experience, i can
say that Linux (as a system) is a bloody mess -
it works and does it well, but too many things
are an ugly hack. It will with some investment
of time (and may be money) get better and probably
eventually become a fullstrength system that
a major bank would trust with financial data.
However right now this day seems a long way
in the future.
--Ugen
Has anyone else noticed that it is becoming more common to hear a *bsd slanted article where the author talks about Linux in the same way we talk about Windows?.
:).
Something is wrong with this.. its not how its supposed to be. We are supposed to get along with our *bsd brothers and sisters. We are not against them.. we are with them.. for the good of software everywhere
Every Free OS installed is a wonderful thing for us all. every installation of Linux at the expense of Freebsd is a BAD THING.. every Freebsd install at the expense of Linux is a BAD THING.
Picking the best OS for the job is one thing. Spreading FUD with no facts to back it up is another. If linux really can't cut it as a Efnet IRC server, where are the facts? HUB admins have not allowed someone to link a major linux server so how do they know if it can not perform?
-- You can be a geeklord too
Apparently Mr. Dvorak's article was written well before the Google announcement -- at last check, Google runs Linux and has been doing very, very well, not only in serving up search results but in indexing the Web.
:)
It's not IRC, but frankly I consider Google to be more valuable than IRC, and I'm assuming it's more profitable to its owners.
Nothing worth doing is worth doing today.
The most interesting thing is the fact that for every "failure" of Linux, these guys can't point to a solid fact of NT success. OK, they can point to benchmarks, which no one in their right mind believes anyway. They point to the marketing success of NT, but they never really trot anyone out who can say anything truly positive.
I also agree with him that talking negatively about Linux draws the ire of the community, and rightly so. People who trounce it never seem to bother to back up what they say with facts, or never seem to try to want to listen to the communtiy about what the problem is. There was a talkback where some jag-off claims that his Linux box is more unstable than NT, with 30-minute uptimes. Yet he offers nothing more than "Red Hat 6 with GNOME". He doesn't list attempted fixes, hardware (other than "basic hardware") and so on. OK, your machine is crashing: what have you done to it? Why don't any of mine crash, ever? Why don't any of my friends crash, ever? Why does our largest client want to pay us loads of money to port some things to Linux, because their biggest concern is stability? Yet you say it crashes every 15 minutes. Sounds like astroturfing to me.
We have Linuxcare now, and smaller companies doing support. What we need now is to have someone start LinuxFacts.com (or some other such name) and do things like benchmarking, stability testing, and basically serve as an "one stop open-source marketing shop". Put out a positive message thats rooted in fact, not slick ads and copy designed to get people to click on banner ads. Show these fools that only facts matter, and that its time for these old old dogs to learn new tricks.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
Keep in mind that, to the best of my knowledge, Dvorak has made his living commenting on the PC world, and probably is not a Linux User. As such he is biased. Even before I started using Linux, i would read his article in my dad's PC Mag and wonder what he was smoking on occasion.
/. last month comparing NT and Linux to the high end servers. One example I remember is about Linux not being able to hot swap drives. (am I wrong on this?), and the SMP support is still in development. I believe that the high end servers Dvorak refers to have 16+ processors, the area where Solaris and its kin rule. And then there's that whoel SGI filesystem deal we've all been raving about... Evolution happens a little bit at a time.
/. about it last month or so. They have hundreds of servers spread accross the world. Amoung thier clients are ESPN and I believe CNN. That is a major load. What to they run? Linux. Hacked to their specs, but still Linux. And old kernel rev too.
It seems to me that he thinks Linux is a finished product, a permanent freeze on the source tree. But in reality Linux is constantly evolving.
He is correct that Linux is not ready for the "big time", where Big Time is high end high SMP servers. But we know this. There was an article on
Big systems on big loads? Excuse me. There is this MIT (I forget the name) company that has a patent for a web load balancing algorithm. There was a
What about Beowulf and other clustering software? What about all the research centers running Beowulf clusters? Like NASA?
Linux often fails, simply because it isn't robust enough isn't this in contradiction to all the other beneficial press about Linux? It may not be the Honda of OS's. Buy if you tune your '69 mustang it'll purr like a kitten.
There are numerous GUI shells for the thing, and there's no reason the Linux community can't standardize one and stick with it
So? It isn't about standardization. There are so many shells because people compete against each other for the best solution. Which gives the best code. It's also about choice.
He is right about the VIC's though. Linux could be perfect for them, and as a thin client. But it could still be a powerful server. A server running the VIC's and thin clients.
This article, although incorrect on many points is good. Why? It pisses people off, who then go start developing on their own.
Sig:
Barbeque is a noun. Not a verb.
Why did you have to open an xconsole? [CTRL][ALT]1 and __wow__ a login prompt! Try XFCE (www.xfce.org) and you will be very happy.
I agree with other posters who have pointed out that Dvorak's article is long on claims and short on proof. (I love how he often defers to "them" -- his network-uber-buddies who obviously know everything.)
What would make his argument more compelling (and his article much more interesting to read) would be if he tried, for example, to set up Linux as an IRC server (or any other high-traffic service), and if he documented his experience. I can accept informed criticism, but the article comes off as Dvorak parroting someone else's digs at Linux.
It's also interesting that Dvorak doesn't seem to grok the Darwinian nature of open source projects (there seems to be a rule against even imagining such a concept as agreement [in the open source community]). Of course there isn't agreement, John...just survival/widespread adoption of the best open source software (proven over time).
And no, this isn't knee-jerk Linux "flamadvocacy", but simply a request for a more thorough investigation of the story by Mr. Dvorak...
Wherever there's a will, there's a motorway.
His stated philosophy when it comes to writing about an issue is:
If you have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
His whole bag is destructive criticism.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Didn't Rob Malda say that slashdot is now
:)
running FreeBSD awhile back? I could swear
he did.
Any BSDers care to discuss performance now?
With Linux gaining acceptance for very large scale applications (Weather supercomputer and other applications of Linux clusters to computationally intensive problems, mostly for cost reasons (commodity hardware vs. custom)), it seems that some people think that Linux is up to or can be tuned to be up to the job of handling some of the largest applications around...
Things like IRC and Oracle stability are an issue of applications interacting with the OS, and perhaps these apps need patching and tuning as much as the Linux Kernel does. Many of these issues are issues of people comparing entire systems (including applications, and system admins) without taking into account the system variables (is the application ported? was it tuned for that OS? are the system admins of the two systems being compared of comparable skill?)
Clearly Linux has its weaknesses, but when analyzing it is much more useful to do a straight comparison than the touchy-feely anecdotal kinds of comparisons that people tend to make... and to know what you're comparing. To say "Linux works poorly with IRC server software" is not to say "Linux is bad for all large scale server apps"...
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
I've been a tech for almost ten years now and I've worked on more AMD systems than you've ever laid eyes on. I've never seen any problems with the K6 dying after a while. If you have seen problems I would be much more likely to believe that you've got cheapy POS motherboards that WILL die after a couple of years. Take one of those supposedly dead K6's and drop it in a known good motherboard and see what happens. The only K6 that would concievably have the kind of problem you're describing is the K6-233 because it is essentially a 200 that has been overclocked. It uses 3.2 volts instead of 2.8 like all the other K6-1's. I would be willing to believe that those might die after a couple of years, but that doesn't mean the design or the manufacture of the K6 line in general is faulty.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Ok, I read the article and the first thing I thought was "wow, this guy is full of whatever that stuff is that they make hotdogs out of"...
But then I read it a second time, and realized he's half right.
First, the instant retaliation of pointing out NT's faults when someone mentions a fault of linux must be stopped. Linux isn't always the best, as he said...but it's often better than most.
I personally don't think Linux makes a great desktop, because it wasn't made to be one (though it could be with work). For a desktop I prefer BeOS, but for a server, I've yet to have linux go down on me. But then neither have any of the FreeBSD servers I've worked on, nor any BSDi servers. The NT machines I work with at work, well, lets not mention those.
I do however agree that where linux shines is medium-strain servers...'why?' you ask, well, it's simple, because there are more medium-strain servers out there than huge servers, so there are more medium-strained-system-admins to use linux, and fix what needs to be.
Linux will be able to handle a highly-strained server when it needs to be, because when it needs to be someone will make it work.
Hopefully I didn't just TOTALLY repeat what everyone else commented on...I haven't read them all yet...
If I recall my OS history correctly, Unix was designed to run on small computers, not big ones. Unix was hacked together as a minimal system to run on a cast-off PDP-8 (a mini-computer). The name itself is a parody of Multics, which was designed to run on bigger machines. The earliest versions of Unix had no VM, and couldn't access more than 64kB of memory.
So, as far as that goes, Unix actually has its roots in hardware roughly on a level with 6502 machines like the Apple II, Commodore 64, or Atari 800. Compared to those, Linus' early '386 was quite a deluxe machine indeed!
The joke among ZDNet columnists is that anytime you think your column web hits are going downhill, all you have to do is publish an article with a little bit of fact and a lot of FUD about Linux, and your web hits go back up again.
... in fact I'm sure they know that an article laden with FUD is more likely to get attention than one without.
I think it is clear that ZDNet columnists use Slashdot and other Linux information points to gain noteriety and gain readership. They don't care if there is a negative response, they just want the attention and the ad banner hits
Don't encourage them.
Was specificaly told by Dell tech guy yesterday that Dell is not supporting Linux + Perc2 + 6300
(their only solution for low end high volume storage...)
Are there any businesses that actually depend on IRC? Well other than adult services :).
This article seems to promote the mentality of "Oh, it does every thing except flip over backwards, well I can't have that then."
--WooooHoooo--
I happen to like reading dvorak's articles. I watch silicon spin. Having said that.
Dvorak did this, for what they call in the wrestling world, cheap heat. It's just like when a heel comes out to the ring and says "(insert town of current showing) SUCKS!". Cheap heat. Remember his big bruhaha about the iBook? He called it something along the lines of the barbie laptop. While I agree with that, it was all for attention. He writes articles like this all the time. Now Jesse Berst, he's just a moron.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
A poorly-written application can cause damage on Windows 9x because, for legacy/compatibility reasons, parts of user memory is shared between processes. NT, like UNIX, gives each process its own address space, so this can't happen. Of course, a buggy driver that runs in kernel mode can bring down NT (or UNIX).
IRC servers aren't the system hogs Dvorak makes them out to be. Unless you're running a massive hub server, generally they're not much of a drain at all. Granted, this doesn't cover the being-hacked aspect, however, any poorly administered system is a risk. /. should stop posting this sort of tripe. It only lends credence to the person who writes it.
Out of all of the load-heavy duties a server can pull, IRC serving isn't one of them. A site running an e-commerce solution probably takes more resources than would an IRC server.
In addition, it's clear he knows nothing about IRC, having not been on in "years" and getting all his information hearsay. But those kinds of reporting tactics are normal for the "publication" he writes for. I've sent several letters correcting half-truths and misnomers, and never once have I received a reply.
Perhaps
"During your times of trial and suffering, when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I was riding the pogostick."
A good traveller has no fixed plans and is not intent on arriving.
Why is your reply not a list of URLs to machines that can and DO do what he says linux can't? Why is it, NT can't either?
NT can do ultra high availability sites, it's just expensive as hell and you need to monitor it. A lot.
BTW: I second your complaint about people bitching they can't get their systems to stay up when we all know it can be done if your not an idot. Unfortunately i see it when linux guys are whinning that their NT server won't stay up.
Well I think linux in itself has already forgotten the low end. No one can install any version of linux (unless it's really crippled) on such minimal hardware. Basically all new OS's need modern hardware to run programs written in the modern period. Now I don't dispute that one can run linux on a 386 with 4Mb ram and 80Mb hard disk (I did for a while). However I do dispute that it can run well
Win 95 *does* run fine under low-end systems. I've run it on a 66Mhz 486 with 16MB of RAM, which is pretty low-end these days. It was plenty unhappy with only 8 meg, though, resulting in a lot of hard drive thrashing. It didn't, however, crash... just slow as molasses.
Linux, in my experience, does run better on the lowest of the low (16Mhz 386sx... 6MB of RAM, had a BogoMIPs score of 8 or something like that). Granted, however, that was running without a GUI. I don't think Win95 would run well on that system, but then it can't really do without a GUI, unless you're just talking about running DOS (which is no match power-wise for Linux).
Generally, it's not the OS that kills your system, it's the apps. Linux runs OK on my 33Mhz 486sx laptop. Finding things to run on it, though, is a challenge. Netscape will thrash the drive for about a minute before it comes up. StarOffice probably wouldn't run at all. Older versions of Siag office ran OK (haven't tried it recently) and at least let me use it for light-duty word processing.
What was probably crashing your machine was some sort of misconfiguration, not a lack of processing power or memory. Lack of either just means the thing is slower, not crash-prone. Now, the fact that Windows got into a crash-prone state is something you can rightly hold against it.
In this week's column. I'll detail how rabidly fanatical Linux lemmings are with regard to anyone even remotely suggesting that their OS isn't the perfect solution for every problem.
I won't go into the fact that Linux doesn't offer anything that Apple didn't offer over 10 years ago and that hasn't been done better by MS in the years between. Nor will I mention the fact that Linux users tend to be withdrawn, acne-ridden, anti-social geeks.
I'll just point out that Linux does not run any of the top three IRC servers.
Next week, I'll selectively cull my email to support my position that Linux lemmings are a bunch of flaming losers lacking the most basic knowledge of spelling and grammatical construction.
:)
I bet I could rack up $MILLION$ in banner ads. Come on ZD, give me a chance! I can be a better Dvorak than Dvorak!
Linux technically inadequate for IRC? Rubbish. No doubt 50 people will go out and prove that this week just to make Mr. Qwerty look bad.
Much of the success of Linux, by the way, might be attributed to the fact that Linux folks are busy writing software instead of hanging out on IRC. I doubt the fact that we're not the main host of IRC servers has much to do with Linux' current technical limitations.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
All he does is flame, then live off the hits his articles get by inflamed Linux users. He does not know more than us. He does not provide any intuitive FACT-binding articles. Why does he get posted to Slashdot? You're only feeding the pesky fly that irritates you!!
Gee, you put a bunch of smart people on a project they care about and you get disagreement? Whodathunkit? Of course, it's not possible that there MIGHT be more than one right way to do it. We wouldn't want differing solutions to fight it out in the "market". Nope, the Central Committie should decide what is best for us.
Why is it that some of the biggest proponents of capitalisim don't want it in their OSes? If all the Linux people agreed and did it one way all the time, we'd have a MUCH less enjoyable OS experience! How many linux filesystems have gone by the wayside? 3? There was a time during each of those when they were the underdog. But instead of trying to kill it, the opponents have improved the product by adding to the developent instead of just attacking it. Innovation comes from conflict.
Just because Linux isn't what you want, don't throw it out. Correct it. Steer it. Linux can be anything you are willing to help it become. If you don't participate you have no right to complain that it isn't what you wanted!
Personally, I'd rather choose among >15 window managers than have Microsoft pick the "right" one for me anyday!
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
I think Dvorak was just wanting to get more fame by putting this crap on zdnet.
204.178.73.175:4400 * Linux 2.1.xx
dallas-r.tx.us.undernet.org.
194.178.232.52:6667 * Linux 2.1.xx
Haarlem.NL.EU.UnderNet.Org
I'm sure there are more.
Dvorak: how about checking stuff before you spew it out?
At least FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD can compete on their merits, instead of by buying/crushing/smearing the competition.
I love Linux, and I'm setting up my firewall/NAT box at home on FreeBSD. Why? Because less hackers are familiar with it, I have loads of good tuning information on it, and it works great for most of our production servers at work. Not that we don't have about 100 of each FreeBSD and Linux. And not that I don't run Linux on my laptop. I just feel better about having a firewall at home that is built on an "old-school" type of distro.
Competition is the inevitable result of scarce resources. Dvorak is being an idiot; the BSDers aren't. They have a good NOS and it shows.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
I remember reading an article by him where he strongly advocated nationalizing microsoft! Look on zdnet's site for his articles from february of this year
---Got Coffee?---
While we are on the subject of OS's and IRC servers; what does slashnet run on?
[Science] is one of the very few things that raises human life a little above farce and gives it the grace of tragedy.
First, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "Linux is not a top notch server." We have three main servers (two of them share DNS, Email, and web hosting duties, the third is an application server.) None have ever experienced any unwanted downtime, or software crashes.
Linux outperforms many other systems in serving in many situations, but it's not 'quite there yet'
Yes, it is. As I said, our servers perform flawlessly 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. I would certainly consider that "there yet."
mostly because they are being told from every angle that Linux is the new kid on the block that fits every hole possible. It's not there yet.
Huh? While it's true that SOME people mistakenly believe that Linux is a tool fit for every purpose, nobody with a brain would believe that about anything.
There is no system on the planet that can honestly claim to do everything well (and there never will be.) If your only fault with Linux is that it doesn't "do everything perfectly," then your expectations are unrealistic. I use Linux most of the time (especially for Internet apps) but for editing video, I use my Amiga/Video Toaster. For games, I use Win95. I've tried Quake under Linux, but it just feels smoother under Windows (same hardware.) The reason that Win95 is a better gaming platform is EXACTLY the same reason that Linux is better as a file server - and I certainly wouldn't want Linux to try to "fix" that.
There is only one thing I can say about this article:
(score:0, flamebait)
since it's clearly for drawing the /. effect and driving up impressions. I kinda like junkbuster myself.. like 8-10 regexes kill 80-90% of all ads I see now (including adfu and focalink! ;)
Well, we all know that EFNet and DALNet are dominated by (Free|Open|Net)BSD. More power to them. Funny how Dvorak doesn't mention that... but enough flame-mongering. I thought I would try some *other* IRC nets (ones I actually use and can stand).
:)
:) :)
plish[decklin]# dnsquery irc.newnet.net | awk '/IN A/{print $5}' | xargs queso
206.185.8.215:80 *- Not Listen, try another port
162.42.150.51:80 *- Not Listen, try another port
207.0.141.57:80 *- Not Listen Unknown (may be loss of pkts) ?
199.103.186.10:80 *- Not Listen, try another port
216.73.223.100:80 *- Not Listen, try another port
192.108.102.221:80 * Dead Host, Firewalled Port or Unassigned IP
161.184.244.38:80 * Dead Host, Firewalled Port or Unassigned IP
207.34.179.6:80 *- Not Listen, try another port
204.122.16.98:80 *- Firewalled host/port or network congestion
207.227.236.5:80 *- Firewall drops SYN pakets.
204.137.237.3:80 *- Not Listen, try another port
209.211.58.25:80 *- Not Listen, try another port
209.140.33.20:80 *- Firewalled host/port or network congestion
207.176.172.16:80 * Linux 2.0.35 to 2.0.9999
206.154.138.9:80 * Linux 2.1.xx
209.212.128.40:80 * Linux 1.2.xx
205.216.80.23:80 *- Not Listen Unknown (may be loss of pkts) ?
208.150.172.100:80 *- Firewalled host/port or network congestion
204.122.16.13:80 * Dead Host, Firewalled Port or Unassigned IP
204.122.16.4:80 * Dead Host, Firewalled Port or Unassigned IP
204.122.16.31:80 * Dead Host, Firewalled Port or Unassigned IP
plish[decklin]# dnsquery irc.openprojects.net | awk '/IN A/{print $5}' | xargs queso
216.22.214.118:80 * Linux 2.1.xx
199.173.176.228:80 * Linux 2.1.xx
209.81.8.249:80 * Standard: Solaris 2.x, Linux 2.1.???, MacOS
209.207.224.214:80 *- Not Listen, try another port
208.136.203.10:80 * Linux 2.0.35 to 2.0.9999
209.41.108.220:80 * Standard: Solaris 2.x, Linux 2.1.???, MacOS
209.197.224.62:80 * Linux 2.1.xx
209.140.211.17:80 * Solaris 2.x
207.16.36.11:80 * Linux 2.0.35 to 2.0.9999
205.230.163.100:80 *- Firewalled host/port or network congestion
199.178.102.12:80 * Novell Netware TCP/IP
208.24.49.11:80 * Dead Host, Firewalled Port or Unassigned IP
Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. *sigh*...
Talk about a man with no vision. The simple notion that the computer industry will topple over in a few years because everything will completed has to be the most absurd commentary, and the one that has been disproven so many times in the past.
Why doesn't linux run on all these high end massive servers right now? I have a theory. Because 3-4 years ago when all these systems were put in place, linux wasn't a viable option. It was still in its infancy and wasn't yet ready for it. So these servers were designed and built with other operating systems and as they were updated, they maintained their current OS because frankly it would be easier to upgrade to another compatible operating system than porting to another. Far from impossible, but it would require a significant amount of work. So these servers tend to stay with their current system until they have a substantial reason to change.
In the last couple of years with added support for
SMP and with linux gaining ground on a wide variety of different architectures, linux is quickly becoming the OS of choice for new servers today. These little servers today will be the big servers tomorrow. It might just take a couple years before linux has a prominent place amongst the other big boys, but it won't be all that long.
As for IRC, I found it rather interesting that he first states that NO IRC servers are run on linux, then he later revises his statement to imply only the big networks. In many cases, the same reasons apply. The big networks have enough problems as it is right now. The major operators probably figure, right or wrong, that keeping a standard platform set will help to minimize these problems. And since the other servers are running BSD/Solaris or whatnot, thats what they continue to support.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
That the computer industry is so uninovative that it cannot think up anything else except office apps and games! How can anyone expect that computers are that useless? Personally I think that if PC's get more powerful that AI might just be the next killer app. I sure would like to explore the concept of having an AI companion, even if the OS that AI runs on isn't linux.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
here at inforocket we are using 5 sgi 1400l servers utilizing linux and a total of 20 xeon's 5 gig's of ram and .5 gigs of disk space. also a 40 meg conection to th internet. i don't see why devorak has to be such a jerk, he sounds like a disgruntled nt us user and isn't this what we'd expect from zdnet (there income is fueled mostly nt/95 users, devorak's life would be easier if all he had to do was bs about nt, right..devorak give linux a chance!!!!
It's a desperate move to cut R&D expenses. Linux will ONLY be used on the Intel systems.
As a programmer, I really don't need to type all that intensively. I never learned "proper" typing anyway. I started as a hunt'n'peck and an now at top speed a 40WPM hunt'n'peck typist. :) I still must look at the keyboard to type, and it's freaky for others to watch me type really fast. But like I say, I don't need to type fast enough to justify learning a "method".
Dvorak might be more practical for secretaries and writers; not for programmers. We just spend most of time staring at the screen, growing cateracts than developing carpal tunnel syndrome. Now if only there was a Dvorak style answer to the CRT. (LCD displays aren't any easier on the eyes than conventional CRTs.)
Essentially what I know about the difference is that CRTs/VDTs produce supposedly harmful ammounts of radiation (electromagnetic) that causes gradual degredation on the eyes over a period of time. What LCDs do is that they eliminate this and allow for less harsh light. Of course this is just theory. Basically it ammounts to being more expensive than a standard monitor for a PC. Now monitor technology may have advanced some since I heard this but modern monitors may be just a good if not better than the LCDs by now.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
The reason is that, the majority of the time, the author is comparing Linux to NT and detailing how Linux has shortcomings.
Journalistically, if the same shortcoming applies to both platforms then there is no reason to elaborate on it.
I don't see how this supports Dvorak's comments about Linux users. Imagine the opposite situation. Where a journalist is comparing NT to Linux and (correctly) points out that NT does not run any of the major IRC servers.
The implication is that Linux does. We are merely correcting that implication.
The Xworld IRC Network mainly has Linux running on its servers
exept for one, were all linux
and the fbsd server, has crashed more than any of the linux servers.
...is that they pretty much contradict themselves. On the one hand, they have Dvorak saying that the only really useful place for Linux is on the super low-end.
Elsewhere in the magazine, there's what appears to be a crude attempt at a competitive review for Linux OEMs (they offer no Editor's choice here, and I thought the criteria were sketchy). In their review, they claim that if you're going to use Linux as a server, you're going to need "some serious hardware," or words to that effect.
How a magazine can publish two diametrically opposed views, and yet manage to be so incredibly wrong on both of them, is beyond me. This is the main reason I won't be renewing my subscription.
The real problem with Linux is that it is trying to conquer the world with the wrong strategy. All of the Linux guys I know say that the best thing about it is its stability. But stability is of only marginal importance on the desktop. You don't have to be rock solid and bulletproof on the desktop, the only thing that matters is being stable` enough. Microsoft knows that. What is important is applications. And lots of them. Yes Linux has a lot of good free applications. But how do you install them? tar xvfz prog.tar.gz, cd prog/, ./configure --prefix=/usr/local, make, su, make install. Wrong. Bad developer. No cookie. Installation should be brainless. No end user should ever have to compile software. Installation should also be fully graphical. Yea, I know of some projects to create a graphical installer but it isn't at the point yet where I can go to a giant software repository (download.com in the Windows world) click on a piece of software and have it launch an installer and have it work no matter the distribution. The end user should not ever have to worry about an Xserver or a library dependency or ever see a command line. That is how Linux can win. -Toaster (forgot his passwd)
I've been an IRC operator on major networks for a few years. I've seen Linux servers handle significant load on DALnet and IRCnet (why does everyone forget IRCnet?) and do well. Being a BSD person myself, I wouldn't run one on Linux but know quite a few major network admins who happily do so and are still waiting for proof that Linux can't handle it. It's suitable for anything but the most extreme userload which they wisely avoid. To answer the original poster's question, FreeBSD and Solaris are by far the most popular, with Linux and BSDI a distant third. Unless you're going to run a record-setting server, Linux is OK.
I give Linux another two years (or less) to completely alter the current computer industry.
Then people like Dvorak will be starving on the streets.
He hasn't taken the time to learn the new tech and he's hopelessly mired in the old (along with all of his mis-conceptions).
Will we really need Dvorak's in the future? How many people will need to stay up on the latest hidden features of Linux and secret optimization techniques? Who will keep us informed on the latest viral attacks?
Please, save your pennies and buy John a 'burger when you see him on the street.
If you must respond to Mr. Dvorak, please use his email address dvorak@dvorak.org. There is no need to boost his popularity and ratings by posting talkback articles.
Matthew
/. finds me to be 20% Troll, 80% Funny
The real test is how many porno sites run Linux. Now that's a test of server capability!
It wasn't long ago in he said how the command line and UNIX were dead, and went out with polyester. He felt command-line interfaces were archaic and primative, and UNIX represented the apex of this. At least he could maintain consistancy. I think they should stick Cringley and he in a room and have them duel to the death.
I am at school for roughly half of my computing time and the other half on my linux machine. I make sure the linux machine is updated with the latest packages and related items. What I have noticed is that when put to real strain (like getting it so that the machine will barely switch between apps and the like) will cause a crash on windows. It is not necessarily that the OS per se will crash it is that the applications will not function correctly even though you re execute them again, exit, and re-execute them they are still broken due to problems with errors in memory from the recently crashed program causing general problems. However this does not crash windows it merely makes a crack in the window (*snicker*). Eventually the cracked window will fall to pieces and have to be replaced (*rebooted*). Now if you run apps that are nicely compatable with 95/98/NT/2000 you most likely will not have a problem it's usually third part apps and unusual situations that were not tested for during the debugging/testing phase of the software engineering at Microsoft. Linux usually doesn't have the little cracks that appear and does not evolove into something horrible as fast or as often. What usually does kill it is something kernel related or in the libs that may require a reboot to initialize properly. So yes I can say with perfect satisfaction that windows is crash prone. One of the problems I see is that dos was a little better at handling games (vga video was pretty sweet). Games that ran quite well in dos when using the linux version are implimented using libs that are in fact less efficent than the dos implimentation and therefore need more resources. However I may just need to get out into the hardware world a little more (still stuck in a pre 1995 hardware scene) and buy a better machine.
Slashdot social engineering at it's finest
BAD pundit!
No banner hits!
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
A default installation of NT (server or workstation) boosts performance to the foreground terminal application. If there is a screen saver [...], it would get preference in RAM usage over IIS.
I can't believe this.. Not even Microsoft would be stupid enough to make a screen server pre-empt dedicated server software by default... this HAS to be a joke...
Please, tell me you're kidding.
As for your pointed stab at the poor guy's NIC, maybe you'd be willing to donate the $20? 'Till then, it'll work fine in Linux, hey.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"