Apple has created a Kerberized Jabber Client/Server... The Linux/Windows clients will quickly add support because they can and its cool... They are having a secure IM environment, which is very cool
Look, the reality never materialized, but more and more Firewire-featuring gear is coming on the market. It's still pushed by Mitsubishi, and the gear exists. HDMI is a step up on the previous mess (4 cables minimum, 3 Component + Optical), but it makes recording impossible, which is sad...
When I was a kid trying to show someone how to beat a board in Zelda (quest 2), I popped a tape in my VCR, ran the A/V links into the VCR, and was able to record. Out new HDMI dominated world makes that impossible, which is truly sad.
MPEG2-over-Firewire w/ HAVi isn't completely dead, and we shouldn't cheer companies that continue to make life hell on non enthusiasts.
MPEG2 may be lacking in certain efficiencies, but MPEG2 with enough bandwidth (and the point of Blu-ray was to GET enough bandwidth) looks AWESOME.
The draw-back to new CODECs? HDTV was SUPPOSED to standardize on MPEG2, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty good when it came out and would be cheap to implement by the changeover in a few years.
Remember, televisions are going to start having to ship with HDTV decoders (err, did have to start shipping as of a few months ago, a certain percentage of sets), and they don't want to include OTA without CableCard...
This means that within a few years, all new sets will ship with HDTV decoders, which includes, an MPEG2 decoder. Therefore, the manufacturers should start including Firewire.
A wonderful day was nearly upon us, Firewire for EVERYTHING but videogame systems. We were going to be able to use a basic remote instead of $200-$800 programmable remotes that depend upon screwy macros.
Instead, we're going to lose the Firewire stereo, and instead suffer with messes of cables and macros...
Sure HDMI offers some ease of use, but not the beauty of Firewire.
The AV-HD or whatever it was called was brilliant... it was a harddrive in a box that supported the decryption/encryption of HD from OTA sources... Your television could manage it.
Instead, before the HDTV mainstream adoption (those of us with sets are still 5%), we're already abandonning MPEG2...
It would have been nice if the FIRST round of HD gear could all be MPEG2... We could have gone with fancier codecs with the NEXT replacement, but oh no, we're getting trashed before it began.
I have over 100+ wires behind my entertainment center, I dreamed of cutting down to 8...
Missouri is ALWAYS in play. The "Show Me State" has voted for the winner in the last X out of Y elections, where X,Y are +1 from last year, and X + 1 = Y, and Y is growing...:)
There is a county in there with almost as much success...
Missouri is right in the middle of the country, with some counties of all types of people.
Made billions... Owns the Mavericks, two television stations (HDNet, and HDNet movies), and is a regular on AVS Forum.
When I saw him at CES two years ago, talking to his camera crew, because that's what he does, I listened to VPs from major companies just watch him talk and talk to each other about how he is the best thing that ever happened to their industry.
He has a FORTUNE. He likes HDTV. He bought a local station (so HDNet is available OTA in Dallas), hooked up with DirecTV, and when they had more bandwidth, rolled out HDNet Movies.
Unfortunately, not all of my HD tastes are the same as his, as HDNet is "whatever Cuban wants to watch."
This man made a fortune, and is singlehandedly pushing more HD Content than anyone else, because he likes it.
Google is sitting on a pile of cash and rapidly growing earnings...
GM is sitting in a saturated market, getting smacked around by foreign competition and high oil prices, and has an unfunded pension liability in the billions...
The REAL underfunding of the pension, if pension math wasn't SO rediculously warped as to make it look like it isn't a problem, GM is probably rightly valued at the price of Google... Remember, Assets = Liability + Owners (Shareholder's) Equity, OR, Shareholder Equity = Assets - Liabilities...
Sure GM has a LOT of assets, but they have a LOT of liabilities, some of which are hidden from the balance sheet by the insanity of pension math...:)
BTW: I think that Google and the Internet companies are RICHLY valued and priced for perfection... However, if they can MASSIVELY grow earnings over the next few years, they may grow into those valuations... i.e. grow earnings at 100% this year, and halve your P/E ratio, and the stock price is flat... Don't lose hype/momentum/confidence, and your P/E will shrink slower than that. By the time Google's P/E drops to "market averages" (when they aren't high-tech growth anymore, 15-30 years), they should have plenty of time to increase earnings to make up for it.
No, I said that you should CONSIDER them as a Vendor.
If in the past you priced out Dell and HP, next time price out Dell, HP, and IBM. How many small/mid-zied business EVER consider IBM when getting prices.
If you are in IT, or otherwise have recommendation authority/purchasing authority, consider IBM. Send a letter to someone in IBM Management (someone that really handles customer/shareholder comments, so they know WHY you did it).
Next time you are ordering 1 or 1000 PCs, consider IBM. Instead of going straight to Dell, get a bid from IBM. When you are evaluating 1U Linux servers, get a bid from IBM. When you have an opportunity to bash Apple, consider a PowerMac G5 (powered by IBM PPC chips).
If you are dealing with an outsource/consulting opportunity, call IBM Global Services for a quote.
You don't necessarily have to use them if other Vendors make fiancial sense, but many people I know (myself included), rarely include IBM in a set of considered vendors.
After the "Peace, Love, Linux" campaign, when we got new hardware for our Linux/OpenBSD machines, we looked at IBM for our server needs, unfortunately they didn't have a competitive product in our price range, so we went with Penguin Computing.
However, I consider IBM as one of my preferred vendors.
Dell doesn't contribute to the industry beyond cutting costs and cutting support (the former helping all us consumers of IT). IBM does real research pushing forward. That is IBM's decision, and they are making what they think will make them money in the long run, and it appears to be working.
However, if you want to support IBM, sing their praises and consider them for any vendor decisions that you can implement.
NOTE: if your boss won't do the Open Source thing, and is instead planning a Microsoft roll-out, i.e. a web project with IIS/ASP/MS-SQL and you want Apache/Perl or PHP/MySQL (I know PostgreSQL is better, you may not), don't pitch to the boss that you can download Debian for free, recommend calling IBM Global Services. Also, pitch DB2 as a better alternative to MS-SQL.
There are MANY subtle ways to show IBM your support.
If IBM adds a few pennies a share because Slashdotters and other Tech-heads push them as a vendor, PARTICULARLY AS A LINUX VENDOR, then IBM will keep up the good fight.
If you have a system on the Alpha that is say, 3 years old, and you were expecting to upgrade in 2 years, then this forces a decision: go through a PAINFUL migration expense now, or make a capital investment to push it off.
Remember, buying equipment is easily depreciated over 3 years for PCs, probably longer is reasonable for Big Iron (I don't mean for tax purposes, I mean for their financials). If it costs me $0.5m in capital costs spread out over 5 years to upgrade a LOT of Alpha machines, even if it only costs me $200k to migrate off the platform, I may prefer to buy the Alphas that will only hit earnings by $100k...
It also depends, what is IT's budget for new hardware vs. budget for software migration expenses.
Also, if you were planning to buy a new Alpha to replace your old one, this is a smart time to buy it, because you can avoid dealing with the software migration now. Let's say you need to upgrade within 12 months, would you rather rush a migration job, or buy the gear and deal with the migration in 3-4 years, when you have time to plan.
You haven't seen a classic film transfer into HD then... Watch HDNet movies some time, it looks incredible. There are also many movies that HAVE HD transfers because of HBO-HD, SHO-HD, HD Net movies, etc.
Also, many of the more recent DVD transfers were transfered via an HD transfer process, then outputting as 480p (and interlaced to 480i) for the DVDs, meaning that if movies were transferred in the past two years, there may not be much of a problem to get an HD-DVD out, and start making money,.
I watched the speach that night (live) because I found Dean fascinating (despite being a conservative Republican). He was a moderate/conservate Democrat that opposed the Iraq war (a reasonable position that I disagree with), but was extremely entertaining.
The screaming noise was disturbing NOT because of the volume/noise (at least to me).
He lost an election badly that he was supposed to win. He came out and sounded delusional. It was SUPPOSED to be a concession speech, and when he came out, he rambled about how a year ago who would have thought that they would come in third (true, conventional wisdom is that the top 3 survive Iowa, top 2 survive New Hampshire, then off to the raises).
Had he began on a more somber note, admitted their disappointment, but that they would have kept fighting, I would agree with those that the out of control media was unfair.
However, he gave an EXTREMELY absurd "concession" speach that sounded like a high school pep rally, which scared the powers that be... Sure the media/Internet junkies went nuts with the scream, but the speach was EXTREMELY undignified and inappropriate for a nationally televised political speach.
This was a concession speach AFTER an ACTUAL election, not a rally-the-base before the vote.
I know every liberal wants to believe that 99% of the country is liberal, and it's rich white New York Republicans than control the otherside, but it's mind boggling. The sooner the left understands this, the sooner they can stop losing election after election (the country is swinging Right, even if Bush's recent screwups cost them the campaign).
The GOP is EXTREMELY grass-roots, but its grass roots are in rural Christian areas. It's popular in small towns, etc.
The Democratic party is no more grass-roots oriented... If it was, then the Candidate of the people (Dean, or even Edwards, who finished #2 in Iowa) would have one, instead the power brokers and the media conspired to put their good ole boy Kerry in.
Part of the GOP's political effectiveness is a simplified platform and support among the rank-and-file, hence Republicans stay on talking-points, which I guess is command-and-control. In the past 10 years, the left has gotten so used to losing that they now only look out for themselves and don't maintain a consistent message.
The LAST time the Democrats had a consistent message was Bill Clinton in 92 (which brought Democrats to power), "It's the economy stupid," and "Make the rich pay their fair share." It wasn't this soak the rich mentally that Kerry has that attacks upper-income producers, it was always "fair share" (whether you agree with what he considered fair).
In 1994 the GOP started "staying on message" with their "Contract With America" and pulled the country to the right.
There is a LOT of grass roots AND top-down behavior for both parties.
The Democrat's CURRENT grass roots activities REALLY hurts them, because the GOP puts "good Christian men & women" on the street, and the Democrats end up with young, starry eyed fanatically hippies... Who do you think appeals to your swing voter or those that don't always show up to elections?
Riiiiight. A different set of standards for GPL coders as compared to proprietary coders? Here's a shovel, you're already hip-deep in bullshit.
If you want to stand as the pillars of morality and justice in the software world, then you should act morally, not do whatever you are legally allowed to do.
Of course there is a different standard for GPL coders. They HOLD themselves to a higher standard when they release "Free Software."
BSD people want their code used... period. It's a great license... Truly altruistic and makes the world a better place. BSD Sockets and the TCP/IP stack is probably the BIGGEST reason that TCP/IP is the dominant protocol and the Internet took off. If Microsoft (little company with 95% of the desktops), WinSOCK (the socket solution before Microsoft made a decent one), and Apple (another little billion dollar company with most of the rest of the remaining 5%, at least at the time protocol "wars" could have happened) couldn't get TCP/IP stacks easily and cheaply, there would be no reason for TCP/IP to be adapted.
Microsoft had NetBEUI, which couldn't scale, and their own implementation of Novell's IPX/SPX stack. Do you think the fact that they could freely adopt a working TCP/IP stack was PART of the reason that they started adopting it for their networks? If the only option were some GPL's TCP/IP stack, Microsoft might have just pushed IPX/SPX or something equally proprietary, instead of a freely available specification.
The reason that BSD people seem to have a problem with the GNU/Linux and GPL fanatics is that they take BSD code, don't share back (so far, no different than proprietary developers), but then TALK about how free they are and trash the BSD systems as being inferior.
Apple took a LOT of BSD code, they gave some back where they made changes, and speak positively about FreeBSD. They also hired some FreeBSD people. There isn't any complaining about OS X in the BSD community, everyone seems to be cheering Apple on for bringing a System with a full FreeBSD user-space to the mass market.
The problem is that Linux took a lot of BSD code, didn't share back, and THEN copped an attitude that is the problem.
If Linux people when using BSD code showed the SAME respect as they demand of their code (sharing the changes upstream under the BSD-license), there wouldn't be an issue. Is there a legal requirement that the Linux people do so? No... But the last time I checked, being a good person wasn't defined as taking advantage of good deeds and doing whatever you could get away with.
If the Linux people truly valued the sharing of code, there would be a real effort to provide changes/improvements back up to the BSD pool when they borrowed code... i.e. treat it as THOUGH it was under the GPL? Why? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
The RIGHT thing to do, if you are a GPL advocate and want others to respect your code is to TREAT other code as though it was under the GPL. If you use Public Domain code, put your code into the Public Domain, if you use BSD code, put your code under the BSD license. That is following the Golden Rule.
This bizarre idea that you should do whatever you can get away with is just plain immoral.
I'm not questioning the RIGHT of the users of BSD code to lock it away under whatever conditions they want. I'm questioning why people seem to think that DOING SO is moral and just.
It was very exciting, it was about three years ago and he was my brother's roommate for a summer in Boston. They were renting a room for the summer at my college fraternity house, and he was the only unfriendly Canadian that I've ever met.
My Canadian stereotype, similar to Americans, but a little nicers and a little slower... (note: probably not an intelligence difference, just a less intense and more laid back atmosphere than the parts of America that were close to the Canadian border near them).
When I met the rude, obnoxious, self-absorbed Canadian, I was FLOORED.
But yeah, unfriendly Canadians are a rarity... everyone seems to know ONE, but NOBODY seems to know TWO.
Why would I open a Window? I run Applications a lot, so the Application folder is on my dock. If I download the application, it pops up the disk image on my machine and I can "usually" run the application.
If I like it, I can drag it to my Applications folder. If I don't, I eject the virtual drive (happens on its own if I shut the machine down). Nothing has been installed.
If I don't want it anymore, I drag from my Applications folder to the trash...
No libraries to track down, no muss, no fuss. Any libraries are bundled into Frameworks (with a well behaved application) that can sit inside the Application bundle.
if there are a LOT of them, or they are across LOTS of applications (like Office, for example), then the installer can put them in the correct location.
Out of curiousity, you've built the application, congrats. If you don't like it, how do you uninstall it?
"What? You want to rifle through stacks of easily-damaged media every single time you want to run a program? What if you want to run two programs at once? What about how slow the CD's are, or if a program fits on two or more CD's and you have to keep changing?
You must not remember the hell that CD switching was back in the 90's when hard drives were too small to copy the whole CD onto."
Of course I remember those days... I spent $500 for a single-speed CD-ROM with a proprietary connector to a PAS 16 and used that until it litterally died. My recently retired Windows machine (because I do everything on my Powerbook new) still has a 4x Caddy-based Plexwriter from '97, I DO remember the hell of CD switching.
Please reread my post. Tell me where I advocated "rifling through stacks of easily-damaged media?" I suggested that applications SHOULD be that simple to run.
For example, if a friend brings a Gamecube game over, we pop it in and play. If I like it, I go and buy it.
If a friend brings over a kick-ass Windows application/game, I have to install it to try it out, and if I don't like it, uninstall it, and it tends to leave libraries, etc., all over my drive.
Most programs fit on 1 CD. DVD-ROM becoming standard (all but the oldest machines at this point, and those will be out of use within a few years... and its not like the manufacturer couldn't include the CD-ROMs AND DVD-ROMs) make that point moot.
The point is, why can't I try an Application off a CD? If I download a Mac OS X Application, most of the time I can run the program off my mounted "virtual" disk, and off a CD-ROM, I can run it from there.
If I buy a RISK game, or Scrabble, or something else basic, why is there an "installer" that "NEEDS" to be run? Why can't I play the game, and if I like it and don't want to pop the CD in, I run the installer? The CD can auto-run the application, so why doesn't the Window pop-up and let me hit play (installer could be on equal footing).
Alternatively, when I pop the CD in, start the game. When the program ends, pop-up a Window (a la exit-consoles on web sites) that asks if I would like to install it so that I don't need the CD again?
Wouldn't that be novel?
Once I popped the CD-ROM into my machine, I clearly want to run the program. Why must I install it first?
Since it seems he's used this camera analogy throughout the article I'll comment on this little blurb. I'm not so sure it's a very good analogy to use either. The fact is that if you want better pictures, you NEED to go through all of those "useless" features and change them. All of those values will change depending on the conditions, the lighting, and the activity your photographing. If there are those people that DONT care about those features, get the one-use ones. Hell, they even have digital one-time use camera now.
See, this is where you missed his point.
I have a fancy camera (analog), and a less fancy digital. With the fancy analog camera, if I want to take a family photo, I press the button. At most, I need to hit the clearly marked flash button to turn it on. Of course, if I'm feeling artistic, I may want to adjust the exposure, shutter speed, etc., and those features are all there. However, to simply to the most common operation, take a picture, I don't need to do anything.
Your attitude is elitist, "if you don't want the fancy features, get a disposable camera." Beyond the fact that disposables get expensive real fast, what if I want to have a single camera and be able to take real photos AND snapshots?
The point of the article is that the simple should be simple. If I want to take a picture, I press a button. When I install a dictionary program, instead of being interviewed by the program, let me quickly look up words.
The most common use for the references is a lookup mode, and the application vendor could certainly include a dictionary application AND a multi-media application.
I have an HDTV. Yes the DirecTV box required some settings (which are supposed to be done by the installer)... it asked for my zipcode for the guide. HOWEVER, if I just wanted to watch TV, I could have plugged in the box, turned on the TV, and let it auto-scan the antenna (this should happen on first use, instead of via menu, but it wasn't too bad).
I can adapt the colors, I can go into the service menu and tweak further, etc., for a reasonable picture I needed to calibrate the convergence, etc. However, if I just bought the TV and the HDTV box, on Sunday and set them up 15 minutes before kick-off, I could have been watching the game without problem.
The SIMPLE operation: watch a football game, is easy (could be easier, but pretty easy).
The COMLICATED operation: calibrate colors to the Avia disc, adjust convergence, etc., was complicated.
With MOST computer software, it wants me to go through a process to use the application. That is unacceptable.
Most SOFTWARE SHOULD run off the CD, or like MOST Mac software and be a draggable install (drag into Applications). Installers are bad (make them for unusual use), better search order for applications to it can be one Folder/Bundle is better.
If you have features that require libraries to be installed at boot-time, make them optional. If the library isn't there, no feature unless you run the installer.
Wouldn't it be great if simply RUNNING a computer program/game was as easy as playing a PS2/XBox/Gamecube game?
Sure the powerful functionality can be there for power users, but most people should be able to use your program without help. That sadly isn't the case.
There was a DX-2 100, but it wasn't on the market long. It had stablity problems (I believe RAM related), so the RAM had to introduce wait states, which reduced the speed advantages over the DX-4 100. The part was more expensive because fewer of them succeeded, and it confused the market which was all 25/33 MHz buses, trying to create a 50 MHz bus that was only used for that chip (the 25 was used for the SX25, DX25, DX-2 50; the 33 for the SX33, DX33, DX-2 66, and DX-4 100, but most importantly the motherboards/chipsets, all third party at the time, were mature at 25/33, and 50 was touch) was a marketing mess so it rather died.
I remember having a DX-33, and the upgrade chips DX-2 66, etc., were REALLY expensive and not great. I looked at upgrading, but at the time, the press ragged on Intel because doubling the clock speed only increased performance a "bit" 25% or so IIRC, and clock doubling was seen as a cheap hack.
However, beginning with the P133, it began to shine.
If only people over 40 live, that's kinda it... if all children die and you are left with only women over 40, repopulating the species is a bit tough...
Note: I don't AGREE with the Slashdot crowd, I think that we would survive a Smallpox attack, and I also think that the bio-engineered smallpox would never launch... it's not a USEFUL weapon (the goal of a weapon is to defeat the otherside), it's a doomsday weapon... i.e. If a US First Strike annihilates EVERYTHING (cities, military bases, missile silos, etc), but the Russians could launch 2 of these, the US still loses. Doomsday weapons are part of the MAD game theory, but not something that would actually launch.
HOWEVER, if you wipe out everyone under 40, then yes, that's all she wrote... even if the adults get to go around without kids and party for 50 years, that's still it for civilization.
Wow... I'm really pushing this thread to the limit... but maybe people will benefit...
I got it to work, it took 12 hours of playing, and editting lots of files. In the end, I found it frustrating that I would have to install several things out of ports, edit files in/usr/local/etc, then make other changes in/etc, for what on Redhat was a trip to authconfig.
I understand what you mean about the "suffer once" proposition, but in the end, I wasn't in the mood to suffer. I saw what was involved in getting everything to work, but I got it to work (admittedly, I don't remember if I got Kerberos to work on FreeBSD, this might have been before my Kerberos roll-out, but LDAPS was DEFINITELY working).
You are right, once you leave RPMs, RedHat is a disaster. As a result, I don't leave RPMs. That is why I said, "Redhat is simply moving in a direction that I like." The default RHEL 3.0 ES DOES what I need, I don't need to go to third party RPMs, the base system does just about EVERYTHING I need. The only thing that I am missing is an XML-RPC module for PHP, and I'm working with RedHat to get a supported one. With my RHEL machines, I don't build from source, because that is what I am paying the premium for. Even with Samba, I use the stock RPMs, I just edit the conf file by hand because their GUI is too limited.
My comment about down to the metal with FreeBSD is actually why I don't want FreeBSD. If I was building an "Internet Server" (web/mail/mysql or postgresql), I would be using FreeBSD, no question. However, I'm not looking to get down to the metal. My servers exist for a business purpose, and I am focused on the business purpose. I'm not a Sysadmin, I'm a small business owner that is using servers for a business objective.
As a result, Redhat's "usage focused" system is preferable to me from the FreeBSD "each app lives on its own" style.
Does that make sense?
I love playing with servers, and for that FreeBSD is the "better" OS. However, from a business process, RedHat is simply there and moving forward. I don't NEED to use my books on each Unix application.
I'm willing to read and learn PostgreSQL, because that is critical to my business. I'm not interested in the intricacies of getting LDAP to build/work, I'm happier typing authconfig and away I go.
Thank you for a terrific thread, feel free to email me (or post here if you want) if you want to continue forward.
On your "background" and NOS point, I see your point...
Redhat behaves like a corporate NOS (NetWare, Windows NT, etc.), where it is process oriented, however the implementation is using the same BSD-licensed open source utilities. FreeBSD behaves like a Unix (because Unixes are MUCH more heavily influenced by the original BSD project).
If I was a Solaris/AIX System Administrator, I'd feel right at home with FreeBSD. As a Windows NT guy, RedHat is a pretty painless transisition, while FreeBSD is a different idea.
I guess what I'm saying is that I LIKE Redhat's "what do you want to do" approach, it make sense to me. If making the servers work better was my primary goal, then I would like FreeBSD's "here is a great platform, install whatever servers you want." To be honest, my favorite right now is OS X Server, it's a little rough and immature, but Server Admin and Workgroup Manager ARE REALLY, REALLY, REALLY awesome.
When deciding on a new server platform, we set up two machines, a Linux machine and a Redhat machine. I was the BSD advocate, my partner was pushing RedHat.
I absolutely GOT everything to work on FreeBSD. The/etc/usr/local/etc system was brilliantly simple. All told, to roll out my machines it would have been installing the 10 or 11 packages that I built out of the ports, plus my notes on the dozen of files to edit...
I 100% agree that FreeBSD's BSD based file system is MUCH nicer to work with than RedHat's SysV/BSD/RedHat-specific attrocity. Setting up multiple IPs is MUCH better under FreeBSD, because the BSD file format is straight-forward, and RedHat's system is EXTREMELY complex, however RedHat's tools do the job. While the purist in me agrees with you about X11, the realist in me realizes that that simply involves checking the box at install that says X11. When I need to remotely update a machine, I fire up X11 on my Mac, ssh -X, and away we go.
Where RedHat rocks is: authconfig
For my network, where we use LDAP + Kerberos (or LDAP w/ StartTLS if I haven't setup the Kerberos yet), authconfig which will do LDAP, Kerberos, Hesiod, or even SMB and set everything up.
With BSD, I am stuck doing everything "manually."
My biggest gripe in Unix (being an old NT guy) is Directory Services. On an NT network, everything uses the NT Directory by default... whether that be the local users, the domain users, or Active Directory (that I'm admittedly not familiar with). With Unix, every application seems to want its own users/groups by default.
A Directory Abstraction layer (like PAM is/tries to be... pam doesn't really support Kerberos or other slick stuff properly) is the first step, but applications should USE that. Then the Unix "simple tool" model would work, I could use flat files, a local database, a PostgreSQL database, a *shudder* MySQL "database," or LDAP, and all my applications would work. Instead I need to teach each service separately how to reach my LDAP server, that's insane.
Realistically, RedHat builds most things with MIT Kerberos built in, which is nice. With FreeBSD, I had to build everything myself from Ports, which isn't really a big deal. However, on each machine, I'd need to go in and remember/write down all the configuration stuff. With RedHat, authconfig does the hard stuff.
I'm in agreement that BSD is cleaner, no question. The difference is that my observation is that FreeBSD is used/developed by/for ISPs, Yahoo, and other "big players" on the Internet where BSD is King. RedHat is pushing their Linux-based system into corporate America. As a result, I get to get an Enterprise-friendly Unix for my small business, and free-ride of all the stuff RedHat implements solely so they can go for those big accounts.
I doubt that my experience is normal by any stretch. I run an OS X Network (because we all have local PostgreSQL Databases with Apache/PHP) with some Unix servers, and my Unix Servers need to play nicely with my OS X Server. However, it is typical in that even if you evaluate FreeBSD because it's "better," the fact is it doesn't function like any NOS that IT people are familiar with. RedHat, for all its Windows-like weirdness, fuctions like a NOS. Moving between NetWare, NT, and RedHat is pretty straight-forward. You use the new tools, but it is the same principles of setting up a network operating system. With FreeBSD, it is down to the metal and learning what each application does.
It is my understanding that the Air Force is also technically part of the Army (although with its own ceremonial, normally, Secretary). If you look up rank insignias, Congress can authorize a 5-star Admiral or General in wartime, but not Marine or Air Force, because technically the Marines are part of the Navy and the Air Force is part of the Army...
The reason for this, to my understanding, is that the Constitution establishes that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (when called up from the state militias of course)...
If you actually had another military, it wouldn't have a Civilian Commander... Therefore, their are four major branches, but Constituionally, there are two.
Some spouting nonsense. Official projections of a FULL nuclear exchange between the Warsaw Pact and NATO (i.e. all the nukes) was 10% of the world's population destroyed. So unless they were off by a factor of 10 , we're not capable of killing EVERYONE, and a factor of 5 to hit majority. On top of that, we have maybe 20% of the warheads that we had then...
Most ICBMs were NOT designed to destory cities (contrary to left wing propoganda) but to hit limited military targets, primarily the other side's ICBM silos (to win a nuclear war, you must eliminate a second strike...)...
The Tomahawk Cruise Missile was designed to deliver a nuclear warhead within 7 feet of its target... That would allow you to hit each silo with ONE missile, instead of TWO (to increase the likelihood of taking it out). The end of cold war weapons were finally reaching the goal of winning a nuclear exchange. The US was dangerously close to actually being in the winning seat... i.e. launch a first strike that eliminates the Soviet ability to respond.
That was the scenario that scared the Soviets, not the US having "more". Taking out downtown Manhattan would take 8-12 nuclear missiles... while nuclear weapons are VASTLY more powerful than conventional weapons, they are at their best destroying a reasonable sized target, not "wiping out the world 10 times over" or whatever propoganda we grew up with.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple has created a Kerberized Jabber Client/Server... The Linux/Windows clients will quickly add support because they can and its cool... They are having a secure IM environment, which is very cool
Look, the reality never materialized, but more and more Firewire-featuring gear is coming on the market. It's still pushed by Mitsubishi, and the gear exists. HDMI is a step up on the previous mess (4 cables minimum, 3 Component + Optical), but it makes recording impossible, which is sad...
When I was a kid trying to show someone how to beat a board in Zelda (quest 2), I popped a tape in my VCR, ran the A/V links into the VCR, and was able to record. Out new HDMI dominated world makes that impossible, which is truly sad.
MPEG2-over-Firewire w/ HAVi isn't completely dead, and we shouldn't cheer companies that continue to make life hell on non enthusiasts.
Alex
MPEG2 may be lacking in certain efficiencies, but MPEG2 with enough bandwidth (and the point of Blu-ray was to GET enough bandwidth) looks AWESOME.
The draw-back to new CODECs? HDTV was SUPPOSED to standardize on MPEG2, not because it was the best, but because it was pretty good when it came out and would be cheap to implement by the changeover in a few years.
Remember, televisions are going to start having to ship with HDTV decoders (err, did have to start shipping as of a few months ago, a certain percentage of sets), and they don't want to include OTA without CableCard...
This means that within a few years, all new sets will ship with HDTV decoders, which includes, an MPEG2 decoder. Therefore, the manufacturers should start including Firewire.
A wonderful day was nearly upon us, Firewire for EVERYTHING but videogame systems. We were going to be able to use a basic remote instead of $200-$800 programmable remotes that depend upon screwy macros.
Instead, we're going to lose the Firewire stereo, and instead suffer with messes of cables and macros...
Sure HDMI offers some ease of use, but not the beauty of Firewire.
The AV-HD or whatever it was called was brilliant... it was a harddrive in a box that supported the decryption/encryption of HD from OTA sources... Your television could manage it.
Instead, before the HDTV mainstream adoption (those of us with sets are still 5%), we're already abandonning MPEG2...
It would have been nice if the FIRST round of HD gear could all be MPEG2... We could have gone with fancier codecs with the NEXT replacement, but oh no, we're getting trashed before it began.
I have over 100+ wires behind my entertainment center, I dreamed of cutting down to 8...
Alex
Missouri is ALWAYS in play. The "Show Me State" has voted for the winner in the last X out of Y elections, where X,Y are +1 from last year, and X + 1 = Y, and Y is growing... :)
There is a county in there with almost as much success...
Missouri is right in the middle of the country, with some counties of all types of people.
It is definitely in play.
Alex
Made billions... Owns the Mavericks, two television stations (HDNet, and HDNet movies), and is a regular on AVS Forum.
When I saw him at CES two years ago, talking to his camera crew, because that's what he does, I listened to VPs from major companies just watch him talk and talk to each other about how he is the best thing that ever happened to their industry.
He has a FORTUNE. He likes HDTV. He bought a local station (so HDNet is available OTA in Dallas), hooked up with DirecTV, and when they had more bandwidth, rolled out HDNet Movies.
Unfortunately, not all of my HD tastes are the same as his, as HDNet is "whatever Cuban wants to watch."
This man made a fortune, and is singlehandedly pushing more HD Content than anyone else, because he likes it.
I'd say he's a good person to recognize.
Alex
Google is sitting on a pile of cash and rapidly growing earnings...
:)
GM is sitting in a saturated market, getting smacked around by foreign competition and high oil prices, and has an unfunded pension liability in the billions...
The REAL underfunding of the pension, if pension math wasn't SO rediculously warped as to make it look like it isn't a problem, GM is probably rightly valued at the price of Google... Remember, Assets = Liability + Owners (Shareholder's) Equity, OR, Shareholder Equity = Assets - Liabilities...
Sure GM has a LOT of assets, but they have a LOT of liabilities, some of which are hidden from the balance sheet by the insanity of pension math...
BTW: I think that Google and the Internet companies are RICHLY valued and priced for perfection... However, if they can MASSIVELY grow earnings over the next few years, they may grow into those valuations... i.e. grow earnings at 100% this year, and halve your P/E ratio, and the stock price is flat... Don't lose hype/momentum/confidence, and your P/E will shrink slower than that. By the time Google's P/E drops to "market averages" (when they aren't high-tech growth anymore, 15-30 years), they should have plenty of time to increase earnings to make up for it.
Alex
No, I said that you should CONSIDER them as a Vendor.
If in the past you priced out Dell and HP, next time price out Dell, HP, and IBM. How many small/mid-zied business EVER consider IBM when getting prices.
That's all I'm suggesting.
Alex
If you are in IT, or otherwise have recommendation authority/purchasing authority, consider IBM. Send a letter to someone in IBM Management (someone that really handles customer/shareholder comments, so they know WHY you did it).
Next time you are ordering 1 or 1000 PCs, consider IBM. Instead of going straight to Dell, get a bid from IBM. When you are evaluating 1U Linux servers, get a bid from IBM. When you have an opportunity to bash Apple, consider a PowerMac G5 (powered by IBM PPC chips).
If you are dealing with an outsource/consulting opportunity, call IBM Global Services for a quote.
You don't necessarily have to use them if other Vendors make fiancial sense, but many people I know (myself included), rarely include IBM in a set of considered vendors.
After the "Peace, Love, Linux" campaign, when we got new hardware for our Linux/OpenBSD machines, we looked at IBM for our server needs, unfortunately they didn't have a competitive product in our price range, so we went with Penguin Computing.
However, I consider IBM as one of my preferred vendors.
Dell doesn't contribute to the industry beyond cutting costs and cutting support (the former helping all us consumers of IT). IBM does real research pushing forward. That is IBM's decision, and they are making what they think will make them money in the long run, and it appears to be working.
However, if you want to support IBM, sing their praises and consider them for any vendor decisions that you can implement.
NOTE: if your boss won't do the Open Source thing, and is instead planning a Microsoft roll-out, i.e. a web project with IIS/ASP/MS-SQL and you want Apache/Perl or PHP/MySQL (I know PostgreSQL is better, you may not), don't pitch to the boss that you can download Debian for free, recommend calling IBM Global Services. Also, pitch DB2 as a better alternative to MS-SQL.
There are MANY subtle ways to show IBM your support.
If IBM adds a few pennies a share because Slashdotters and other Tech-heads push them as a vendor, PARTICULARLY AS A LINUX VENDOR, then IBM will keep up the good fight.
Alex
If you have a system on the Alpha that is say, 3 years old, and you were expecting to upgrade in 2 years, then this forces a decision: go through a PAINFUL migration expense now, or make a capital investment to push it off.
Remember, buying equipment is easily depreciated over 3 years for PCs, probably longer is reasonable for Big Iron (I don't mean for tax purposes, I mean for their financials). If it costs me $0.5m in capital costs spread out over 5 years to upgrade a LOT of Alpha machines, even if it only costs me $200k to migrate off the platform, I may prefer to buy the Alphas that will only hit earnings by $100k...
It also depends, what is IT's budget for new hardware vs. budget for software migration expenses.
Also, if you were planning to buy a new Alpha to replace your old one, this is a smart time to buy it, because you can avoid dealing with the software migration now. Let's say you need to upgrade within 12 months, would you rather rush a migration job, or buy the gear and deal with the migration in 3-4 years, when you have time to plan.
You haven't seen a classic film transfer into HD then... Watch HDNet movies some time, it looks incredible. There are also many movies that HAVE HD transfers because of HBO-HD, SHO-HD, HD Net movies, etc.
Also, many of the more recent DVD transfers were transfered via an HD transfer process, then outputting as 480p (and interlaced to 480i) for the DVDs, meaning that if movies were transferred in the past two years, there may not be much of a problem to get an HD-DVD out, and start making money,.
Alex
That's what he did, and he got DECIMATED FOR IT.
If reality and your views are in conflict, what makes more sense to reconsider, your views or reality?
Alex
I watched the speach that night (live) because I found Dean fascinating (despite being a conservative Republican). He was a moderate/conservate Democrat that opposed the Iraq war (a reasonable position that I disagree with), but was extremely entertaining.
The screaming noise was disturbing NOT because of the volume/noise (at least to me).
He lost an election badly that he was supposed to win. He came out and sounded delusional. It was SUPPOSED to be a concession speech, and when he came out, he rambled about how a year ago who would have thought that they would come in third (true, conventional wisdom is that the top 3 survive Iowa, top 2 survive New Hampshire, then off to the raises).
Had he began on a more somber note, admitted their disappointment, but that they would have kept fighting, I would agree with those that the out of control media was unfair.
However, he gave an EXTREMELY absurd "concession" speach that sounded like a high school pep rally, which scared the powers that be... Sure the media/Internet junkies went nuts with the scream, but the speach was EXTREMELY undignified and inappropriate for a nationally televised political speach.
This was a concession speach AFTER an ACTUAL election, not a rally-the-base before the vote.
Alex
I know every liberal wants to believe that 99% of the country is liberal, and it's rich white New York Republicans than control the otherside, but it's mind boggling. The sooner the left understands this, the sooner they can stop losing election after election (the country is swinging Right, even if Bush's recent screwups cost them the campaign).
The GOP is EXTREMELY grass-roots, but its grass roots are in rural Christian areas. It's popular in small towns, etc.
The Democratic party is no more grass-roots oriented... If it was, then the Candidate of the people (Dean, or even Edwards, who finished #2 in Iowa) would have one, instead the power brokers and the media conspired to put their good ole boy Kerry in.
Part of the GOP's political effectiveness is a simplified platform and support among the rank-and-file, hence Republicans stay on talking-points, which I guess is command-and-control. In the past 10 years, the left has gotten so used to losing that they now only look out for themselves and don't maintain a consistent message.
The LAST time the Democrats had a consistent message was Bill Clinton in 92 (which brought Democrats to power), "It's the economy stupid," and "Make the rich pay their fair share." It wasn't this soak the rich mentally that Kerry has that attacks upper-income producers, it was always "fair share" (whether you agree with what he considered fair).
In 1994 the GOP started "staying on message" with their "Contract With America" and pulled the country to the right.
There is a LOT of grass roots AND top-down behavior for both parties.
The Democrat's CURRENT grass roots activities REALLY hurts them, because the GOP puts "good Christian men & women" on the street, and the Democrats end up with young, starry eyed fanatically hippies... Who do you think appeals to your swing voter or those that don't always show up to elections?
If you want to stand as the pillars of morality and justice in the software world, then you should act morally, not do whatever you are legally allowed to do.
Of course there is a different standard for GPL coders. They HOLD themselves to a higher standard when they release "Free Software."
Alex
BSD people want their code used... period. It's a great license... Truly altruistic and makes the world a better place. BSD Sockets and the TCP/IP stack is probably the BIGGEST reason that TCP/IP is the dominant protocol and the Internet took off. If Microsoft (little company with 95% of the desktops), WinSOCK (the socket solution before Microsoft made a decent one), and Apple (another little billion dollar company with most of the rest of the remaining 5%, at least at the time protocol "wars" could have happened) couldn't get TCP/IP stacks easily and cheaply, there would be no reason for TCP/IP to be adapted.
Microsoft had NetBEUI, which couldn't scale, and their own implementation of Novell's IPX/SPX stack. Do you think the fact that they could freely adopt a working TCP/IP stack was PART of the reason that they started adopting it for their networks? If the only option were some GPL's TCP/IP stack, Microsoft might have just pushed IPX/SPX or something equally proprietary, instead of a freely available specification.
The reason that BSD people seem to have a problem with the GNU/Linux and GPL fanatics is that they take BSD code, don't share back (so far, no different than proprietary developers), but then TALK about how free they are and trash the BSD systems as being inferior.
Apple took a LOT of BSD code, they gave some back where they made changes, and speak positively about FreeBSD. They also hired some FreeBSD people. There isn't any complaining about OS X in the BSD community, everyone seems to be cheering Apple on for bringing a System with a full FreeBSD user-space to the mass market.
The problem is that Linux took a lot of BSD code, didn't share back, and THEN copped an attitude that is the problem.
If Linux people when using BSD code showed the SAME respect as they demand of their code (sharing the changes upstream under the BSD-license), there wouldn't be an issue. Is there a legal requirement that the Linux people do so? No... But the last time I checked, being a good person wasn't defined as taking advantage of good deeds and doing whatever you could get away with.
If the Linux people truly valued the sharing of code, there would be a real effort to provide changes/improvements back up to the BSD pool when they borrowed code... i.e. treat it as THOUGH it was under the GPL? Why? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...
The RIGHT thing to do, if you are a GPL advocate and want others to respect your code is to TREAT other code as though it was under the GPL. If you use Public Domain code, put your code into the Public Domain, if you use BSD code, put your code under the BSD license. That is following the Golden Rule.
This bizarre idea that you should do whatever you can get away with is just plain immoral.
I'm not questioning the RIGHT of the users of BSD code to lock it away under whatever conditions they want. I'm questioning why people seem to think that DOING SO is moral and just.
Alex
It was very exciting, it was about three years ago and he was my brother's roommate for a summer in Boston. They were renting a room for the summer at my college fraternity house, and he was the only unfriendly Canadian that I've ever met.
My Canadian stereotype, similar to Americans, but a little nicers and a little slower... (note: probably not an intelligence difference, just a less intense and more laid back atmosphere than the parts of America that were close to the Canadian border near them).
When I met the rude, obnoxious, self-absorbed Canadian, I was FLOORED.
But yeah, unfriendly Canadians are a rarity... everyone seems to know ONE, but NOBODY seems to know TWO.
Alex
Why would I open a Window? I run Applications a lot, so the Application folder is on my dock. If I download the application, it pops up the disk image on my machine and I can "usually" run the application.
If I like it, I can drag it to my Applications folder. If I don't, I eject the virtual drive (happens on its own if I shut the machine down). Nothing has been installed.
If I don't want it anymore, I drag from my Applications folder to the trash...
No libraries to track down, no muss, no fuss. Any libraries are bundled into Frameworks (with a well behaved application) that can sit inside the Application bundle.
if there are a LOT of them, or they are across LOTS of applications (like Office, for example), then the installer can put them in the correct location.
Out of curiousity, you've built the application, congrats. If you don't like it, how do you uninstall it?
Of course I remember those days... I spent $500 for a single-speed CD-ROM with a proprietary connector to a PAS 16 and used that until it litterally died. My recently retired Windows machine (because I do everything on my Powerbook new) still has a 4x Caddy-based Plexwriter from '97, I DO remember the hell of CD switching.
Please reread my post. Tell me where I advocated "rifling through stacks of easily-damaged media?" I suggested that applications SHOULD be that simple to run.
For example, if a friend brings a Gamecube game over, we pop it in and play. If I like it, I go and buy it.
If a friend brings over a kick-ass Windows application/game, I have to install it to try it out, and if I don't like it, uninstall it, and it tends to leave libraries, etc., all over my drive.
Most programs fit on 1 CD. DVD-ROM becoming standard (all but the oldest machines at this point, and those will be out of use within a few years... and its not like the manufacturer couldn't include the CD-ROMs AND DVD-ROMs) make that point moot.
The point is, why can't I try an Application off a CD? If I download a Mac OS X Application, most of the time I can run the program off my mounted "virtual" disk, and off a CD-ROM, I can run it from there.
If I buy a RISK game, or Scrabble, or something else basic, why is there an "installer" that "NEEDS" to be run? Why can't I play the game, and if I like it and don't want to pop the CD in, I run the installer? The CD can auto-run the application, so why doesn't the Window pop-up and let me hit play (installer could be on equal footing).
Alternatively, when I pop the CD in, start the game. When the program ends, pop-up a Window (a la exit-consoles on web sites) that asks if I would like to install it so that I don't need the CD again?
Wouldn't that be novel?
Once I popped the CD-ROM into my machine, I clearly want to run the program. Why must I install it first?
Alex
Since it seems he's used this camera analogy throughout the article I'll comment on this little blurb. I'm not so sure it's a very good analogy to use either. The fact is that if you want better pictures, you NEED to go through all of those "useless" features and change them. All of those values will change depending on the conditions, the lighting, and the activity your photographing. If there are those people that DONT care about those features, get the one-use ones. Hell, they even have digital one-time use camera now.
See, this is where you missed his point.
I have a fancy camera (analog), and a less fancy digital. With the fancy analog camera, if I want to take a family photo, I press the button. At most, I need to hit the clearly marked flash button to turn it on. Of course, if I'm feeling artistic, I may want to adjust the exposure, shutter speed, etc., and those features are all there. However, to simply to the most common operation, take a picture, I don't need to do anything.
Your attitude is elitist, "if you don't want the fancy features, get a disposable camera." Beyond the fact that disposables get expensive real fast, what if I want to have a single camera and be able to take real photos AND snapshots?
The point of the article is that the simple should be simple. If I want to take a picture, I press a button. When I install a dictionary program, instead of being interviewed by the program, let me quickly look up words.
The most common use for the references is a lookup mode, and the application vendor could certainly include a dictionary application AND a multi-media application.
I have an HDTV. Yes the DirecTV box required some settings (which are supposed to be done by the installer)... it asked for my zipcode for the guide. HOWEVER, if I just wanted to watch TV, I could have plugged in the box, turned on the TV, and let it auto-scan the antenna (this should happen on first use, instead of via menu, but it wasn't too bad).
I can adapt the colors, I can go into the service menu and tweak further, etc., for a reasonable picture I needed to calibrate the convergence, etc. However, if I just bought the TV and the HDTV box, on Sunday and set them up 15 minutes before kick-off, I could have been watching the game without problem.
The SIMPLE operation: watch a football game, is easy (could be easier, but pretty easy).
The COMLICATED operation: calibrate colors to the Avia disc, adjust convergence, etc., was complicated.
With MOST computer software, it wants me to go through a process to use the application. That is unacceptable.
Most SOFTWARE SHOULD run off the CD, or like MOST Mac software and be a draggable install (drag into Applications). Installers are bad (make them for unusual use), better search order for applications to it can be one Folder/Bundle is better.
If you have features that require libraries to be installed at boot-time, make them optional. If the library isn't there, no feature unless you run the installer.
Wouldn't it be great if simply RUNNING a computer program/game was as easy as playing a PS2/XBox/Gamecube game?
Sure the powerful functionality can be there for power users, but most people should be able to use your program without help. That sadly isn't the case.
There was a DX-2 100, but it wasn't on the market long. It had stablity problems (I believe RAM related), so the RAM had to introduce wait states, which reduced the speed advantages over the DX-4 100. The part was more expensive because fewer of them succeeded, and it confused the market which was all 25/33 MHz buses, trying to create a 50 MHz bus that was only used for that chip (the 25 was used for the SX25, DX25, DX-2 50; the 33 for the SX33, DX33, DX-2 66, and DX-4 100, but most importantly the motherboards/chipsets, all third party at the time, were mature at 25/33, and 50 was touch) was a marketing mess so it rather died.
I remember having a DX-33, and the upgrade chips DX-2 66, etc., were REALLY expensive and not great. I looked at upgrading, but at the time, the press ragged on Intel because doubling the clock speed only increased performance a "bit" 25% or so IIRC, and clock doubling was seen as a cheap hack.
However, beginning with the P133, it began to shine.
Alex
If only people over 40 live, that's kinda it... if all children die and you are left with only women over 40, repopulating the species is a bit tough...
Note: I don't AGREE with the Slashdot crowd, I think that we would survive a Smallpox attack, and I also think that the bio-engineered smallpox would never launch... it's not a USEFUL weapon (the goal of a weapon is to defeat the otherside), it's a doomsday weapon... i.e. If a US First Strike annihilates EVERYTHING (cities, military bases, missile silos, etc), but the Russians could launch 2 of these, the US still loses. Doomsday weapons are part of the MAD game theory, but not something that would actually launch.
HOWEVER, if you wipe out everyone under 40, then yes, that's all she wrote... even if the adults get to go around without kids and party for 50 years, that's still it for civilization.
Alex
Wow... I'm really pushing this thread to the limit... but maybe people will benefit...
/usr/local/etc, then make other changes in /etc, for what on Redhat was a trip to authconfig.
I got it to work, it took 12 hours of playing, and editting lots of files. In the end, I found it frustrating that I would have to install several things out of ports, edit files in
I understand what you mean about the "suffer once" proposition, but in the end, I wasn't in the mood to suffer. I saw what was involved in getting everything to work, but I got it to work (admittedly, I don't remember if I got Kerberos to work on FreeBSD, this might have been before my Kerberos roll-out, but LDAPS was DEFINITELY working).
You are right, once you leave RPMs, RedHat is a disaster. As a result, I don't leave RPMs. That is why I said, "Redhat is simply moving in a direction that I like." The default RHEL 3.0 ES DOES what I need, I don't need to go to third party RPMs, the base system does just about EVERYTHING I need. The only thing that I am missing is an XML-RPC module for PHP, and I'm working with RedHat to get a supported one. With my RHEL machines, I don't build from source, because that is what I am paying the premium for. Even with Samba, I use the stock RPMs, I just edit the conf file by hand because their GUI is too limited.
My comment about down to the metal with FreeBSD is actually why I don't want FreeBSD. If I was building an "Internet Server" (web/mail/mysql or postgresql), I would be using FreeBSD, no question. However, I'm not looking to get down to the metal. My servers exist for a business purpose, and I am focused on the business purpose. I'm not a Sysadmin, I'm a small business owner that is using servers for a business objective.
As a result, Redhat's "usage focused" system is preferable to me from the FreeBSD "each app lives on its own" style.
Does that make sense?
I love playing with servers, and for that FreeBSD is the "better" OS. However, from a business process, RedHat is simply there and moving forward. I don't NEED to use my books on each Unix application.
I'm willing to read and learn PostgreSQL, because that is critical to my business. I'm not interested in the intricacies of getting LDAP to build/work, I'm happier typing authconfig and away I go.
Thank you for a terrific thread, feel free to email me (or post here if you want) if you want to continue forward.
On your "background" and NOS point, I see your point...
Redhat behaves like a corporate NOS (NetWare, Windows NT, etc.), where it is process oriented, however the implementation is using the same BSD-licensed open source utilities. FreeBSD behaves like a Unix (because Unixes are MUCH more heavily influenced by the original BSD project).
If I was a Solaris/AIX System Administrator, I'd feel right at home with FreeBSD. As a Windows NT guy, RedHat is a pretty painless transisition, while FreeBSD is a different idea.
I guess what I'm saying is that I LIKE Redhat's "what do you want to do" approach, it make sense to me. If making the servers work better was my primary goal, then I would like FreeBSD's "here is a great platform, install whatever servers you want." To be honest, my favorite right now is OS X Server, it's a little rough and immature, but Server Admin and Workgroup Manager ARE REALLY, REALLY, REALLY awesome.
Take care, and thanks for a great discussion.
Alex
When deciding on a new server platform, we set up two machines, a Linux machine and a Redhat machine. I was the BSD advocate, my partner was pushing RedHat.
/etc /usr/local/etc system was brilliantly simple. All told, to roll out my machines it would have been installing the 10 or 11 packages that I built out of the ports, plus my notes on the dozen of files to edit...
I absolutely GOT everything to work on FreeBSD. The
I 100% agree that FreeBSD's BSD based file system is MUCH nicer to work with than RedHat's SysV/BSD/RedHat-specific attrocity. Setting up multiple IPs is MUCH better under FreeBSD, because the BSD file format is straight-forward, and RedHat's system is EXTREMELY complex, however RedHat's tools do the job. While the purist in me agrees with you about X11, the realist in me realizes that that simply involves checking the box at install that says X11. When I need to remotely update a machine, I fire up X11 on my Mac, ssh -X, and away we go.
Where RedHat rocks is: authconfig
For my network, where we use LDAP + Kerberos (or LDAP w/ StartTLS if I haven't setup the Kerberos yet), authconfig which will do LDAP, Kerberos, Hesiod, or even SMB and set everything up.
With BSD, I am stuck doing everything "manually."
My biggest gripe in Unix (being an old NT guy) is Directory Services. On an NT network, everything uses the NT Directory by default... whether that be the local users, the domain users, or Active Directory (that I'm admittedly not familiar with). With Unix, every application seems to want its own users/groups by default.
A Directory Abstraction layer (like PAM is/tries to be... pam doesn't really support Kerberos or other slick stuff properly) is the first step, but applications should USE that. Then the Unix "simple tool" model would work, I could use flat files, a local database, a PostgreSQL database, a *shudder* MySQL "database," or LDAP, and all my applications would work. Instead I need to teach each service separately how to reach my LDAP server, that's insane.
Realistically, RedHat builds most things with MIT Kerberos built in, which is nice. With FreeBSD, I had to build everything myself from Ports, which isn't really a big deal. However, on each machine, I'd need to go in and remember/write down all the configuration stuff. With RedHat, authconfig does the hard stuff.
I'm in agreement that BSD is cleaner, no question. The difference is that my observation is that FreeBSD is used/developed by/for ISPs, Yahoo, and other "big players" on the Internet where BSD is King. RedHat is pushing their Linux-based system into corporate America. As a result, I get to get an Enterprise-friendly Unix for my small business, and free-ride of all the stuff RedHat implements solely so they can go for those big accounts.
I doubt that my experience is normal by any stretch. I run an OS X Network (because we all have local PostgreSQL Databases with Apache/PHP) with some Unix servers, and my Unix Servers need to play nicely with my OS X Server. However, it is typical in that even if you evaluate FreeBSD because it's "better," the fact is it doesn't function like any NOS that IT people are familiar with. RedHat, for all its Windows-like weirdness, fuctions like a NOS. Moving between NetWare, NT, and RedHat is pretty straight-forward. You use the new tools, but it is the same principles of setting up a network operating system. With FreeBSD, it is down to the metal and learning what each application does.
Alex
It is my understanding that the Air Force is also technically part of the Army (although with its own ceremonial, normally, Secretary). If you look up rank insignias, Congress can authorize a 5-star Admiral or General in wartime, but not Marine or Air Force, because technically the Marines are part of the Navy and the Air Force is part of the Army...
The reason for this, to my understanding, is that the Constitution establishes that the President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy (when called up from the state militias of course)...
If you actually had another military, it wouldn't have a Civilian Commander... Therefore, their are four major branches, but Constituionally, there are two.
That's my understanding at least.
Alex
Some spouting nonsense. Official projections of a FULL nuclear exchange between the Warsaw Pact and NATO (i.e. all the nukes) was 10% of the world's population destroyed. So unless they were off by a factor of 10 , we're not capable of killing EVERYONE, and a factor of 5 to hit majority. On top of that, we have maybe 20% of the warheads that we had then...
Most ICBMs were NOT designed to destory cities (contrary to left wing propoganda) but to hit limited military targets, primarily the other side's ICBM silos (to win a nuclear war, you must eliminate a second strike...)...
The Tomahawk Cruise Missile was designed to deliver a nuclear warhead within 7 feet of its target... That would allow you to hit each silo with ONE missile, instead of TWO (to increase the likelihood of taking it out). The end of cold war weapons were finally reaching the goal of winning a nuclear exchange. The US was dangerously close to actually being in the winning seat... i.e. launch a first strike that eliminates the Soviet ability to respond.
That was the scenario that scared the Soviets, not the US having "more". Taking out downtown Manhattan would take 8-12 nuclear missiles... while nuclear weapons are VASTLY more powerful than conventional weapons, they are at their best destroying a reasonable sized target, not "wiping out the world 10 times over" or whatever propoganda we grew up with.
Alex