I switched from Linux to OpenBSD... not considering going back. However, really think carefully about the change, it is non-trivial.
There are no binary patches. If there is a security whole, you can patch the source tree and rebuild. Alternatively you can shut down the services. There are patches to OpenBSD, and applying them requires more knowledge.
Web support sucks. The FAQ, etc. provides some help, not much. Even USENET isn't THAT helpful. You need need to get used to reading man pages... a LOT.
Init: rc style. I think that that the rc system is infinitely more manageable and sane in a BSD environment than a SysV environment, but YMMV.
Community support. The mailling lists are key, but they are much less friendly. Advocacy isn't a priority. If there is a question answered somewhere in the documentation, you'll get told RTFM. If the docs aren't what you are looking for and need a different level of help (more/less tech than the man pages) you may or may not get it.
Apache and mod_ssl are built in. The ports collection is solid. It may not be huge, but I've found just about everything I want there. Keeping ports up with the snapshots is a nice way to get up to date userland code.
Kernel compilaton IS necessary for a server. If you put real iron on the box, or little iron, you'll need a custom kernel. The settings for OpenBSD are reasonable and will run all but the weakest machine. However, getting it to take advantage of more memory, etc., may require some tweaks.
I love OpenBSD, but it is NOT Linux. There is no community bent on global domination. Lots of "Open Source" projects are Linux specific... fortunately its just the crappy ones. However, you'll find annoying issues like cronolog not compiling, no PHP Cache, etc. There is no commercial support.
Unlike a Redhat, OpenBSD is not corporate, it's Theo's toy. As a result, they do what they want, not an attempt to appease customers. With a Redhat box, while some of your code is "scratching an itch," corporate coders can code what is needed.
Realize that the Linux comforts will be lacking.
If you are a sysadmin, check out OpenBSD. If you have a Linux box at home for playing with and think that you are l33t, stay away from OpenBSD with a 10' pole.
I use OpenBSD. It is my primary server system. however, OpenBSD is going to go this one alone. Unfortunately, Theo decided to open his mouth without checking out copyright law first. He declared that Reed didn't have that ability and that he would ignore it. That pissed Reed off.
The idiots on =deadly.org didn't help the situation. A bunch of whiny jerks got all obnoxious. Additionally, the mail bombing of personal attacks from slashdot/deadly was EXTREMELY counter productive.
This is a delicate situation where OpenBSD conceivably broke copyright law and sold CDs as a result.
Diplomacy was needed here, and all this reporting was counter productive. I love OpenBSD, but this was unfortunately Theo's doing. The version of IPFilter in OpenBSD was modified, and the author was never notified. While BSD and GPL licenses don't require notifying the author, common decency does. Unfortunately, an unspoken goal of OpenBSD is to have better software by keeping their changes kinda quiet. You could build a product off OpenBSD, but migrating OpenBSD's changes into FreeBSD is problematic. Given how much gets taken from FreeBSD, this is kinda obnoxious. Nobody really calls OpenBSD on this because it is a small userbase. We only run OpenBSD because the servers we run need very few applications, and the OS+Ports gives us that quickly without cruft. However, the political issues in OpenBSD are a little sad.
Net/Free will stay away from this pissing match with a 10-ft pole. They may hope for a Free (BSDL) filtering package to show up, but they won't get involved in Theo and Darren's pissing match. If OpenBSD gets one working (and likely will in the next 6 mo., OpenBSD's coders are as brilliant and competant as Theo is obnoxious...) FreeBSD and NetBSD may migrate to OpenIPF. However, until they have something done, there is no reason for them to back Theo.
Theo, good luck and happy coding. I wish you would pick up some diplomatic finesse, it would make your life easier. Either way, love the system and look forward to my OpenBSD 2.9 CD.
Pick a single card to accelerate. That should make life MUCH easier on development. I realize the desire to support everything, but you'll do better with a single card.
People can run it w/o acceleration to play around, and if they want to use it, drop $100-$200 on the supported card. Hell, it's easier to try than MacOS X and less of a cost to adopt.
I don't know if there is a Qt port, but if you're going to actual go places, Trolltech seems to want to succeed where Java failled. (Yes, Java is doing well... Java replacing native apps failled miserably, and that WAS the hype 5 years ago, back when applications still existed and weren't all web pages).
I had a Gateway MicroCube, a rebranded Cobalt Cube. In the back of the manual was the GPL v2 and the BSD license. There was probably an attempt to list which covered which, I didn't really pay that much attention.
I doubt that this product didn't include it. If it is in the manual, that is probably acceptable, and I believe that a court would agree.
You have no RIGHT to credit. Indeed, RMS CRITICIZED the requirement of the BSD license for giving credit. (Makes his position on GNU/Linux naming QUITE ironic, even if I agree with him 100%).
I didn't see anything of a GPL violation there. The written notice clause is the only thing that you likely have on them. They make it available online, which is not sufficient. If you filed against them, you'd have a pretty hard time showing anything.
Itemize your list of objections, but it BETTER not be that they didn't give you credit.
The entire article was childish and obnoxious. Quite frankly, the "Open Source Community" he referred to (read, the Slashdot, foaming-at-the-mouth, Linux using, non-programming crew) can use any development model that they would like. AOL is under NO obligation to to play by your conventions, only to follow the GPL to the letter.
Not complying with the spirt of the Open Source Community is IRRELEVANT to a discussion of a GPL violation.
The author of this article is an idiot. This isn't a flame, merely my assessment of the article AND his comments in this thread.
For the desktop environment, it is a battle between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft wins the core corporate users (a proper Exchange client, etc), accounting uses (from the low-end Quickbooks to high-end solutions, you KNOW that MS is supported, even if the backend part runs on real iron, although I still see the occaisional 3270 emulator...), etc.
Apple wins where the creative types need the power that Apple provides for graphic design and musical work. Use Photoshop and Illustrator on Windows and Apple, you'll see the difference.
Solaris/AIX/HP-UX fight out the mid-high end with their Unix lines. The power of them is simply unmatched by anything else.
IBM OWNS the high end with their mainframe line. Although more applications are moving to high-end Unix, this space is still growing, albeit slowly.
The low-end (workgroup) server space belongs to NT/W2K. Although AD is a pain, NT4 still works and works well in this space. For managing a group of Windows workstations, NT still rocks.
The low-mid-range (where web servers prosper, etc) there is a battle between FreeBSD and Linux. Linux is winning in terms of installs, FreeBSD still wins in systems that need the capacity and have professional sysadmins. FreeBSD does everything Linux does, with a more sane process. I personally love OpenBSD, buy YMMV. More people learn Linux than BSD. But I know many people that went from Linux to BSD... I don't know ANY that went back. Linux users tend to play around with it, find the mess that is the hacked together internals, and often move to one of the BSDs where the system is designed by a core team (instead of random apps from everyone thrown together). I believe that the BSDs kick Linux's ass, and will continue to do so for a while.
Linux has a REAL core strength, that of a programmer's desktop. If you are developing server side apps, having a REAL server environment is priceless. Even if you want real Iron for the deployment, Linux is more than adequate for testing. Additionally, the desktop environment/programmers tools are BEST supported on Linux. The Open Source ones support BSD as an afterthought, commercial ones barely support it. This is an area where Linux shines. I don't let Linux in the server room, but the programmers work on Linux workstations. The random tools may make Linux servers aggravating, but they are a gem for developers.
The Unix workstation market remains a fight between Sun and HP, although this market is dying off. Linux is making SOME inroads here, as is Apple Mac OS X (several commercial Unix apps are coming over).
Apple Mac OS X shows a lot of promise as a compromise OS for those that want the programming power of Linux with the compatibility that MacOS offers (MS Office, etc.).
I look foward to renewed competition. The BSD process of an integrated OS makes it silly for the desktop, though die-hard fans will use it.
The word of the day is interoperability. A Linux hegemony is NO better than a MS one.
We have a 21" Apple CRT from about 9 months ago, it's simply stunning. The color quality is incredible. With them pushing more LCDs, I may replace my ugly 19" CRT on my Cube with a 15" or 17" LCD, and move the CRT back to my Windows machine.
Their HUGE CRTs had the best color that I have seen. However, I mostly used consumer CRTs. Apple's ability to push LCDs in the high end is terrific.
As another poster commented, the iMac is for the price conscious, and they have a monitor. Additionally, Apple isn't including the monitor on the workstations, but they have a line of monitors. If you want a slick LCD for your Cube, get one of these. If you toss your G4 workstation under the desk, then buy whatever monitor suits your fancy.
This is the right decision.
And including OS X is great... it means I don't need to push off my Macintosh purchase for another 6 weeks to avoid paying an extra $140 for the OS. For those of us looking for OS X workstations, this is a $140 price drop.
This is great. With a nice Mac OS X workstation, I don't need to run my office applications under windows and connect to a Linux or BSD box for my Unix ones, I can just compile them locally.
Last time I checked, fuel costs were close to double in Europe what they are in the states... although that may not be the case with our current crunch.
It is a GOOD analogy. Manual transmissions are more fuel efficient, and therefore, if you care about fuel costs, you get them. Higher fuel-costs => bias towards manual transmissions.
A Linux corporate desktop (I'm sorry, but bleah... MS owns this one, Mac is a bit behind, and the Linux solutions aren't close... know what market you're good in, and corporate desktops ain't it) is less expensive than a MS one (cheaper hardware needs, and price out: W2K, O2K-Pro, Visio, Exchange CAL, NT CAL, random shareware utilities to be able to open, say, a zip file, etc., other software... $1000-$2000/workstation). So in an environment where these costs matter more (either lower margin business, or country with a bad exchange rate with the dollar) than the productivity difference, you go with that solution.
Notice the FIRST line: Windows 2000 machine (for accessing corporate resources, gotta have Smart Scheduler and Clarify)
That is mandating Windows. You have a corporate workstation for corporate resources. If you need additional machines, fine. However, I'm certain there is a bias for the 12 MS employees that aren't coding to do MS only.
However, in the AOL Time Warner case, while AOL does have a massive e-mail system, it isn't a corporate groupware system. I'm actually shocked that AOL employees use AOL internally. I had assumed that while the company grew, a corporate system was put in place.
In all honesty, I think that AOL has an impressive product. The people that I know that use AOL LOVE AOL, in a way that nobody LOVES their ISP, and the way that some of us LOVED the BBSes we used to call. And it isn't a AOL=Internet thing, they run AOL at the office. They use a real web browser, but they like to check their AOL e-mail, IMs (don't like AIM for whatever reason), maybe pop into a chat room, who the hell knows.
Some people REALLY love AOL, but it still isn't a corporate system.
Okay, so a few months ago, you ran an article: Are TPC Benchmarks A Worthwhile Measure? where this test was derided as being a worthless measurement? It was seen as "not realistic" because nobody needs those kind of servers... At least on Slashdot.
So now that SGI cranks out a server with twice the processors and knocks off a half year old record, it's legitimate because Linux wins?
This is absurd. Either this is a legit benchmark or not, make up your mind. If you justify hype like this, then you are no better than MS's FUD teams.
You can't honestly view benchmarks as: well, when Linux wins they are the holy grail, but when someone else wins, it's rigged.
I don't understand this crowd. One minute, you're all spouting Libertarian rhetoric, the next, you're demanding that others foot the bill.
The records are available. They may not be made in the most convenient form, but the information is available.
If you want everything done for you, someone has to pay for it. If you want the wonderfully formatted patents, pony up the cash. Someone has to foot the bill.
The patent office makes them available, but should our taxes be raised to subsidize everything? People doing patent research can pony up the money and pay for this service.
Has it occured to anyone here that people's time costs money?
I forgot, this is Slashdot. Once you incorporate, you have an obligation to do things for the Slashdot crowd, give them your research, etc.
Give me a break.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL
I wasn't doubting the power of the CoS, that's an incredibly powerful position. Nor are White House aides all minor positions... Remember Iran-Contra... The White House established a private military, multiple corporations to launder the funds, etc., all under the White House aides. They do quite a bit.
however, the Chief of Staff is NOT the same as a politician. In the cabinet, people are normally accomplished politicians... i.e. popular Senators, Governors, or the occaisional undersecretary from the last White House of that party.
When picking Cabinet members, the President has to make certain that the Senate will go along. For this reason, the people in the "official" capacity are choosen for their political skills to influence people, etc. They are done to "appease a constituency", "secure a state" for the next election, etc. Rarely are they chosen for their ability to manage the organization that they head. Bush's shortened transistion may have helped in this regard, because he plucked a LOT of No. 2s from the last GOP administration, his father's.
The Chief of Staff is choosen to get the job done. As a result, they are chosen for their political sense and administrative efficiency. Most of the Chiefs of Staff could never have been elected President or Vice President (although Cheney seems to act like a Chief of Staff at times...), but they can run the White House like nobody's business.
They are NOT a politician in the regards that Slashdotters think, but they are not an aide as you suggested that I implied. Senior level White House staff are a unique breed... influential, powerful, and significant.
John Podesta WAS a staffer. Chief of Staff is an employee of the White House, not an appointed office. Appointees must be confirmed by the Senate. Staff refers to the people within a politicians team that are paid for as part of their office expenses. This is quite ironic, given the power and influence of staff members and their role in legislation. One key difference is that they have no authority in themselves, merely acting on behalf of their poss.
For example, Ashcroft has powers granted by the legislature and the head of the DoJ. He is therefore confirmed by the Senate.
When the President hires an aide (normally done by someone assigned to this task by the Chief of Staff, who is responsible for overseeing the staff), they are not approved by the Senate.
Staff members extend the policians range by acting on their behalf.
However, in the article you state, "This got me thinking; which politicos out there actually understand tech issues (rather than just have a staffer who occasionally reads Wired)?" This is an ironic question to ask when you are excited about a Staffer understanding tech...
The NT project was started in '92, Linux in '93... Hardly the 10 year edge that Slashdoters make.
I would NEVER put a web page up with IIS, period. I think that IIS is a dangerous piece of crap with MANY security holes.
When I turn off various services on my NT boxes and only bind protocols to the correct adapter, I've found them to be pretty solid. As a result, they don't do ALL that much, but I've found them reasonably secure.
Linux needs to compete on its merits.
The BSDs compete on the merits of their code.
Microsoft competes on the merits of their software AND their marketing efforts. Their marketing efforts DO provide value, notice the ISV support that they have.
Linux seems content to compete on hype and press releases.
This notion of manifest destiny within the Linux camp is a little irritating. I don't know who declared the Linux users the chosen people, but it is silly.
The BSDs are as far along as Linux, despite a licensing advantage for Linux. Linux takes BSD code, uses it in a GPL application, prohibiting BSD from using it. Now the BSDL ALLOWS this, but there is a BIG different between the Linux crowd and proprietary vendors. The idea of the BSDL is to improve aoftware by releasing. It is understood that other groups will use it. The annoyance with the GPL, is that the users CLAIM to be providing it for free, but they don't give back to the BSD group that they took from.
In this Linux manifest destiny scenario, it is acceptable to DEMAND that others release things through compulsory licensing, while not doing the right thing and contributing back to BSD projects.
The hypocracy in the Linux camp is astounding.
I believe in Open Source, but I don't put Linux on my servers.
You have a right to know the laws that you live under. In this scenario, you have no ability to follow the law because you can't obtain the law.
Write your Congressmen and tell them that this concerns you as a citizen. Explain that you are a voter (list your address), mention your concern on this issue.
This is a no-brainer win for a Congressman, so they will probably take it up. We are pretty well spread on this site throughout the United States, so we might actually be able to bring this to congressional attention.
Look, let's be Real, MS has released two UNRELATED Operating Systems. DOS/Win9x, and Windows NT. NT is an ENTIRELY new OS. The only things that are the same are Win32 calls, because a Win32 layer was built into Win95. They are NOT the same OS.
MS started building NT around the same time that Linus released his first Linux kernel. At MOST they had a two year head start.
More importantly, Unix designs are public knowledge and taught in schools. MS does not have a Unix design. Advantage: Linux, because of the common knowledge component.
BSD predates NT by a long shot. BSD code COULD be incorporated into Linux (as long as the original copyright was respected). Linux uses BSD code, and Linus could have just forked one of the 386BSD project like everyone else.
GNU was started in 1984. Much of the Linux distribution is GNU. Until a few years ago (like 3), 80% of a Linux distribution appeared to be GNU. Advantage: Linux
Linux was not some little underdog. Linux HAS MANY advantages in time and prewritten code.
MCSEs are NOT A CLASS OF PEOPLE. NT Administrator is a job description. MCSE is a certification that shows that you understand the basics of NT. I've had one for four years. Guess what, I'm STILL A HUMAN BEING CAPABLE OF THINKING. Insulting people for having an MCSE is childish and immature. Despite having an MCSE, I run a few OpenBSD installations, do software design, etc., etc. One can do many things, and only on Slashdot does it seem that one can either use Linux or Microsoft Products.
Now, I've put live Linux machines up and started to play with them. At times, running Redhat 6.2 with updates, I've found that the box gets rooted if we leave the machine alone for a week while we have other projects.
There is something wrong with some of the code that Redhat installs. The other distributions may be better, but that was a real turn-off.
OpenBSD, however, appears ROCK-SOLID, stable, secure, and FAR easier to configure than a Redhat box. Getting back to a BSD style system from a SysV style takes SOME time, but once you get the hang of it it is a MUCH saner system.
It was NEVER illegal to distribute KDE, OR QT. It was questionable whether you could SHIP KDE already compiled with QT. It was a theoretical arguement, and a silly one. More importantly, it was a dispute. The KDE team maintained that the GPL did NOT prohibit what they did. RMS maintained that it did. RMS wrote the thing, but that doesn't mean that he is correct. I think that the KDE camp likely was correct, because in the unlikely scenario that someone would press the charge, I think that KDE (and whoever distributed it) would prevail.
Go to xemacs.com and read about the RMS tirade. RMS's licensing views ARE NOT appeased by making everything GPL'd. He is on a political movement and the politics are what matter to him, not the quality of code.
Linux allows closed source binary modules in the Linux kernel, should everyone here boycott Linux? He is allowing the core of the OS to be dependant on proprietary components, let's throw a temper tantrum.
TrollTech wasn't misguided, they DISAGREED with RMS's theory of a derivate product. The maintained that linking against QT didn't make you a derivative. They have since decided to accept the community's theory (not really tested) and release under the GPL.
TrollTech is making money on their commercial contracts, and they are happy to let KDE build off of it. They even GPL'd QT to help KDE's adoption. Does QT benefit from KDE dominating, yes. But note that QT includes an IDE, and now KDE has one that competes with it (for free). At this point, the ONLY reason to buy QT is a commercial product OR a QT-based product without KDE.
KDE offered us a useful GUI for a while, and busted ass. GNOME started to spite KDE, and RMS used it as a soapbox.
I TOTALLY respect RMS's works and I respect his views, but sometimes we need to ask ourselves the goal.
UNLESS you buy 100% into his philosophy on free software, then you NEED to REALLY evaluate this. If you are not a TOTAL Free Software diehard, then ask yourself if TOTALLY Free (GNU's GPL in fact) desktop with great code is good enough, or you need to be pissed off about a resolved licensing dispute.
It's time to move on. KDE is cranking, GNOME is press releasing.
I saw the Pilot, WAY COOL. Saw a few more episodes, also cool. But I can't for the life of me remember what it is on.
It started out cool, kinda what Trek would be after everything collapses.
My assessment: the show was a cheap production. The camera work was bad, most acting sucked, and the effects were worthless.
HOWEVER: the plot rocked, the characters were meaningful, etc. I really enjoyed what I saw... you've inspired me, I'm going to figure out when it is on.
IBM was shipping $5000-$10000 PCs to their mainframe customers. The idea was to create a HOME computer so people could work at home. The goal was to wed these machines to the Mainframe business. IBM laughed at the PC market, and never dreamed of them being cheap toys OR work machines. You would use the mainframe at work, but you could dial-in, etc. from home.
IBM was under anti-trust investigation for bundling their OS with their mainframes, and wanted to avoid antagonizing the DOJ. Apple was scoring big with their machines because of Visicalc. IBM wanted to stop that quickly, and needed to get a machine out the door. The guys in Boca grabbed some "off the shelf" ICs and put a system together.
Intel was in the right place at the right time with a cheap 16-bit machine. IBM wanted to cut costs, so they went with the 8088, which was the 8086 grafted onto a 8-bit bus. Remember, a simple bus is that many "wires," so 8-bit is a cheaper mobo to manufacture. They built a BIOS, and Gates gave them what seemed like a sweetheart deal. IBM thought Gates just wanted to push BASIC sales, and therefore was licensing the OS for nothing. When Compaq reverse engineered the IBM BIOS... well, MS-DOS was born.
Remember the old days: IBM: BASICA (Advanced Basic, included support for disk drives so you weren't stuff with cassette tapes like BASIC), and MS: GW-BASIC.
Similar, a few different quirks, etc.
I think I have my PC-DOS 2.1 disks and MS-DOS 3.3 disks somewhere around my parent's place.
You haven't looked at OS X, have you? It's a SLICK Interface on a UNIX. The system has quirks. It is definitely not a replacement for my Linux workstation yet, but it's DAMNED close. When Office for OS X comes out, those of us running two machines to use Unix on one and regular productivity software on another, are going to be NUTS not to look at OS X.
I got a Cube with OS X 10.0.3 on my desk for evaluation, I love it, I just wish that I had some time to play with it and get it set up.
However, the Mac faithful aren't deciding between Linux and OS X, they are mostly running OS 9 and whining a lot. However, every Unix person that I know that has played with OS X is impressed... It's a sharp OS.
That said, I think that Apple would be smart to ship a stripped down PPC system for hackers. Let people buy a G3 machine w/o monitor. The Cube/G4-Workstation are priced a bit out of a hobbyist range (someone that likes to play with machines, and wants a computer to put new pieces in, not be useful on) and the iMac is no fun to play with and comes with a crappy monitor.
Apple should ship some G3 Workstations... hell, pull the Beige G3 design or B&W G3 designs out of the closet and run the suckers off like there is no tomorrow.
Or sell the motherboards. Let people play around with them.
A friend of mine was in Motorola when this went down. He wasn't working in the chip division, but he was at the company. He told me this at the time after taking a tour of some stuff that they were doing in the Boca Raton facility (I actually ended up working 2 blocks from the old IBM site a while later, but this was after IBM shut it down and it's a useless tangent so I'll shut up).
IBM had rooms filled with PPC Computers, but they all ran NT. IBM REFUSED to ship them (despite the NT port), for two reasons:
1) Embarassment: they couldn't get OS/2 shipping, and it was always REAL SOON
2) Dumb corporate policy: Until about 2 years ago, IBM refused to allow two divisions to compete with themselves, and NT-PPC Machines would compete with x86-OS/2 machines, so no NT-PPC machines.
Remember, there was little PPC/NT support, and it would be running DOS/Windows applications, which OS/2 did.
Apple didn't kill Open PowerPC, IBM's management did.
Ironically, about 3 months after NT-PPC was dropped (largely because IBM, the one pushing PPC, wouldn't sell NT Workstations with it), was when IBM decided that they needed to sell NT Workstations... and they did so with x86 chips.
This was a Management decision that I am certain they don't regret. Remember, Win95 didn't successfully kill the x86/DOS arena, and IBM wouldn't have gotten good application support for NT-PPC.
Okay, we all know that WINELIB lets Win32 become a native Linux API. Okay, Win32 is ugly and disgusting. However, if game programmers want to code for Win32 and they can compile on both systems, more power to you. I don't have a problem with Using Winelib IF the authors would release a Win32 AND Linux binary on the same CD. I'd rather not have emulation mode used (although for older, less resource-intensive games, its fine... old games are still fun).
However, the belief that MS can change the APIs isn't QUITE true. Keep in mind, many installations are still running Win95, a 6 year old OS, and will be doing so for a number of years. Until companies eliminate the last vestiges of their DOS past, Win95 isn't dying.
While MS can release new APIs, why would a company limit their market. By using the older APIs (and if necessary, DirectX), then they can support a wider market within the Wintel world. If Linux can support DirectX, then you can release a Linux binary on the CD.
Are their better APIs than DirectX? For somethings, sure. Why not encourage OpenGL instead of Direct3D, which makes porting to the Macintosh easier.
However, DirectX has created a world where we have more games than we did in the DOS world, and it's apparently not as bad as DirectX 2.0 or 3.0 that Carmack hated. Let's me real, if people LIKE the DirectX calls (or tools to develop them) why can't we implement DirectX on every OS? I mean, how you implement the calls is entirely up to you. DirectX abstracts you from the hardware and Win32 on the PC, why not use DirectX on other platforms.
If you can get DirectX ported well to Linux (and Mac OS X), then there is a decent percentage of the gaming public that becomes dependant on an available version of DirectX. When MS releases a new version of DirectX (or a secret hidden version, whatever), most companies will be compatible with older ones rather than losing a chunk of sales.
Contrary to popular belief, MS is not a supernatural company. They are a monopolist that abuses their power, but they are as mortal as the rest of us. Remember, for the first few YEARS of Win32 (NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, beginning on Win95) they had Win32s out, which was a subset that ran on Win3.1. Well guess what, MOST Win32 programs in that era were Win32s programs, that took advantage of the new capability, but were predominately run on Win3.1. The entire reason for Windows 4.0 AKA Chicago AKA Win95 was to try to 1) kill DR-DOs and 2) establish Win32 to replace the Windows API (now known as Win16). It was a LONG transistion to kill off the Win3.1 machines and migrate people to NT, so Win32s remained the limitations of the API for a while. Remember Windows 4.1, 4.2 (98, ME) were marketing decisions because they couldn't get Cairo (NT4, wait NT5, wait Win2K, wait, it's a set of technologies) out the door.
Embrace and Extend MS's APIs. Offer your own extensions. If developers can release a DirectX game on multiple platforms, they will either stick to the GCD of them (if MS has DirectX 10, but 10% of the marketshare is at DirectX 9 b/c of Linux/MacOS X), then companies will release for DirectX 9.
By requiring your own APIs, you require a large effort to reach a SMALL market. Remember, a GOOD chunk of the "Linux" crowd are Free Software advocates that won't use non-Free Software, and ANOTHER large portion are the spend-no-money crowd. That doesn't make Linux a terrific platform to try to make money from.
There already is a popular API with a published spec for writing games. Embrace and Extend. Or at a minimum, Embrace.
I wish him well, but this sounds crazy. I mean, I don't know how easy it is to teach yourself the engineering involved in this kind of adventure. Also, how well did he compensate for the non-ideal reality compared to the ideal world of a physics text?
I mean, I'll grant that most of NASA's expense is our desire of safety beyond the point of diminishing return. I mean, the 80-20 rule probably applies, 80% of the cost is the last 20%... I mean, NASA can't risk a casualty, he may be willing to risk a 80% survival rate.
However, this still seems insane, I can't imagine that he has figured EVERYTHING out... Well, good luck and God-speed.
Didn't Caldera create a Unix(tm) based off the Linux kernel? I thought that they had shipped an OS complete with a licensed copy of Motif and CDE. I think that they didn't maintain it when it didn't carve the niche that they were aiming for, but I was pretty sure that someone made an effort to hit the Unix workstation market.
Alex
It probably isn't being used THAT much in classes
on
MS VP Speech Online
·
· Score: 2
Universities have VERY odd IT situations. Kerberos, for example, is maintained by the Kerberos team in MIT IS. I believe that before Transarc was created for AFS, CMU IT was maintaining it.
There are a lot of IT projects going on at schools.
For example, there is a project at MIT to get Athena running under Win2K. The idea being, the more modular W2K with it's Kerberos support would be a reasonable candidate for porting a lot of the software over.
I'd imagine that a lot of research universities have strange projects going on. Let's be serious, W2K has what, 19m lines of code, or was it 26m? Either way, it's a bit too intense for a programming class.
Operating Systems classes are likely to be very esoteric, and OSes like Minux are great because they are small. In order to play around with an OS, you need something to work with. All of the layers of MS code don't make this likely, as there is too much in there and too many performance tweaks. You couldn't get into it as a student.
On the other hand, access to the network stack, etc., may be terrific for a research group wanting to test something, and not wanting to code for Linux (very common in Uni research, but MS has benefits in terms of access for students).
I would suggest that this is being used by researchers or IT staffs to provide unique and strange benefits, not for undergrad work.
Bzzzt, nope. Sorry, I read the resource manuals, all their stuff... (MCSE was actually hard 4 years ago when there weren't study guides out and available to people like me)...
NT 4.0 CAL refers file and print service, not mere authentication... at least that was true for my old CAL agreements...
Slashdot Mirror
I switched from Linux to OpenBSD... not considering going back. However, really think carefully about the change, it is non-trivial.
There are no binary patches. If there is a security whole, you can patch the source tree and rebuild. Alternatively you can shut down the services. There are patches to OpenBSD, and applying them requires more knowledge.
Web support sucks. The FAQ, etc. provides some help, not much. Even USENET isn't THAT helpful. You need need to get used to reading man pages... a LOT.
Init: rc style. I think that that the rc system is infinitely more manageable and sane in a BSD environment than a SysV environment, but YMMV.
Community support. The mailling lists are key, but they are much less friendly. Advocacy isn't a priority. If there is a question answered somewhere in the documentation, you'll get told RTFM. If the docs aren't what you are looking for and need a different level of help (more/less tech than the man pages) you may or may not get it.
Apache and mod_ssl are built in. The ports collection is solid. It may not be huge, but I've found just about everything I want there. Keeping ports up with the snapshots is a nice way to get up to date userland code.
Kernel compilaton IS necessary for a server. If you put real iron on the box, or little iron, you'll need a custom kernel. The settings for OpenBSD are reasonable and will run all but the weakest machine. However, getting it to take advantage of more memory, etc., may require some tweaks.
I love OpenBSD, but it is NOT Linux. There is no community bent on global domination. Lots of "Open Source" projects are Linux specific... fortunately its just the crappy ones. However, you'll find annoying issues like cronolog not compiling, no PHP Cache, etc. There is no commercial support.
Unlike a Redhat, OpenBSD is not corporate, it's Theo's toy. As a result, they do what they want, not an attempt to appease customers. With a Redhat box, while some of your code is "scratching an itch," corporate coders can code what is needed.
Realize that the Linux comforts will be lacking.
If you are a sysadmin, check out OpenBSD. If you have a Linux box at home for playing with and think that you are l33t, stay away from OpenBSD with a 10' pole.
Alex
The idiots on =deadly.org didn't help the situation. A bunch of whiny jerks got all obnoxious. Additionally, the mail bombing of personal attacks from slashdot/deadly was EXTREMELY counter productive.
This is a delicate situation where OpenBSD conceivably broke copyright law and sold CDs as a result.
Diplomacy was needed here, and all this reporting was counter productive. I love OpenBSD, but this was unfortunately Theo's doing. The version of IPFilter in OpenBSD was modified, and the author was never notified. While BSD and GPL licenses don't require notifying the author, common decency does. Unfortunately, an unspoken goal of OpenBSD is to have better software by keeping their changes kinda quiet. You could build a product off OpenBSD, but migrating OpenBSD's changes into FreeBSD is problematic. Given how much gets taken from FreeBSD, this is kinda obnoxious. Nobody really calls OpenBSD on this because it is a small userbase. We only run OpenBSD because the servers we run need very few applications, and the OS+Ports gives us that quickly without cruft. However, the political issues in OpenBSD are a little sad.
Net/Free will stay away from this pissing match with a 10-ft pole. They may hope for a Free (BSDL) filtering package to show up, but they won't get involved in Theo and Darren's pissing match. If OpenBSD gets one working (and likely will in the next 6 mo., OpenBSD's coders are as brilliant and competant as Theo is obnoxious...) FreeBSD and NetBSD may migrate to OpenIPF. However, until they have something done, there is no reason for them to back Theo.
Theo, good luck and happy coding. I wish you would pick up some diplomatic finesse, it would make your life easier. Either way, love the system and look forward to my OpenBSD 2.9 CD.
Pick a single card to accelerate. That should make life MUCH easier on development. I realize the desire to support everything, but you'll do better with a single card.
People can run it w/o acceleration to play around, and if they want to use it, drop $100-$200 on the supported card. Hell, it's easier to try than MacOS X and less of a cost to adopt.
I don't know if there is a Qt port, but if you're going to actual go places, Trolltech seems to want to succeed where Java failled. (Yes, Java is doing well... Java replacing native apps failled miserably, and that WAS the hype 5 years ago, back when applications still existed and weren't all web pages).
Alex
I had a Gateway MicroCube, a rebranded Cobalt Cube. In the back of the manual was the GPL v2 and the BSD license. There was probably an attempt to list which covered which, I didn't really pay that much attention.
I doubt that this product didn't include it. If it is in the manual, that is probably acceptable, and I believe that a court would agree.
You have no RIGHT to credit. Indeed, RMS CRITICIZED the requirement of the BSD license for giving credit. (Makes his position on GNU/Linux naming QUITE ironic, even if I agree with him 100%).
I didn't see anything of a GPL violation there. The written notice clause is the only thing that you likely have on them. They make it available online, which is not sufficient. If you filed against them, you'd have a pretty hard time showing anything.
Itemize your list of objections, but it BETTER not be that they didn't give you credit.
The entire article was childish and obnoxious. Quite frankly, the "Open Source Community" he referred to (read, the Slashdot, foaming-at-the-mouth, Linux using, non-programming crew) can use any development model that they would like. AOL is under NO obligation to to play by your conventions, only to follow the GPL to the letter.
Not complying with the spirt of the Open Source Community is IRRELEVANT to a discussion of a GPL violation.
The author of this article is an idiot. This isn't a flame, merely my assessment of the article AND his comments in this thread.
For the desktop environment, it is a battle between Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft wins the core corporate users (a proper Exchange client, etc), accounting uses (from the low-end Quickbooks to high-end solutions, you KNOW that MS is supported, even if the backend part runs on real iron, although I still see the occaisional 3270 emulator...), etc.
Apple wins where the creative types need the power that Apple provides for graphic design and musical work. Use Photoshop and Illustrator on Windows and Apple, you'll see the difference.
Solaris/AIX/HP-UX fight out the mid-high end with their Unix lines. The power of them is simply unmatched by anything else.
IBM OWNS the high end with their mainframe line. Although more applications are moving to high-end Unix, this space is still growing, albeit slowly.
The low-end (workgroup) server space belongs to NT/W2K. Although AD is a pain, NT4 still works and works well in this space. For managing a group of Windows workstations, NT still rocks.
The low-mid-range (where web servers prosper, etc) there is a battle between FreeBSD and Linux. Linux is winning in terms of installs, FreeBSD still wins in systems that need the capacity and have professional sysadmins. FreeBSD does everything Linux does, with a more sane process. I personally love OpenBSD, buy YMMV. More people learn Linux than BSD. But I know many people that went from Linux to BSD... I don't know ANY that went back. Linux users tend to play around with it, find the mess that is the hacked together internals, and often move to one of the BSDs where the system is designed by a core team (instead of random apps from everyone thrown together). I believe that the BSDs kick Linux's ass, and will continue to do so for a while.
Linux has a REAL core strength, that of a programmer's desktop. If you are developing server side apps, having a REAL server environment is priceless. Even if you want real Iron for the deployment, Linux is more than adequate for testing. Additionally, the desktop environment/programmers tools are BEST supported on Linux. The Open Source ones support BSD as an afterthought, commercial ones barely support it. This is an area where Linux shines. I don't let Linux in the server room, but the programmers work on Linux workstations. The random tools may make Linux servers aggravating, but they are a gem for developers.
The Unix workstation market remains a fight between Sun and HP, although this market is dying off. Linux is making SOME inroads here, as is Apple Mac OS X (several commercial Unix apps are coming over).
Apple Mac OS X shows a lot of promise as a compromise OS for those that want the programming power of Linux with the compatibility that MacOS offers (MS Office, etc.).
I look foward to renewed competition. The BSD process of an integrated OS makes it silly for the desktop, though die-hard fans will use it.
The word of the day is interoperability. A Linux hegemony is NO better than a MS one.
We have a 21" Apple CRT from about 9 months ago, it's simply stunning. The color quality is incredible. With them pushing more LCDs, I may replace my ugly 19" CRT on my Cube with a 15" or 17" LCD, and move the CRT back to my Windows machine.
Their HUGE CRTs had the best color that I have seen. However, I mostly used consumer CRTs. Apple's ability to push LCDs in the high end is terrific.
As another poster commented, the iMac is for the price conscious, and they have a monitor. Additionally, Apple isn't including the monitor on the workstations, but they have a line of monitors. If you want a slick LCD for your Cube, get one of these. If you toss your G4 workstation under the desk, then buy whatever monitor suits your fancy.
This is the right decision.
And including OS X is great... it means I don't need to push off my Macintosh purchase for another 6 weeks to avoid paying an extra $140 for the OS. For those of us looking for OS X workstations, this is a $140 price drop.
This is great. With a nice Mac OS X workstation, I don't need to run my office applications under windows and connect to a Linux or BSD box for my Unix ones, I can just compile them locally.
Alex
It is a GOOD analogy. Manual transmissions are more fuel efficient, and therefore, if you care about fuel costs, you get them. Higher fuel-costs => bias towards manual transmissions.
A Linux corporate desktop (I'm sorry, but bleah... MS owns this one, Mac is a bit behind, and the Linux solutions aren't close... know what market you're good in, and corporate desktops ain't it) is less expensive than a MS one (cheaper hardware needs, and price out: W2K, O2K-Pro, Visio, Exchange CAL, NT CAL, random shareware utilities to be able to open, say, a zip file, etc., other software... $1000-$2000/workstation). So in an environment where these costs matter more (either lower margin business, or country with a bad exchange rate with the dollar) than the productivity difference, you go with that solution.
Alex
That is mandating Windows. You have a corporate workstation for corporate resources. If you need additional machines, fine. However, I'm certain there is a bias for the 12 MS employees that aren't coding to do MS only.
However, in the AOL Time Warner case, while AOL does have a massive e-mail system, it isn't a corporate groupware system. I'm actually shocked that AOL employees use AOL internally. I had assumed that while the company grew, a corporate system was put in place.
In all honesty, I think that AOL has an impressive product. The people that I know that use AOL LOVE AOL, in a way that nobody LOVES their ISP, and the way that some of us LOVED the BBSes we used to call. And it isn't a AOL=Internet thing, they run AOL at the office. They use a real web browser, but they like to check their AOL e-mail, IMs (don't like AIM for whatever reason), maybe pop into a chat room, who the hell knows.
Some people REALLY love AOL, but it still isn't a corporate system.
Alex
Okay, so a few months ago, you ran an article: Are TPC Benchmarks A Worthwhile Measure? where this test was derided as being a worthless measurement? It was seen as "not realistic" because nobody needs those kind of servers... At least on Slashdot.
So now that SGI cranks out a server with twice the processors and knocks off a half year old record, it's legitimate because Linux wins?
This is absurd. Either this is a legit benchmark or not, make up your mind. If you justify hype like this, then you are no better than MS's FUD teams.
You can't honestly view benchmarks as: well, when Linux wins they are the holy grail, but when someone else wins, it's rigged.
Alex
I don't understand this crowd. One minute, you're all spouting Libertarian rhetoric, the next, you're demanding that others foot the bill.
The records are available. They may not be made in the most convenient form, but the information is available.
If you want everything done for you, someone has to pay for it. If you want the wonderfully formatted patents, pony up the cash. Someone has to foot the bill.
The patent office makes them available, but should our taxes be raised to subsidize everything? People doing patent research can pony up the money and pay for this service.
Has it occured to anyone here that people's time costs money?
I forgot, this is Slashdot. Once you incorporate, you have an obligation to do things for the Slashdot crowd, give them your research, etc.
Give me a break.
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. TANSTAAFL
Alex
I wasn't doubting the power of the CoS, that's an incredibly powerful position. Nor are White House aides all minor positions... Remember Iran-Contra... The White House established a private military, multiple corporations to launder the funds, etc., all under the White House aides. They do quite a bit.
however, the Chief of Staff is NOT the same as a politician. In the cabinet, people are normally accomplished politicians... i.e. popular Senators, Governors, or the occaisional undersecretary from the last White House of that party.
When picking Cabinet members, the President has to make certain that the Senate will go along. For this reason, the people in the "official" capacity are choosen for their political skills to influence people, etc. They are done to "appease a constituency", "secure a state" for the next election, etc. Rarely are they chosen for their ability to manage the organization that they head. Bush's shortened transistion may have helped in this regard, because he plucked a LOT of No. 2s from the last GOP administration, his father's.
The Chief of Staff is choosen to get the job done. As a result, they are chosen for their political sense and administrative efficiency. Most of the Chiefs of Staff could never have been elected President or Vice President (although Cheney seems to act like a Chief of Staff at times...), but they can run the White House like nobody's business.
They are NOT a politician in the regards that Slashdotters think, but they are not an aide as you suggested that I implied. Senior level White House staff are a unique breed... influential, powerful, and significant.
Alex
John Podesta WAS a staffer. Chief of Staff is an employee of the White House, not an appointed office. Appointees must be confirmed by the Senate. Staff refers to the people within a politicians team that are paid for as part of their office expenses. This is quite ironic, given the power and influence of staff members and their role in legislation. One key difference is that they have no authority in themselves, merely acting on behalf of their poss.
For example, Ashcroft has powers granted by the legislature and the head of the DoJ. He is therefore confirmed by the Senate.
When the President hires an aide (normally done by someone assigned to this task by the Chief of Staff, who is responsible for overseeing the staff), they are not approved by the Senate.
Staff members extend the policians range by acting on their behalf.
However, in the article you state, "This got me thinking; which politicos out there actually understand tech issues (rather than just have a staffer who occasionally reads Wired)?" This is an ironic question to ask when you are excited about a Staffer understanding tech...
Alex
The NT project was started in '92, Linux in '93... Hardly the 10 year edge that Slashdoters make.
I would NEVER put a web page up with IIS, period. I think that IIS is a dangerous piece of crap with MANY security holes.
When I turn off various services on my NT boxes and only bind protocols to the correct adapter, I've found them to be pretty solid. As a result, they don't do ALL that much, but I've found them reasonably secure.
Linux needs to compete on its merits.
The BSDs compete on the merits of their code.
Microsoft competes on the merits of their software AND their marketing efforts. Their marketing efforts DO provide value, notice the ISV support that they have.
Linux seems content to compete on hype and press releases.
This notion of manifest destiny within the Linux camp is a little irritating. I don't know who declared the Linux users the chosen people, but it is silly.
The BSDs are as far along as Linux, despite a licensing advantage for Linux. Linux takes BSD code, uses it in a GPL application, prohibiting BSD from using it. Now the BSDL ALLOWS this, but there is a BIG different between the Linux crowd and proprietary vendors. The idea of the BSDL is to improve aoftware by releasing. It is understood that other groups will use it. The annoyance with the GPL, is that the users CLAIM to be providing it for free, but they don't give back to the BSD group that they took from.
In this Linux manifest destiny scenario, it is acceptable to DEMAND that others release things through compulsory licensing, while not doing the right thing and contributing back to BSD projects.
The hypocracy in the Linux camp is astounding.
I believe in Open Source, but I don't put Linux on my servers.
I prefer BSD, I find it purer and better.
Alex
You have a right to know the laws that you live under. In this scenario, you have no ability to follow the law because you can't obtain the law.
Write your Congressmen and tell them that this concerns you as a citizen. Explain that you are a voter (list your address), mention your concern on this issue.
This is a no-brainer win for a Congressman, so they will probably take it up. We are pretty well spread on this site throughout the United States, so we might actually be able to bring this to congressional attention.
Alex
Look, let's be Real, MS has released two UNRELATED Operating Systems. DOS/Win9x, and Windows NT. NT is an ENTIRELY new OS. The only things that are the same are Win32 calls, because a Win32 layer was built into Win95. They are NOT the same OS.
MS started building NT around the same time that Linus released his first Linux kernel. At MOST they had a two year head start.
More importantly, Unix designs are public knowledge and taught in schools. MS does not have a Unix design. Advantage: Linux, because of the common knowledge component.
BSD predates NT by a long shot. BSD code COULD be incorporated into Linux (as long as the original copyright was respected). Linux uses BSD code, and Linus could have just forked one of the 386BSD project like everyone else.
GNU was started in 1984. Much of the Linux distribution is GNU. Until a few years ago (like 3), 80% of a Linux distribution appeared to be GNU. Advantage: Linux
Linux was not some little underdog. Linux HAS MANY advantages in time and prewritten code.
MCSEs are NOT A CLASS OF PEOPLE. NT Administrator is a job description. MCSE is a certification that shows that you understand the basics of NT. I've had one for four years. Guess what, I'm STILL A HUMAN BEING CAPABLE OF THINKING. Insulting people for having an MCSE is childish and immature. Despite having an MCSE, I run a few OpenBSD installations, do software design, etc., etc. One can do many things, and only on Slashdot does it seem that one can either use Linux or Microsoft Products.
Now, I've put live Linux machines up and started to play with them. At times, running Redhat 6.2 with updates, I've found that the box gets rooted if we leave the machine alone for a week while we have other projects.
There is something wrong with some of the code that Redhat installs. The other distributions may be better, but that was a real turn-off.
OpenBSD, however, appears ROCK-SOLID, stable, secure, and FAR easier to configure than a Redhat box. Getting back to a BSD style system from a SysV style takes SOME time, but once you get the hang of it it is a MUCH saner system.
Alex
It was NEVER illegal to distribute KDE, OR QT. It was questionable whether you could SHIP KDE already compiled with QT. It was a theoretical arguement, and a silly one. More importantly, it was a dispute. The KDE team maintained that the GPL did NOT prohibit what they did. RMS maintained that it did. RMS wrote the thing, but that doesn't mean that he is correct. I think that the KDE camp likely was correct, because in the unlikely scenario that someone would press the charge, I think that KDE (and whoever distributed it) would prevail.
Go to xemacs.com and read about the RMS tirade. RMS's licensing views ARE NOT appeased by making everything GPL'd. He is on a political movement and the politics are what matter to him, not the quality of code.
Linux allows closed source binary modules in the Linux kernel, should everyone here boycott Linux? He is allowing the core of the OS to be dependant on proprietary components, let's throw a temper tantrum.
TrollTech wasn't misguided, they DISAGREED with RMS's theory of a derivate product. The maintained that linking against QT didn't make you a derivative. They have since decided to accept the community's theory (not really tested) and release under the GPL.
TrollTech is making money on their commercial contracts, and they are happy to let KDE build off of it. They even GPL'd QT to help KDE's adoption. Does QT benefit from KDE dominating, yes. But note that QT includes an IDE, and now KDE has one that competes with it (for free). At this point, the ONLY reason to buy QT is a commercial product OR a QT-based product without KDE.
KDE offered us a useful GUI for a while, and busted ass. GNOME started to spite KDE, and RMS used it as a soapbox.
I TOTALLY respect RMS's works and I respect his views, but sometimes we need to ask ourselves the goal.
UNLESS you buy 100% into his philosophy on free software, then you NEED to REALLY evaluate this. If you are not a TOTAL Free Software diehard, then ask yourself if TOTALLY Free (GNU's GPL in fact) desktop with great code is good enough, or you need to be pissed off about a resolved licensing dispute.
It's time to move on. KDE is cranking, GNOME is press releasing.
Alex
I saw the Pilot, WAY COOL. Saw a few more episodes, also cool. But I can't for the life of me remember what it is on.
It started out cool, kinda what Trek would be after everything collapses.
My assessment: the show was a cheap production. The camera work was bad, most acting sucked, and the effects were worthless.
HOWEVER: the plot rocked, the characters were meaningful, etc. I really enjoyed what I saw... you've inspired me, I'm going to figure out when it is on.
Alex
IBM was shipping $5000-$10000 PCs to their mainframe customers. The idea was to create a HOME computer so people could work at home. The goal was to wed these machines to the Mainframe business. IBM laughed at the PC market, and never dreamed of them being cheap toys OR work machines. You would use the mainframe at work, but you could dial-in, etc. from home.
IBM was under anti-trust investigation for bundling their OS with their mainframes, and wanted to avoid antagonizing the DOJ. Apple was scoring big with their machines because of Visicalc. IBM wanted to stop that quickly, and needed to get a machine out the door. The guys in Boca grabbed some "off the shelf" ICs and put a system together.
Intel was in the right place at the right time with a cheap 16-bit machine. IBM wanted to cut costs, so they went with the 8088, which was the 8086 grafted onto a 8-bit bus. Remember, a simple bus is that many "wires," so 8-bit is a cheaper mobo to manufacture. They built a BIOS, and Gates gave them what seemed like a sweetheart deal. IBM thought Gates just wanted to push BASIC sales, and therefore was licensing the OS for nothing. When Compaq reverse engineered the IBM BIOS... well, MS-DOS was born.
Remember the old days: IBM: BASICA (Advanced Basic, included support for disk drives so you weren't stuff with cassette tapes like BASIC), and MS: GW-BASIC.
Similar, a few different quirks, etc.
I think I have my PC-DOS 2.1 disks and MS-DOS 3.3 disks somewhere around my parent's place.
Alex
You haven't looked at OS X, have you? It's a SLICK Interface on a UNIX. The system has quirks. It is definitely not a replacement for my Linux workstation yet, but it's DAMNED close. When Office for OS X comes out, those of us running two machines to use Unix on one and regular productivity software on another, are going to be NUTS not to look at OS X.
I got a Cube with OS X 10.0.3 on my desk for evaluation, I love it, I just wish that I had some time to play with it and get it set up.
However, the Mac faithful aren't deciding between Linux and OS X, they are mostly running OS 9 and whining a lot. However, every Unix person that I know that has played with OS X is impressed... It's a sharp OS.
That said, I think that Apple would be smart to ship a stripped down PPC system for hackers. Let people buy a G3 machine w/o monitor. The Cube/G4-Workstation are priced a bit out of a hobbyist range (someone that likes to play with machines, and wants a computer to put new pieces in, not be useful on) and the iMac is no fun to play with and comes with a crappy monitor.
Apple should ship some G3 Workstations... hell, pull the Beige G3 design or B&W G3 designs out of the closet and run the suckers off like there is no tomorrow.
Or sell the motherboards. Let people play around with them.
Alex
Alex
A friend of mine was in Motorola when this went down. He wasn't working in the chip division, but he was at the company. He told me this at the time after taking a tour of some stuff that they were doing in the Boca Raton facility (I actually ended up working 2 blocks from the old IBM site a while later, but this was after IBM shut it down and it's a useless tangent so I'll shut up).
IBM had rooms filled with PPC Computers, but they all ran NT. IBM REFUSED to ship them (despite the NT port), for two reasons:
1) Embarassment: they couldn't get OS/2 shipping, and it was always REAL SOON
2) Dumb corporate policy: Until about 2 years ago, IBM refused to allow two divisions to compete with themselves, and NT-PPC Machines would compete with x86-OS/2 machines, so no NT-PPC machines.
Remember, there was little PPC/NT support, and it would be running DOS/Windows applications, which OS/2 did.
Apple didn't kill Open PowerPC, IBM's management did.
Ironically, about 3 months after NT-PPC was dropped (largely because IBM, the one pushing PPC, wouldn't sell NT Workstations with it), was when IBM decided that they needed to sell NT Workstations... and they did so with x86 chips.
This was a Management decision that I am certain they don't regret. Remember, Win95 didn't successfully kill the x86/DOS arena, and IBM wouldn't have gotten good application support for NT-PPC.
Alex
Okay, we all know that WINELIB lets Win32 become a native Linux API. Okay, Win32 is ugly and disgusting. However, if game programmers want to code for Win32 and they can compile on both systems, more power to you. I don't have a problem with Using Winelib IF the authors would release a Win32 AND Linux binary on the same CD. I'd rather not have emulation mode used (although for older, less resource-intensive games, its fine... old games are still fun).
However, the belief that MS can change the APIs isn't QUITE true. Keep in mind, many installations are still running Win95, a 6 year old OS, and will be doing so for a number of years. Until companies eliminate the last vestiges of their DOS past, Win95 isn't dying.
While MS can release new APIs, why would a company limit their market. By using the older APIs (and if necessary, DirectX), then they can support a wider market within the Wintel world. If Linux can support DirectX, then you can release a Linux binary on the CD.
Are their better APIs than DirectX? For somethings, sure. Why not encourage OpenGL instead of Direct3D, which makes porting to the Macintosh easier.
However, DirectX has created a world where we have more games than we did in the DOS world, and it's apparently not as bad as DirectX 2.0 or 3.0 that Carmack hated. Let's me real, if people LIKE the DirectX calls (or tools to develop them) why can't we implement DirectX on every OS? I mean, how you implement the calls is entirely up to you. DirectX abstracts you from the hardware and Win32 on the PC, why not use DirectX on other platforms.
If you can get DirectX ported well to Linux (and Mac OS X), then there is a decent percentage of the gaming public that becomes dependant on an available version of DirectX. When MS releases a new version of DirectX (or a secret hidden version, whatever), most companies will be compatible with older ones rather than losing a chunk of sales.
Contrary to popular belief, MS is not a supernatural company. They are a monopolist that abuses their power, but they are as mortal as the rest of us. Remember, for the first few YEARS of Win32 (NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, beginning on Win95) they had Win32s out, which was a subset that ran on Win3.1. Well guess what, MOST Win32 programs in that era were Win32s programs, that took advantage of the new capability, but were predominately run on Win3.1. The entire reason for Windows 4.0 AKA Chicago AKA Win95 was to try to 1) kill DR-DOs and 2) establish Win32 to replace the Windows API (now known as Win16). It was a LONG transistion to kill off the Win3.1 machines and migrate people to NT, so Win32s remained the limitations of the API for a while. Remember Windows 4.1, 4.2 (98, ME) were marketing decisions because they couldn't get Cairo (NT4, wait NT5, wait Win2K, wait, it's a set of technologies) out the door.
Embrace and Extend MS's APIs. Offer your own extensions. If developers can release a DirectX game on multiple platforms, they will either stick to the GCD of them (if MS has DirectX 10, but 10% of the marketshare is at DirectX 9 b/c of Linux/MacOS X), then companies will release for DirectX 9.
By requiring your own APIs, you require a large effort to reach a SMALL market. Remember, a GOOD chunk of the "Linux" crowd are Free Software advocates that won't use non-Free Software, and ANOTHER large portion are the spend-no-money crowd. That doesn't make Linux a terrific platform to try to make money from.
There already is a popular API with a published spec for writing games. Embrace and Extend. Or at a minimum, Embrace.
I wish him well, but this sounds crazy. I mean, I don't know how easy it is to teach yourself the engineering involved in this kind of adventure. Also, how well did he compensate for the non-ideal reality compared to the ideal world of a physics text?
I mean, I'll grant that most of NASA's expense is our desire of safety beyond the point of diminishing return. I mean, the 80-20 rule probably applies, 80% of the cost is the last 20%... I mean, NASA can't risk a casualty, he may be willing to risk a 80% survival rate.
However, this still seems insane, I can't imagine that he has figured EVERYTHING out... Well, good luck and God-speed.
Alex
Didn't Caldera create a Unix(tm) based off the Linux kernel? I thought that they had shipped an OS complete with a licensed copy of Motif and CDE. I think that they didn't maintain it when it didn't carve the niche that they were aiming for, but I was pretty sure that someone made an effort to hit the Unix workstation market.
Alex
Universities have VERY odd IT situations. Kerberos, for example, is maintained by the Kerberos team in MIT IS. I believe that before Transarc was created for AFS, CMU IT was maintaining it.
There are a lot of IT projects going on at schools.
For example, there is a project at MIT to get Athena running under Win2K. The idea being, the more modular W2K with it's Kerberos support would be a reasonable candidate for porting a lot of the software over.
I'd imagine that a lot of research universities have strange projects going on. Let's be serious, W2K has what, 19m lines of code, or was it 26m? Either way, it's a bit too intense for a programming class.
Operating Systems classes are likely to be very esoteric, and OSes like Minux are great because they are small. In order to play around with an OS, you need something to work with. All of the layers of MS code don't make this likely, as there is too much in there and too many performance tweaks. You couldn't get into it as a student.
On the other hand, access to the network stack, etc., may be terrific for a research group wanting to test something, and not wanting to code for Linux (very common in Uni research, but MS has benefits in terms of access for students).
I would suggest that this is being used by researchers or IT staffs to provide unique and strange benefits, not for undergrad work.
Alex
Bzzzt, nope. Sorry, I read the resource manuals, all their stuff... (MCSE was actually hard 4 years ago when there weren't study guides out and available to people like me)...
NT 4.0 CAL refers file and print service, not mere authentication... at least that was true for my old CAL agreements...
Alex