Deployed does not imply ready; it can mean the deployment was premature. In the case of Windows, malware outbreaks demonstrate that the deployment of Windows on home and small business desktops was likely premature. If it were ready on day 1, we wouldn't need Windows Update now, would we?
Your working definition of "ready for the desktop" excludes the dominant desktop operating system? If that's the case, we don't really have much to talk about.
14.3 (Being slowly resolved) No SMB/AD level replacement/equivalent (samba doesn't count): 1) Centralized and easily managable user directory. 2) Simple file sharing. 3) Simple (LAN) computers discovery and browsing.
Certainly sounded like he was looking for a replacement for AD server, not client stack.
Then perhaps the conclusion should have been "Windows isn't perfectly ready, but it's a lot closer than Linux."
That still would have been wrong, because Windows is already on the majority of desktops, therefore it is self-evidently ready. Therefore any problems with Linux, that are also shared by Windows, are not something that would keep it from being ready.
The problem is that he didn't seem to be evaluating just one distribution. There are distros that include common media codecs by default, just about every distro uses a single package manager. He's not even consistently comparing desktop and server setups, what version of WinXP comes with a full AD stack? Which lets you easily setup a File+Email+HTTP+FTP server?. Worse yet, many of his complaints are common among _all_ desktop operating systems (#4, #7, #8, #12), not just Linux based ones.
If he had titles "What is wrong with Desktop Linux", that would be one thing. But to suggest that these make Linux "not (yet) ready for the desktop", while Windows and OSX, which share so many of the same faults, are ready is simply trolling.
I believe the point the GP was making is that the virtualized environment would have all of the negative aspects of both XP and Vista, without any of their respective positive aspects.
No, it's like asking why anybody would switch from Windows 98 to Windows NT, which by and large they didn't. Nor did they switch from 98 to XP, or from XP to Vista. The vast majority of new Windows sales since 98 have come from new computer sales, not upgrades.
That's the problem, I do this all the time, and it's by far easier walking people calling in through a GUI interface than having them have to drop to a terminal and typing/editing commands.
On the phone, yes, walking someone through GUI steps is easier because speech-to-text isn't efficient and you can alter your instructions to fit different GUIs based on real time feedback from the user.
On the web, however, where you can't modify your instructions based on real-time feedback from the user, and where accurate copy-pasting is possible, CLI instructions are easier.
Different GUI's have different steps for configuration. Instructions for Gnome won't work in KDE or XFCE. Modifying the interfaces file will work on nearly all versions and distributions of Linux.
It grew by 12% of it's previous size in a month. If it continued that trend (not gonna happen) it would reach 50% of the market in December of 2011. Growing at only 2% like it had in previous months, it would take until 2025 to reach 50% of the market.
And if Microsoft continues to shrink by 0.27% they will also be at 50% of the market in 2025.
Also Sun as a OS provider had vendors who wrote kernel modules for Solaris. According to the interpretations of kernel modules under GPL, putting Solaris or any of Sun's kernel code under the GPL required the rest of the kernel to be GPL - not suitable for other vendors who did not wish to GPL their code. Argue that if you want, but find a corporate lawyer who wont read the GPL conservatively.
Since Sun has copyright on the Solaris kernel, they could have released it under the GPL while simultaneously licensing it under whatever other licensing agreement they had with other vendors.
If you license your code under the GPL, that doesn't prohibit you from licensing it under any other terms. You can distribute your own code under as many licenses as you want.
Sun wrote the CDDL in order to have a license which met their needs and their vendors and partners needs, and then released their code.
Sun could have dual-licensed it under the CDDL and GPL. They could have used an Apache or BSD license. There were plenty of options available if Sun wanted to allow the distribution of a ZFS as a Linux kernel filesystem.
why not dual license Linux if you want the code so bad?
Because Linus never required copyright assignment for code he accepted. Thus, Linus can only legally distribute the Linux kernel under the GPLv2, as he can't relicense someone else's code.
I just can't see how this is Sun's problem and not Linux's problem. Why isn't the kernel flexible enough to allow loading filesystems without being merged into the kernel (or is it? I honestly don't know)?
You can fun a file system in userspace, it's just quite a bit slower that way. I believe you can run ZFS on Linux with Fuse.
For what it's worth, you can legally run ZFS as a kernel module without violating either license, you just can't distribute it that way because the GPL would require that the ZFS code be distributed under a compatible license.
Yeah, POP3 and IMAP can be enabled, but I'm pretty sure MAPI is the default, and the new Evolution uses evolution-mapi plugin to talk to Exchange, though evidently it's still got some bugs.
I'm not real sure of the implications, but after reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that this kind of molecule may behave more like a single atom with two nuclei than a typical two-atom molecule. This may offer new confinement possibilities in fusion research, but I'm no physicist.
If you have enough dedicated video ram and a good GPU, you can actually get better performance with Compiz than Metacity. I noticed this on an older P4 with 512MB ram and a GeForce3 card.
The article didn't go into specifics, but it seemed to imply that the exploit code wasn't being executed by Windows, but by something else that could manipulate the contents of the computer's memory during the Windows boot sequence. Basically Windows checks that the BIOS and MBR are intact before booting, then verifies anything that runs after booting, but it doesn't check that the boot files loaded into memory match the untouched files on disk.
If the box owner leave's his own USB drive connected, and a remote attacker gains user-level access to his box, he can write to that drive and force a reboot. If the user's system is configured to boot from USB, then the remote attack might be able to use this exploit, no physical access was necessary.
From what I've read, it verifies that the BIOS and MBR are untouched, but I haven't read that it checks what is in RAM. This exploit modified what is in RAM only.
Slashdot Mirror
Deployed does not imply ready; it can mean the deployment was premature. In the case of Windows, malware outbreaks demonstrate that the deployment of Windows on home and small business desktops was likely premature. If it were ready on day 1, we wouldn't need Windows Update now, would we?
Your working definition of "ready for the desktop" excludes the dominant desktop operating system? If that's the case, we don't really have much to talk about.
14.3 (Being slowly resolved) No SMB/AD level replacement/equivalent (samba doesn't count): 1) Centralized and easily managable user directory. 2) Simple file sharing. 3) Simple (LAN) computers discovery and browsing.
Certainly sounded like he was looking for a replacement for AD server, not client stack.
Then perhaps the conclusion should have been "Windows isn't perfectly ready, but it's a lot closer than Linux."
That still would have been wrong, because Windows is already on the majority of desktops, therefore it is self-evidently ready. Therefore any problems with Linux, that are also shared by Windows, are not something that would keep it from being ready.
The problem is that he didn't seem to be evaluating just one distribution. There are distros that include common media codecs by default, just about every distro uses a single package manager. He's not even consistently comparing desktop and server setups, what version of WinXP comes with a full AD stack? Which lets you easily setup a File+Email+HTTP+FTP server?. Worse yet, many of his complaints are common among _all_ desktop operating systems (#4, #7, #8, #12), not just Linux based ones.
If he had titles "What is wrong with Desktop Linux", that would be one thing. But to suggest that these make Linux "not (yet) ready for the desktop", while Windows and OSX, which share so many of the same faults, are ready is simply trolling.
I believe the point the GP was making is that the virtualized environment would have all of the negative aspects of both XP and Vista, without any of their respective positive aspects.
Or investing in Wine and Mono, to make their existing infrastructure platform independent.
Sure you can. "Tri" means "3". Thus, if the shape has something other than 3 sides, then, by definition, it's not a triangle.
But "angle" means, well, "angle", not side.
Who's to say the next IPhone won't stab users in the face with a fork?
Should have RTFM.
No, it's like asking why anybody would switch from Windows 98 to Windows NT, which by and large they didn't. Nor did they switch from 98 to XP, or from XP to Vista. The vast majority of new Windows sales since 98 have come from new computer sales, not upgrades.
That's the problem, I do this all the time, and it's by far easier walking people calling in through a GUI interface than having them have to drop to a terminal and typing/editing commands.
On the phone, yes, walking someone through GUI steps is easier because speech-to-text isn't efficient and you can alter your instructions to fit different GUIs based on real time feedback from the user.
On the web, however, where you can't modify your instructions based on real-time feedback from the user, and where accurate copy-pasting is possible, CLI instructions are easier.
Different GUI's have different steps for configuration. Instructions for Gnome won't work in KDE or XFCE. Modifying the interfaces file will work on nearly all versions and distributions of Linux.
It grew by 12% of it's previous size in a month. If it continued that trend (not gonna happen) it would reach 50% of the market in December of 2011. Growing at only 2% like it had in previous months, it would take until 2025 to reach 50% of the market.
And if Microsoft continues to shrink by 0.27% they will also be at 50% of the market in 2025.
If increasing Linux % share means faking a Windows Look & Feel, then thats what needs to be done.
Only if increasing market share is the primary objective.
That is, if anybody cares about wooing Windows users.
I think perhaps you misunderstand the objectives.
Please take a look at Qimo, it's perfect for 5 year olds.
Also Sun as a OS provider had vendors who wrote kernel modules for Solaris. According to the interpretations of kernel modules under GPL, putting Solaris or any of Sun's kernel code under the GPL required the rest of the kernel to be GPL - not suitable for other vendors who did not wish to GPL their code. Argue that if you want, but find a corporate lawyer who wont read the GPL conservatively.
Since Sun has copyright on the Solaris kernel, they could have released it under the GPL while simultaneously licensing it under whatever other licensing agreement they had with other vendors.
If you license your code under the GPL, that doesn't prohibit you from licensing it under any other terms. You can distribute your own code under as many licenses as you want.
Sun wrote the CDDL in order to have a license which met their needs and their vendors and partners needs, and then released their code.
Sun could have dual-licensed it under the CDDL and GPL. They could have used an Apache or BSD license. There were plenty of options available if Sun wanted to allow the distribution of a ZFS as a Linux kernel filesystem.
why not dual license Linux if you want the code so bad?
Because Linus never required copyright assignment for code he accepted. Thus, Linus can only legally distribute the Linux kernel under the GPLv2, as he can't relicense someone else's code.
I just can't see how this is Sun's problem and not Linux's problem. Why isn't the kernel flexible enough to allow loading filesystems without being merged into the kernel (or is it? I honestly don't know)?
You can fun a file system in userspace, it's just quite a bit slower that way. I believe you can run ZFS on Linux with Fuse.
For what it's worth, you can legally run ZFS as a kernel module without violating either license, you just can't distribute it that way because the GPL would require that the ZFS code be distributed under a compatible license.
Yeah, POP3 and IMAP can be enabled, but I'm pretty sure MAPI is the default, and the new Evolution uses evolution-mapi plugin to talk to Exchange, though evidently it's still got some bugs.
I'm not real sure of the implications, but after reading the Wikipedia article, it seems that this kind of molecule may behave more like a single atom with two nuclei than a typical two-atom molecule. This may offer new confinement possibilities in fusion research, but I'm no physicist.
I thought MAPI was Exchange's default protocol.
The new Evolution, included in Ubuntu 9.04, uses MAPI to interact with Exchange, it no longer needs OWA.
I think he just said it was open to change, not that it necessarily would be changed.
If you have enough dedicated video ram and a good GPU, you can actually get better performance with Compiz than Metacity. I noticed this on an older P4 with 512MB ram and a GeForce3 card.
Well, for one thing, javascript isn't putting databases or storage on the client, maybe you mistyped that.
This is something introduced in Firefox 3, and I think other browsers are going to do the same.
The article didn't go into specifics, but it seemed to imply that the exploit code wasn't being executed by Windows, but by something else that could manipulate the contents of the computer's memory during the Windows boot sequence. Basically Windows checks that the BIOS and MBR are intact before booting, then verifies anything that runs after booting, but it doesn't check that the boot files loaded into memory match the untouched files on disk.
If the box owner leave's his own USB drive connected, and a remote attacker gains user-level access to his box, he can write to that drive and force a reboot. If the user's system is configured to boot from USB, then the remote attack might be able to use this exploit, no physical access was necessary.
From what I've read, it verifies that the BIOS and MBR are untouched, but I haven't read that it checks what is in RAM. This exploit modified what is in RAM only.