This is retarded! Minimize computers in school.
on
Laptops In Education
·
· Score: 2
I am a student at MIT. MIT is a relatively advanced school in terms of technology. There are no requirements to have personal computers, nor is their an intention to. We have an extensive system of computer "clusters" made available for students. They are UNIX clusters, and getting them to do anything useful beyond checking e-mail is a chore (I have no doubt that there is productivity software hidden in the bowels of the AFS cell, but I couldn't find it and stick to MS Office on my NT machine or Star Office on my Linux box), but it can be done. Many people don't have computers and they get their work done in clusters.
When I was a junior in high school, my high school was starting a program to require the students to get laptops. I was reading up on the thin-client stuff for a little business venture that went no where, and recommended that solution. Rather than trying to apply busted security to Win95 machines, you actually had built in security, and you could provide the features you want. Instead of people waitting to boot up laptops in each class, you'd have the applications available based upon the User (you'd only have access if you were in the class, perhaps) and location (so you would focus on the class you were in).
The computer staff agreed with me, but stuck to the laptops. The reason? With laptops, the parents had to pay for the equipment. With infrastructure, the school did. You couldn't convince the parents to pay more money to the school (even if the cost was MUCH less than the cost of laptops) because they would be buying equipment for the school instead of laptops that would be worthless in two years.
My brother wanted to take laptop classes, my parents refused. They were convinced that they would be counterproductive, they were right. The school NEVER developed a system to use the laptops, yet the students keep buying new ones in 7th grade.
The First Class P.O.S. mail system drove us nuts, but had VERY rudimentary groupware capability, and it went unused. No attempts were made to develop a real system for using the technology. The kids played games at school, could access a word processor, etc., but it was relatively useless. In the classes that it SHOULD be beneficial, say the science classes, laptops killed that. While the 2 year old machines in the science labs were old, they were setup with the software that was used year after year. Well, now we have laptops. Do you want to tell me how to get all the kids in the class to get the relevant software and everything setup right?
All in all, this has been a disaster, but the school can't admit its mistakes and keeps requiring the laptops. This doesn't seem to have an end in site.
A dumb terminal/thin client system would actually make sense, as you can customize the sytem for the classroom. However, schools won't support an IT staff, so you can't get a MIT style AFS/Kerberos environment, so they won't get a real system. They'll learn word processing and web browsing, wonderful.
I keep hearing about job skills... who cares? Middle school and High school are NOT vocational schools, they are to provide everyone with an educations. If you want to have a class or two teaching basic computer skills, find, we had that in my middle school, do not make job training the point of high school.
Yes, most students don't go on to college. In their cases, it is even MORE important to provide them with an education, as it will stop after high school. They don't need job training. They need an understanding of history, civics, English, and the sciences so that they can be functional members of society. They don't need to be turned into worker drones. If you want to use the computer science classrooms to teach job skills after school is out, fine, it is a good use of the equipment. Do not use school time to teach job skills because the local corporations are clamoring for it. If they want employees to have job skills, they have two choices: a) pay more in wages for employees with them, or b) pay the training costs. This refusal to train employees because they will leave is ABSURD. Of course you need to pay them more after training, but you shouldn't expect the school system to subsidize your training costs... what does that do to everyone in the workforce now? No problem, let the government pay them through welfare.
This is a horrible example of corporations buying the country; NOT education.
Find the Constitutional passage that gives Congress the authority to force the Supreme Court to do ANYTHING. The only thing that Congress can do to the Court is affect their pay and the number on the Court.
The Internet reminds me of pre-MBBS BBSing. You could trade files with ease, and there were discussion forums where you would read others posts, but there was no real community developed.
When MBBSes were taking over my area, S. Florida, a few ended replacing the dozens of BBSes in the area. I remember sitting in teleconference for hours talking about everything, and then we would complain about the newbies. The older users were computer geeks, the newbies were whoever's family had just bought a computer and their friend's introduced them to our board.
My first girlfriend was met indirectly through BBSing. Although she happened to be on the board, I really met her through a mutual friend.
While I have a couple of good friends from my high school, the majority of my close friends from my teenage years were the people I met online. GTs went from big deals every 3-4 months to an almost weekly thing as the usage base began having more users of driving age.
It might have been unique, but Dragon World was very special to me. The system devolved into political infighting when the system went through a messy divorce and the board transferred hands a few times.
I do remember my attempt to salvage the board... it was on the Internet for a few months while it sat in my bedroom at school. Unfortunately, the owner sold the board, but the new owner never even put it up... There is a mailling list of users... but it is so infrequently trafficed that it is sad...
Switching it to run on Linux would open up several things. It would allow the game to be easily made available over the Internet, and it would allow it to run on a solid multi-user system.
However, the problems (this was a few years ago though) with the multi-line (AKA MBBS) version was balance. The balance that made the one-line version work failled when they lost the intracacies of ship speeds with multiple turns for movement. Also, the combat system was never updated, so it became a matter of typing speed if the user was online, or if they were offline, you could do whatever you wanted.
I missed the old version, but the MBBS version that I had worked with was missing something. However, I look foward to seeing the new version.
Alex
Linux's Open Source Edge?
on
More on LinDVD
·
· Score: 2
When did Linus ever have an open source edge? He wrote the original Linux, not out of a desire for a free Unix (like rms's GNU project), but out of a desire to avoid Minix's limitations... and probably a "because I can" deal.
He released the source because he could. There is no reason to hide source code unless you believe that it is a valuable product... most hobbist programmers include source on their web sites. Shareware developers, however, did not.
When the Linux kernel and GNU tools were combined and formed a free Unix-like OS, Linus released the kernel under the GPL. The earlier release was a public domain type of deal.
Linus write Linux because he could, not to change the world. RMS and the FSF worked on GNU because of a fundamental belief that computer code should be free. They sat in the ivory tower of the MIT LCS and worked on GNU, and later got an Office across the river and continued to work on GNU.
FSF have been Open Source advocates. Linus is a programmer whose work, a simple kernel for the 386, happened to complete the picture for a much larger program to recreate Unix. the GNU/Linux designation DOES make some sense, given that Linux was useful to run GNU software (and later all the neat projects that have come since), not because there is a particular love for a kernel.
If you've ever rolled out an ICA network across WAN links, you'd appreciate the work that Citrix put into their clients. While open standards approach make a lot of sense, many corporations have dozens of Windows applications that they wrote that they need. While it may be possible to recreate them as HTML applications, a Windows based Thin Client network is a more rapidly achievable goal and is much less costly.
My observation is that ICA works better over Ethernet than X11. While I haven't compared benchmarks, I have done both, and ICA is a LOT crisper. Even if X11 moves more data, ICA has a smoother feel.
Also, many of the corporate networks are using WAN links. Getting enough inter-office Bandwidth for X11 is prohibitively expensive.
One system that I was in was a large financial company. They were a mainframe shop that had replaced their 3270 terminals with Windows machines and 3270 emulators for the sole purpose of making WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 available. They were switching to a thin client system to make management easier. With the Windows network, people screwed around with their machines and it created a nightmare. With the Windows Terminals from NCD that they got, they had a built in Web Browser, ICA Client, and 3270 Terminal system.
Additionally, they had offices all over the Metro New York area. Their applications were mainframe based, which went over the WAN links. The remaining applications were Office suites, and their is no comparison to the Office tools that are available for the Microsoft encironment.
In the long run, HTML, XML, and Java based systems may make the most sense. However, the current Thin Client technologies provide a great system for certain corporate settings. In terms of the dial-up capability, it is a nice added bonus that the users can connect in from home at near LAN speeds, no?
I'm far prouder of being an MIT Computer Science student and of my consulting work, however my MCSE and CCA certifications are relevant to this discussion, which is why they are listed. The fact that you know dumb people doesn't mean that all people are dumb.
Given that this topic is largely concerning a Microsoft and Citrix set of technologies, my expertise in Microsoft and Citrix technologies is actually relavent. I'm actually a professional in this field.
Additionally, people here would like to discount anyone whose opinions are contrary to theres. By stating that I am an MCSE and a CCA, the people who don't actually care about this topic except to tout the wonders of Linux can disregard everything I say.
Ready Wyse's product listings. Citrix may not have coined the term Thin Client, but they grabbed it and ran with it. Wyse offers dumb terminals, 3270-style terminals, and Windows Terminals. They've been offering ICA ones for about 4 years, and RDP/ICA recently.
Really? Wow, I guess my info is out of date. I guess I haven't kept up on the UNIX Client (given that the client sites I've been at are all Windows Terminals and Windows 95, I haven't had a professional need to).
What exactly does it map to? It can't exactly be: Client\Com1 now, can it?:)
This is the THIN CLIENT market, NOT the remote desktop market.
THIN CLIENTs implement The Microsoft and Citrix clients. The Microsoft Client is NOT available for Linux and will not be until their deal with Citrix no longer prohibits it.
The Citrix client for UNIX (including a Linux version) is less functional than the Windows one. This is not because UNIX is being slighted, but rather because the demands upon the UNIX client are different. The Windows client demands lower TCO and easy administration for rollouts. The UNIX client involves giving the Engineers Word, Power Point, and Outlook to access the Exchange Server.
There IS an add-on that add X11 support, but I doubt that Thin Clients use X11, too much of a pain. A Linux thin client while a great buzzword, is not a good idea.
WinCE is and will remain better than Linux at this application. Why? Sorry guys, no matter what you do, WinCE will beat Linux in this market. As long as the RDP and ICA clients for UNIX are NOT as flexible as the Windows versions, Linux will be an inferior Thin Client.
You can write all the drivers you want, with WinCE being free (as in beer) and having better versions of the two relevant pieces of software, all the wondering advantages of Linux are irrelevant.
The Linux "problem areas" in this market are: a licensing agreement signed in May '97 that prohibits MS from writing a UNIX RDP client.
This is NOT a good market for Linux. All the other embedded systems are good markets for Linux. The Thin Client market does not need Linux, it needs CE, I'm sorry to tell you.
The Java and WinCE/Linux devices were VERY different. The former was a Network Computer. When Oracle and Sun were pushing NCs, Wyse, as a Dumb Terminal manufacturer looking to stay relavent, looked into the market. The market never materialized, so they dropped it.
The WinCE/Linux device is a device known as a Windows Terminal, or in Wyse's case, a WinTerm. This device runs the Microsoft and/or Citrix client for access a Microsoft NT Terminal Server (and Citrix MetaFrame). Linux while more stable than CE (although I've yet to CE crash while running the relevant clients), is cheaper and offered different hardware options.
HOWEVER, the primary purpose of this device is to run two proprietary applications distributed in binary format only. With Linux, unless IBM and Wyse were able to develop an RDP client on their own for Linux (the Microsoft/Citrix deal prohibits it until '01 I believe), a Linux based Thin Client is less useful than a WinCE one. Given that most large installations use ICA (Citrix), this wasn't TOO big a problem but the lack of specialized hardware doomed it.
CE DOES live up to the purpose here. Wyse (AND ALL THEIR COMPETITORS) have a line of products. Many of the Terminals are CE based, and they run REALLY DAMNED WELL.
It isn't a few drivers. WinCE is THE standard for Windows Terminal devices. That is the one market that WinCE is doing VERY well in. A few years ago, before Microsoft strongarmed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H pursuaded Citrix into licensing their technology, the only system using this was Citrix WinFrame with their ICA technology.
At the time, they licensed their DOS client to their OEMs (WYSE, NCD, etc.) to be modified to run in the ROM of the clients. The clients had an ugly configuration interface, and if there was a fix in the client or improvement, you needed to swap firmware. Along comes Microsoft WinCE and there is an underlying OS and they can flash in new client software. Also, with WinCE, they can just recompile the Client for the chip in question (usually a Cyrix cheapie) and recompile the relavent drivers. This is MUCH easier than customizing the software for each system.
As a result of dozens of WinCE based Terminals, the specialized hardware that makes this system so impressive became reasonable, and interchangable parts kicked in. Now the manufacturers of these devices release the relavent WinCE driver and it can be used by the OEMs with little difficulty.
IBM has a Linux thin Client which also could run (I believe) JAVA, 3270, and a Web Browser natively. Wyse tried to follow suit, in large part to stop paying licensing fees. Unfortunately, without WinCE, you couldn't do RDP (the MicroSoft protocol) which meant that you could only sell your device to MetaFrame shops.
The move to Linux, IMHO, was never really intended. By proving that they could switch to Linux and save money, the OEMs demonstrated to MS that they had to stop charging for WinCE, which they announced what, a week or two ago? MS was NOT happy if the OEMs all had cheaper Terminals that were Linux powered and were MetaFrame specific. Microsoft didn't want to be removed from having credibility in this market, so they buckled.
This was the right decision.
Alex M. Hochberger Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer Citrix Certified Administrator
note: those credentials are NOT bragging, it is a disclaimer so you know where I am coming from and can discount my opinion because I make my income with this stuff.
A thin client in this regard is a device being used to connect to a Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition or Windows 2000 Server with Terminal Services installed. The devices usually support the Microsoft RDP Protocol and the Citrix ICA Protocol (if you are also using Citrix MetaFrame).
This idea of these systems is to run these protocols. Like X Windows, the MultiWin system (developed by Citrix and licensed to Microsoft) divides the application's logic and display, processing on the server and displaying on the clients.
Without the Citrix MetaFrame system, the clients include Win16, Win32, and WinCE (OEMs only). With Citrix MetaFrame there are ICA clients for those platforms plus ICA clients for like a dozen Unixes (there is now a Linux version to) and JAVA.
The reason that Wyse switched to Linux was that it was cheaper than paying a WinCE license. Also, Linux can be run on cheaper hardware than the funky chips that CE runs on. However, the sole purpose of that machine was to run the RDP and/or ICA client. Because it wasn't Windows, it was probably the ICA client (this is a condition of the Microsoft/Citrix licensing deal, not Microsoft arrogance).
With the Citrix packages, you can have serial and parallel ports on your dumb terminals and map them as though they were connections on the Terminal Server. This allows you to include things like local printers, bar-code readers, etc. However, with a Linux based client, you would NOT be able to remap the serial ports (that is limited to the DOS, Win16, and Win32 clients), so you would need a driver for the base OS that would handle the barcode and make it available for mapping.
The idea for Wyse is to make prebuilt WinTerms that have this functionality so the customers can use those in their installations.
Citrix's ICA (and to a lesser extent Microsoft's RDP) are really amazing. While MultiWin isn't amazing (it makes NT multi-user, and it is sometimes flakey if the programs aren't properly written), ICA allows you to run a really quick connection of as little bandwidth as 28.8.
Now before I get marked down into oblivion for supporting a Microsoft related technology, I will point out that Citrix is developing a MetaFrame for UNIX system. I believe that the Solaris port is done and they are working on the Linux version.
The idea is that in addition to the Windows applications, you can deploy your UNIX and Java based applications through ICA for display on the clients. Although X DOES support this, rolling out a thousand or so X-servers is a pain in the butt. The Citrix ICA client has some amazing capabilities with automatic roll-outs.
These products are NOT aimed at home users. They are aimed at Fortune 1000 companies.
Disclaimer: I am a Citrix Certified Administrator and make my living (well, my pocket change, I'm a student) as a consultant. I also worked a summer job at Citrix a few years ago.
This is rather bizarre. With only three machines, this will have no value to any legitamet collector. I question the purpose of this crime. Conceivably, someone just walked off with it, but you would think that robbing a guarded museum would be difficult and require SOME sort of planning.
This is obviosly the work of a mobster. Some bigwig in organized crime with a private museum. Law abiding wealthy people wouldn't take the risk, so it is obviously a crime lord who wants it.
It probably wasn't really guarded. Either the guard swiped it, or somebody took it while a guard was asleep. They probably figured it was valuable, and didn't realize that there were only three. Assuming that hundreds were made, they probably figured that it would net a small fortune on the black market to people that would sell it to collectors... Start checking nearby pawn shops.
The part that bothers me about this crime is the mention of the Internet. With absolutely no evidence to back this up, they blame technology for creating a market for stolen items. As a result, they will motivate technophobes to blame technology and increase regulations... despite technology playing no role in this...
The article (when I read it in the globe) was full of misinformation and inaccuracies. The Globe has been very anti-MIT for the past few years. This has largely focused on the fraternities (as a fraternity brother, I'm biased) but they have been extremely critical of the administration and the student body.
Under sever harassment from the administration, they promised to present a more balanced image, and this is what they came up with.
Hacking at MIT is part real, part imaginary. Hackers wandering through building late at night are real, although I haven't joined them since the Orange Tours (where they take freshmen around, including on top of the dome), they are a known portion of our campus. However, the impressive feats being common is quite exaggerated, although they may be slowly making a come back (R2D2 last year, for example).
However, the Boston Globe article was the latest in a concerted effort by the Globe's editorial staff to paint MIT students as a group running amok. They are also trying to paint MIT as ineffectual in dealing with the students. They have been one of the forces behind demanding local governments take over the governing of undergraduates. (When a smoke bomb misfired in a classroom to advertise a fundraising Halloween Party at one of the fraternities, they were part of the media that misrepresented the story and called for Cambridge to press charges.)
The situation with hacking, the campus police, and administration is an awkward one. MIT cannot acknowledge that they know what is going on, and this recent Globe article is putting MIT in a very bad light. Also, the comment about "I'm on my way to Baker House" is NOT part of hacking. During the Orange Tours, when, as freshman, you're relatively new, they want to make it seem more risky. As a result, they tell you that if CPs show up, they'll disappear, and you're supposed to act like a confused freshman and say "I'm on my way to Baker House."
However, the Globe tried to present this as MIT students mocking the administration that is powerless to prevent it.
I'm sorry to interupt this discussion of the MIT legend with a rant on the Globe, but I just want to put things in perspective.
Did you ever read the Wizardry series? The first two books are bundled as The Wiz Biz. Really entertaining series. Well, the programmer develops a computer system with magic (makes sense in context, hard to explain) with a verbal interface. He calls out to the Emacs from which he does everything...
Or arrange for a letter writing campaign to Apple for them to release in binary format the codec with an API. If they're nice, they'll compile it for a bunch of applications.
That way, free software developers can develop the actual code so it will work on all the systems, and Apple can protect their mathematical algorithms.
I mean, if they allow it to be used in players developed the right way, I doubt even RMS would complain THAT much if they hid the algorithm in a small binary file.
I mean, ideally there wouldn't be a need to hide a mathematical algorithm, but at the very least, give developers a black box so they can use your stuff.
Nonsense, free software works because people write software and release it. Free software existed before the GPL, and it exists outside of the GPL. Unless you're implying that FreeBSD is a figment of our imagination...
Oh yeah, I forgot about a really impressive piece of software that was written and not originally GPLed... Some replacement kernel for Minix that got combined with the GNU tools to form a working OS... written by some college student. I think it was released in the public domain, but then it was released under the GPL... I forget the name thought...
Actually, free software has a copyright because of the laws of society. RMS was VERY against copyrighted software. He believed that software should be free. The reason the GPL existed was the believe that he was going to snub the system, and if people wanted to use his stuff, they should join him in snubbing the system.
While the FSF appears more moderate than it is, don't pretend to think that free software is based in copyright law... the copyleft is an intentional, legalistic, snub of the copyright system.
This gives the Linux community a chance to prove their dedication to Free Software, the basis of their systems.
If Linux users buy this software so that they can contribute money to support the people that filed a lawsuit against DeCSS for reverse engineering, than the Linux community will show that their dedication to Free Software is meaningless.
This is not a situation where a free version is not available. This is a situation where an organization used the courts to prevent a free version's creation overseas. The decision to use a commercial, non-free, version because of convenience to me demonstrates than the hoopla about free software in the Linux community is bogus.
I'm not a hardcore Linux user. NT4 and now Windows 2000 are my primary systems. However, I refuse to buy a DVD player or DVD-ROM. Why? Because I feel that the MPAA is taking a morally unjustifiable position, and the purchase of a DVD player and DVD titles will reinforce the position of a technology whose goal is to take away my rights as a user.
I'm not one who refuses to use proprietary software and will only use free software, I'm a user who won't contribute to morally unjustifiable organizations. I will be amazed at people that are supposedly dedicated to free software would even consider a situation like this.
Alex
Re:Please stop repeating this lie.
on
Netscape 6
·
· Score: 1
Incorrect. At the time, they were capitalizing on Windows, not NT. As a result, you could upgrade from your Standards Windows 3.1 to Windows NT 3.1, or Windows 3.1 NT (a matter of how you look at it). The idea that it is related to OS/2 (NOT a common code base) is false.
Also, if 3.51 is 1.11, then 4.0 is 1.2. 3.51->4.0 was VERY minor. They replaced progman.exe with explorer.exe, and moved the video system into the kernel. They also did some tweaks to make Win32 the native toungue instead of a subsystem.
5.0 W2K is what 4.0 was supposed to be... it is Cairo...
Running free and public domain software is NOT dependant upon running Linux. You can compile those tools for any Unix/Unix-like system. The question here is:
if I want a Linux box, do I buy an Intel based system or a Sparc.
if I have a Sun box, do I run Solaris or Linux
In the real world, people don't do things because they have the machines (machines bought for a purpose tend to stick with it until being decommissioned), they get the machines to run the task.
If you follow the intelligent thread of discussion on this topic, we were discussing the merits of getting Sun hardware to run Linux on them. If you want to run the daemons that you are discussing, wouldn't it make more sense to get a vanilla x86 box and run Linux? The Ultra 5 is pretty slow for a server, and a K6 or Celeron based PC for $600 would be as fast as the $1300 (people say, I saw it for $2K when I checked their site today) Ultra 5.
So, why spend $700 more on your "low end" server? If you are looking cheap low end, don't x86 machines make more sense?
This processor looks like it should kick some serious ass. On the fly switching from RISC core for SIMB to VLIW, autonomous vector units, etc., this puppy looks like it will be amazing.
The problem is going to be game design. I'm doubting that game designers crank out assembly code for games (you really can't hand code VLIW without going insane) so you need to get the tools there.
Now, with VLIW, compilers are VERY important, poor compiler technology, and your chip will run at 10% of it's speed. The upshot is that as the product matures, the compilers that Sony puts out will get better and better, so the games will improve tremendously as Sony's compiler gets better.
The only thing that concerns me is this obsession with display, will game design suck? I mean, I still haven't seen a game come out that is better than the original Zelda, I just wonder if it is possible to create a game that captures our imagination the way the simple old stuff did.
I mean, in computers, people get nostalgic about the Amiga, and you see anyone in 15 years wishing for the simple days of Win95?
...
Well, it looks like I may be cramming a console into my room at school now...:)
>>>Uniformity? There are some differences that matter. Think for example a situation where upper management is stupid enough to decide on Sun boxes but the people who are actually going to use them know zip about Solaris (administration wise) Impossible you say? I've seen it.
Fair enough, that makes a lot of sense. Ideally, you wouldn't by Suns without someone to support them, but if you are a Linux shop that aquired Suns, this option makes sense. Why a Linux shop would buy Suns is a different question, although I could see a situation where an NT shop whose IT staff includes a bunch of geeks who played with Linux aquire Suns because management wants Unix... in that case, this scenario makes a lot of sense.
>>>Not all the Sun hardware is super high end. There are some pretty low end Ultras, on which Solaris is a molasse. The nickname Slowaris is not just a pretty joke. Upper management (see previous point) got you stuck with a pile of expensive crap, you have to deal with it.
My more Unix loving friends rip on the speed of the Sun workstations, so I'm inclined to agree with you. This scenario makes sense. Although I'm curious, would it make more sense to buy Sun workstations of vanilla Intel/AMD workstations in this scenario? A friend who is a real Solaris lover has a HP Pavillion running Solaris x86 because he wanted Solaris and the HP gave him the most power for his budget. Sun's hardware is amazing in large part because of well designed chip architecture that supports a very scalable number of SMP processors, which makes a difference on the high end. Given the size of and value of the x86 market, can Sun's processors compete in the midrange, or does the high-end x86 just have more power?
>>>"On Sun hardware, Solaris is robust, Linux is not" is just FUD. You are not going to install Linux on that Enterprise 10k, but Linux on a Ultra 30 is a really good option.
Is it? The reason, in part, that Linux is so solid (I've been amazed with the robustness, and my attempts to administer a personal system are amusing at best) is the millions of eyeballs theory. Not only do lots of people fix things, you have a lot of users who can notice problems. Also, because Linux developers tend to be accessible and users help newbies, bugs are very likely to be reported. While bugs in MS systems tend not to get reported because users wouldn't no where to begin.
Sun/Linux however is a small niche, so it wouldn't have the HUGE support that Intel/Linux has. Solaris is heavily tested by Sun on their hardware platforms, and given that there hardware is sold in certain configurations with the OS, I trust that they have a great ability to debug and test their systems, and that bugs when reported are dealt with quickly. Does Sun/Linux have the same situation?
Slashdot Mirror
I am a student at MIT. MIT is a relatively advanced school in terms of technology. There are no requirements to have personal computers, nor is their an intention to. We have an extensive system of computer "clusters" made available for students. They are UNIX clusters, and getting them to do anything useful beyond checking e-mail is a chore (I have no doubt that there is productivity software hidden in the bowels of the AFS cell, but I couldn't find it and stick to MS Office on my NT machine or Star Office on my Linux box), but it can be done. Many people don't have computers and they get their work done in clusters.
When I was a junior in high school, my high school was starting a program to require the students to get laptops. I was reading up on the thin-client stuff for a little business venture that went no where, and recommended that solution. Rather than trying to apply busted security to Win95 machines, you actually had built in security, and you could provide the features you want. Instead of people waitting to boot up laptops in each class, you'd have the applications available based upon the User (you'd only have access if you were in the class, perhaps) and location (so you would focus on the class you were in).
The computer staff agreed with me, but stuck to the laptops. The reason? With laptops, the parents had to pay for the equipment. With infrastructure, the school did. You couldn't convince the parents to pay more money to the school (even if the cost was MUCH less than the cost of laptops) because they would be buying equipment for the school instead of laptops that would be worthless in two years.
My brother wanted to take laptop classes, my parents refused. They were convinced that they would be counterproductive, they were right. The school NEVER developed a system to use the laptops, yet the students keep buying new ones in 7th grade.
The First Class P.O.S. mail system drove us nuts, but had VERY rudimentary groupware capability, and it went unused. No attempts were made to develop a real system for using the technology. The kids played games at school, could access a word processor, etc., but it was relatively useless. In the classes that it SHOULD be beneficial, say the science classes, laptops killed that. While the 2 year old machines in the science labs were old, they were setup with the software that was used year after year. Well, now we have laptops. Do you want to tell me how to get all the kids in the class to get the relevant software and everything setup right?
All in all, this has been a disaster, but the school can't admit its mistakes and keeps requiring the laptops. This doesn't seem to have an end in site.
A dumb terminal/thin client system would actually make sense, as you can customize the sytem for the classroom. However, schools won't support an IT staff, so you can't get a MIT style AFS/Kerberos environment, so they won't get a real system. They'll learn word processing and web browsing, wonderful.
I keep hearing about job skills... who cares? Middle school and High school are NOT vocational schools, they are to provide everyone with an educations. If you want to have a class or two teaching basic computer skills, find, we had that in my middle school, do not make job training the point of high school.
Yes, most students don't go on to college. In their cases, it is even MORE important to provide them with an education, as it will stop after high school. They don't need job training. They need an understanding of history, civics, English, and the sciences so that they can be functional members of society. They don't need to be turned into worker drones. If you want to use the computer science classrooms to teach job skills after school is out, fine, it is a good use of the equipment. Do not use school time to teach job skills because the local corporations are clamoring for it. If they want employees to have job skills, they have two choices: a) pay more in wages for employees with them, or b) pay the training costs. This refusal to train employees because they will leave is ABSURD. Of course you need to pay them more after training, but you shouldn't expect the school system to subsidize your training costs... what does that do to everyone in the workforce now? No problem, let the government pay them through welfare.
This is a horrible example of corporations buying the country; NOT education.
Alex
Nah, it is War Games style... as you guess the digit, you keep it... i.e., if a 5 digit code was 98255
:)
You would check 0-9, get 9, then 0-9 (stopping when you got 8, etc)...
So the hackers had at most 20 more codes to check, and E[X]=10...
Phew!
Alex
Find the Constitutional passage that gives Congress the authority to force the Supreme Court to do ANYTHING. The only thing that Congress can do to the Court is affect their pay and the number on the Court.
Alex
The Internet reminds me of pre-MBBS BBSing. You could trade files with ease, and there were discussion forums where you would read others posts, but there was no real community developed.
When MBBSes were taking over my area, S. Florida, a few ended replacing the dozens of BBSes in the area. I remember sitting in teleconference for hours talking about everything, and then we would complain about the newbies. The older users were computer geeks, the newbies were whoever's family had just bought a computer and their friend's introduced them to our board.
My first girlfriend was met indirectly through BBSing. Although she happened to be on the board, I really met her through a mutual friend.
While I have a couple of good friends from my high school, the majority of my close friends from my teenage years were the people I met online. GTs went from big deals every 3-4 months to an almost weekly thing as the usage base began having more users of driving age.
It might have been unique, but Dragon World was very special to me. The system devolved into political infighting when the system went through a messy divorce and the board transferred hands a few times.
I do remember my attempt to salvage the board... it was on the Internet for a few months while it sat in my bedroom at school. Unfortunately, the owner sold the board, but the new owner never even put it up... There is a mailling list of users... but it is so infrequently trafficed that it is sad...
Alex
Switching it to run on Linux would open up several things. It would allow the game to be easily made available over the Internet, and it would allow it to run on a solid multi-user system.
However, the problems (this was a few years ago though) with the multi-line (AKA MBBS) version was balance. The balance that made the one-line version work failled when they lost the intracacies of ship speeds with multiple turns for movement. Also, the combat system was never updated, so it became a matter of typing speed if the user was online, or if they were offline, you could do whatever you wanted.
I missed the old version, but the MBBS version that I had worked with was missing something. However, I look foward to seeing the new version.
Alex
When did Linus ever have an open source edge? He wrote the original Linux, not out of a desire for a free Unix (like rms's GNU project), but out of a desire to avoid Minix's limitations... and probably a "because I can" deal.
He released the source because he could. There is no reason to hide source code unless you believe that it is a valuable product... most hobbist programmers include source on their web sites. Shareware developers, however, did not.
When the Linux kernel and GNU tools were combined and formed a free Unix-like OS, Linus released the kernel under the GPL. The earlier release was a public domain type of deal.
Linus write Linux because he could, not to change the world. RMS and the FSF worked on GNU because of a fundamental belief that computer code should be free. They sat in the ivory tower of the MIT LCS and worked on GNU, and later got an Office across the river and continued to work on GNU.
FSF have been Open Source advocates. Linus is a programmer whose work, a simple kernel for the 386, happened to complete the picture for a much larger program to recreate Unix. the GNU/Linux designation DOES make some sense, given that Linux was useful to run GNU software (and later all the neat projects that have come since), not because there is a particular love for a kernel.
Alex
If you've ever rolled out an ICA network across WAN links, you'd appreciate the work that Citrix put into their clients. While open standards approach make a lot of sense, many corporations have dozens of Windows applications that they wrote that they need. While it may be possible to recreate them as HTML applications, a Windows based Thin Client network is a more rapidly achievable goal and is much less costly.
My observation is that ICA works better over Ethernet than X11. While I haven't compared benchmarks, I have done both, and ICA is a LOT crisper. Even if X11 moves more data, ICA has a smoother feel.
Also, many of the corporate networks are using WAN links. Getting enough inter-office Bandwidth for X11 is prohibitively expensive.
One system that I was in was a large financial company. They were a mainframe shop that had replaced their 3270 terminals with Windows machines and 3270 emulators for the sole purpose of making WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 available. They were switching to a thin client system to make management easier. With the Windows network, people screwed around with their machines and it created a nightmare. With the Windows Terminals from NCD that they got, they had a built in Web Browser, ICA Client, and 3270 Terminal system.
Additionally, they had offices all over the Metro New York area. Their applications were mainframe based, which went over the WAN links. The remaining applications were Office suites, and their is no comparison to the Office tools that are available for the Microsoft encironment.
In the long run, HTML, XML, and Java based systems may make the most sense. However, the current Thin Client technologies provide a great system for certain corporate settings. In terms of the dial-up capability, it is a nice added bonus that the users can connect in from home at near LAN speeds, no?
Alex
I'm far prouder of being an MIT Computer Science student and of my consulting work, however my MCSE and CCA certifications are relevant to this discussion, which is why they are listed. The fact that you know dumb people doesn't mean that all people are dumb.
Given that this topic is largely concerning a Microsoft and Citrix set of technologies, my expertise in Microsoft and Citrix technologies is actually relavent. I'm actually a professional in this field.
Additionally, people here would like to discount anyone whose opinions are contrary to theres. By stating that I am an MCSE and a CCA, the people who don't actually care about this topic except to tout the wonders of Linux can disregard everything I say.
Alex
Ready Wyse's product listings. Citrix may not have coined the term Thin Client, but they grabbed it and ran with it. Wyse offers dumb terminals, 3270-style terminals, and Windows Terminals. They've been offering ICA ones for about 4 years, and RDP/ICA recently.
Alex
Really? Wow, I guess my info is out of date. I guess I haven't kept up on the UNIX Client (given that the client sites I've been at are all Windows Terminals and Windows 95, I haven't had a professional need to).
:)
What exactly does it map to? It can't exactly be: Client\Com1 now, can it?
Alex
Free Software does NOT help this situation.
This is the THIN CLIENT market, NOT the remote desktop market.
THIN CLIENTs implement The Microsoft and Citrix clients. The Microsoft Client is NOT available for Linux and will not be until their deal with Citrix no longer prohibits it.
The Citrix client for UNIX (including a Linux version) is less functional than the Windows one. This is not because UNIX is being slighted, but rather because the demands upon the UNIX client are different. The Windows client demands lower TCO and easy administration for rollouts. The UNIX client involves giving the Engineers Word, Power Point, and Outlook to access the Exchange Server.
There IS an add-on that add X11 support, but I doubt that Thin Clients use X11, too much of a pain. A Linux thin client while a great buzzword, is not a good idea.
WinCE is and will remain better than Linux at this application. Why? Sorry guys, no matter what you do, WinCE will beat Linux in this market. As long as the RDP and ICA clients for UNIX are NOT as flexible as the Windows versions, Linux will be an inferior Thin Client.
You can write all the drivers you want, with WinCE being free (as in beer) and having better versions of the two relevant pieces of software, all the wondering advantages of Linux are irrelevant.
The Linux "problem areas" in this market are: a licensing agreement signed in May '97 that prohibits MS from writing a UNIX RDP client.
This is NOT a good market for Linux. All the other embedded systems are good markets for Linux. The Thin Client market does not need Linux, it needs CE, I'm sorry to tell you.
Alex M. Hochberger
M.C.S.E., C.C.A.
The Java and WinCE/Linux devices were VERY different. The former was a Network Computer. When Oracle and Sun were pushing NCs, Wyse, as a Dumb Terminal manufacturer looking to stay relavent, looked into the market. The market never materialized, so they dropped it.
The WinCE/Linux device is a device known as a Windows Terminal, or in Wyse's case, a WinTerm. This device runs the Microsoft and/or Citrix client for access a Microsoft NT Terminal Server (and Citrix MetaFrame). Linux while more stable than CE (although I've yet to CE crash while running the relevant clients), is cheaper and offered different hardware options.
HOWEVER, the primary purpose of this device is to run two proprietary applications distributed in binary format only. With Linux, unless IBM and Wyse were able to develop an RDP client on their own for Linux (the Microsoft/Citrix deal prohibits it until '01 I believe), a Linux based Thin Client is less useful than a WinCE one. Given that most large installations use ICA (Citrix), this wasn't TOO big a problem but the lack of specialized hardware doomed it.
CE DOES live up to the purpose here. Wyse (AND ALL THEIR COMPETITORS) have a line of products. Many of the Terminals are CE based, and they run REALLY DAMNED WELL.
Alex M. Hochberger
MCSE, CCA
Alex
It isn't a few drivers. WinCE is THE standard for Windows Terminal devices. That is the one market that WinCE is doing VERY well in. A few years ago, before Microsoft strongarmed^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H pursuaded Citrix into licensing their technology, the only system using this was Citrix WinFrame with their ICA technology.
At the time, they licensed their DOS client to their OEMs (WYSE, NCD, etc.) to be modified to run in the ROM of the clients. The clients had an ugly configuration interface, and if there was a fix in the client or improvement, you needed to swap firmware. Along comes Microsoft WinCE and there is an underlying OS and they can flash in new client software. Also, with WinCE, they can just recompile the Client for the chip in question (usually a Cyrix cheapie) and recompile the relavent drivers. This is MUCH easier than customizing the software for each system.
As a result of dozens of WinCE based Terminals, the specialized hardware that makes this system so impressive became reasonable, and interchangable parts kicked in. Now the manufacturers of these devices release the relavent WinCE driver and it can be used by the OEMs with little difficulty.
IBM has a Linux thin Client which also could run (I believe) JAVA, 3270, and a Web Browser natively. Wyse tried to follow suit, in large part to stop paying licensing fees. Unfortunately, without WinCE, you couldn't do RDP (the MicroSoft protocol) which meant that you could only sell your device to MetaFrame shops.
The move to Linux, IMHO, was never really intended. By proving that they could switch to Linux and save money, the OEMs demonstrated to MS that they had to stop charging for WinCE, which they announced what, a week or two ago? MS was NOT happy if the OEMs all had cheaper Terminals that were Linux powered and were MetaFrame specific. Microsoft didn't want to be removed from having credibility in this market, so they buckled.
This was the right decision.
Alex M. Hochberger
Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer
Citrix Certified Administrator
note: those credentials are NOT bragging, it is a disclaimer so you know where I am coming from and can discount my opinion because I make my income with this stuff.
A thin client in this regard is a device being used to connect to a Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server Edition or Windows 2000 Server with Terminal Services installed. The devices usually support the Microsoft RDP Protocol and the Citrix ICA Protocol (if you are also using Citrix MetaFrame).
This idea of these systems is to run these protocols. Like X Windows, the MultiWin system (developed by Citrix and licensed to Microsoft) divides the application's logic and display, processing on the server and displaying on the clients.
Without the Citrix MetaFrame system, the clients include Win16, Win32, and WinCE (OEMs only). With Citrix MetaFrame there are ICA clients for those platforms plus ICA clients for like a dozen Unixes (there is now a Linux version to) and JAVA.
The reason that Wyse switched to Linux was that it was cheaper than paying a WinCE license. Also, Linux can be run on cheaper hardware than the funky chips that CE runs on. However, the sole purpose of that machine was to run the RDP and/or ICA client. Because it wasn't Windows, it was probably the ICA client (this is a condition of the Microsoft/Citrix licensing deal, not Microsoft arrogance).
With the Citrix packages, you can have serial and parallel ports on your dumb terminals and map them as though they were connections on the Terminal Server. This allows you to include things like local printers, bar-code readers, etc. However, with a Linux based client, you would NOT be able to remap the serial ports (that is limited to the DOS, Win16, and Win32 clients), so you would need a driver for the base OS that would handle the barcode and make it available for mapping.
The idea for Wyse is to make prebuilt WinTerms that have this functionality so the customers can use those in their installations.
Citrix's ICA (and to a lesser extent Microsoft's RDP) are really amazing. While MultiWin isn't amazing (it makes NT multi-user, and it is sometimes flakey if the programs aren't properly written), ICA allows you to run a really quick connection of as little bandwidth as 28.8.
Now before I get marked down into oblivion for supporting a Microsoft related technology, I will point out that Citrix is developing a MetaFrame for UNIX system. I believe that the Solaris port is done and they are working on the Linux version.
The idea is that in addition to the Windows applications, you can deploy your UNIX and Java based applications through ICA for display on the clients. Although X DOES support this, rolling out a thousand or so X-servers is a pain in the butt. The Citrix ICA client has some amazing capabilities with automatic roll-outs.
These products are NOT aimed at home users. They are aimed at Fortune 1000 companies.
Disclaimer: I am a Citrix Certified Administrator and make my living (well, my pocket change, I'm a student) as a consultant. I also worked a summer job at Citrix a few years ago.
Alex M. Hochberger
M.C.S.E., C.C.A.
This is rather bizarre. With only three machines, this will have no value to any legitamet collector. I question the purpose of this crime. Conceivably, someone just walked off with it, but you would think that robbing a guarded museum would be difficult and require SOME sort of planning.
This is obviosly the work of a mobster. Some bigwig in organized crime with a private museum. Law abiding wealthy people wouldn't take the risk, so it is obviously a crime lord who wants it.
It probably wasn't really guarded. Either the guard swiped it, or somebody took it while a guard was asleep. They probably figured it was valuable, and didn't realize that there were only three. Assuming that hundreds were made, they probably figured that it would net a small fortune on the black market to people that would sell it to collectors... Start checking nearby pawn shops.
The part that bothers me about this crime is the mention of the Internet. With absolutely no evidence to back this up, they blame technology for creating a market for stolen items. As a result, they will motivate technophobes to blame technology and increase regulations... despite technology playing no role in this...
Alex
The article (when I read it in the globe) was full of misinformation and inaccuracies. The Globe has been very anti-MIT for the past few years. This has largely focused on the fraternities (as a fraternity brother, I'm biased) but they have been extremely critical of the administration and the student body.
Under sever harassment from the administration, they promised to present a more balanced image, and this is what they came up with.
Hacking at MIT is part real, part imaginary. Hackers wandering through building late at night are real, although I haven't joined them since the Orange Tours (where they take freshmen around, including on top of the dome), they are a known portion of our campus. However, the impressive feats being common is quite exaggerated, although they may be slowly making a come back (R2D2 last year, for example).
However, the Boston Globe article was the latest in a concerted effort by the Globe's editorial staff to paint MIT students as a group running amok. They are also trying to paint MIT as ineffectual in dealing with the students. They have been one of the forces behind demanding local governments take over the governing of undergraduates. (When a smoke bomb misfired in a classroom to advertise a fundraising Halloween Party at one of the fraternities, they were part of the media that misrepresented the story and called for Cambridge to press charges.)
The situation with hacking, the campus police, and administration is an awkward one. MIT cannot acknowledge that they know what is going on, and this recent Globe article is putting MIT in a very bad light. Also, the comment about "I'm on my way to Baker House" is NOT part of hacking. During the Orange Tours, when, as freshman, you're relatively new, they want to make it seem more risky. As a result, they tell you that if CPs show up, they'll disappear, and you're supposed to act like a confused freshman and say "I'm on my way to Baker House."
However, the Globe tried to present this as MIT students mocking the administration that is powerless to prevent it.
I'm sorry to interupt this discussion of the MIT legend with a rant on the Globe, but I just want to put things in perspective.
Alex Hochberger
MIT CS '01
Did you ever read the Wizardry series? The first two books are bundled as The Wiz Biz. Really entertaining series. Well, the programmer develops a computer system with magic (makes sense in context, hard to explain) with a verbal interface. He calls out to the Emacs from which he does everything...
Alex
Or arrange for a letter writing campaign to Apple for them to release in binary format the codec with an API. If they're nice, they'll compile it for a bunch of applications.
That way, free software developers can develop the actual code so it will work on all the systems, and Apple can protect their mathematical algorithms.
I mean, if they allow it to be used in players developed the right way, I doubt even RMS would complain THAT much if they hid the algorithm in a small binary file.
I mean, ideally there wouldn't be a need to hide a mathematical algorithm, but at the very least, give developers a black box so they can use your stuff.
Alex
Nonsense, free software works because people write software and release it. Free software existed before the GPL, and it exists outside of the GPL. Unless you're implying that FreeBSD is a figment of our imagination...
Oh yeah, I forgot about a really impressive piece of software that was written and not originally GPLed... Some replacement kernel for Minix that got combined with the GNU tools to form a working OS... written by some college student. I think it was released in the public domain, but then it was released under the GPL... I forget the name thought...
Alex
Actually, free software has a copyright because of the laws of society. RMS was VERY against copyrighted software. He believed that software should be free. The reason the GPL existed was the believe that he was going to snub the system, and if people wanted to use his stuff, they should join him in snubbing the system.
While the FSF appears more moderate than it is, don't pretend to think that free software is based in copyright law... the copyleft is an intentional, legalistic, snub of the copyright system.
Alex
This gives the Linux community a chance to prove their dedication to Free Software, the basis of their systems.
If Linux users buy this software so that they can contribute money to support the people that filed a lawsuit against DeCSS for reverse engineering, than the Linux community will show that their dedication to Free Software is meaningless.
This is not a situation where a free version is not available. This is a situation where an organization used the courts to prevent a free version's creation overseas. The decision to use a commercial, non-free, version because of convenience to me demonstrates than the hoopla about free software in the Linux community is bogus.
I'm not a hardcore Linux user. NT4 and now Windows 2000 are my primary systems. However, I refuse to buy a DVD player or DVD-ROM. Why? Because I feel that the MPAA is taking a morally unjustifiable position, and the purchase of a DVD player and DVD titles will reinforce the position of a technology whose goal is to take away my rights as a user.
I'm not one who refuses to use proprietary software and will only use free software, I'm a user who won't contribute to morally unjustifiable organizations. I will be amazed at people that are supposedly dedicated to free software would even consider a situation like this.
Alex
Incorrect. At the time, they were capitalizing on Windows, not NT. As a result, you could upgrade from your Standards Windows 3.1 to Windows NT 3.1, or Windows 3.1 NT (a matter of how you look at it). The idea that it is related to OS/2 (NOT a common code base) is false.
Also, if 3.51 is 1.11, then 4.0 is 1.2. 3.51->4.0 was VERY minor. They replaced progman.exe with explorer.exe, and moved the video system into the kernel. They also did some tweaks to make Win32 the native toungue instead of a subsystem.
5.0 W2K is what 4.0 was supposed to be... it is Cairo...
Alex
Running free and public domain software is NOT dependant upon running Linux. You can compile those tools for any Unix/Unix-like system. The question here is:
if I want a Linux box, do I buy an Intel based system or a Sparc.
if I have a Sun box, do I run Solaris or Linux
In the real world, people don't do things because they have the machines (machines bought for a purpose tend to stick with it until being decommissioned), they get the machines to run the task.
If you follow the intelligent thread of discussion on this topic, we were discussing the merits of getting Sun hardware to run Linux on them. If you want to run the daemons that you are discussing, wouldn't it make more sense to get a vanilla x86 box and run Linux? The Ultra 5 is pretty slow for a server, and a K6 or Celeron based PC for $600 would be as fast as the $1300 (people say, I saw it for $2K when I checked their site today) Ultra 5.
So, why spend $700 more on your "low end" server? If you are looking cheap low end, don't x86 machines make more sense?
Alex
This processor looks like it should kick some serious ass. On the fly switching from RISC core for SIMB to VLIW, autonomous vector units, etc., this puppy looks like it will be amazing.
:)
The problem is going to be game design. I'm doubting that game designers crank out assembly code for games (you really can't hand code VLIW without going insane) so you need to get the tools there.
Now, with VLIW, compilers are VERY important, poor compiler technology, and your chip will run at 10% of it's speed. The upshot is that as the product matures, the compilers that Sony puts out will get better and better, so the games will improve tremendously as Sony's compiler gets better.
The only thing that concerns me is this obsession with display, will game design suck? I mean, I still haven't seen a game come out that is better than the original Zelda, I just wonder if it is possible to create a game that captures our imagination the way the simple old stuff did.
I mean, in computers, people get nostalgic about the Amiga, and you see anyone in 15 years wishing for the simple days of Win95?
...
Well, it looks like I may be cramming a console into my room at school now...
Alex
>>>Uniformity? There are some differences that matter. Think for example a situation where upper management is stupid enough to decide on Sun boxes but the people who are actually going to use them know zip about Solaris (administration wise) Impossible you say? I've seen it.
Fair enough, that makes a lot of sense. Ideally, you wouldn't by Suns without someone to support them, but if you are a Linux shop that aquired Suns, this option makes sense. Why a Linux shop would buy Suns is a different question, although I could see a situation where an NT shop whose IT staff includes a bunch of geeks who played with Linux aquire Suns because management wants Unix... in that case, this scenario makes a lot of sense.
>>>Not all the Sun hardware is super high end. There are some pretty low end Ultras, on which Solaris is a molasse. The nickname Slowaris is not just a pretty joke. Upper management (see previous point) got you stuck with a pile of expensive crap, you have to deal with it.
My more Unix loving friends rip on the speed of the Sun workstations, so I'm inclined to agree with you. This scenario makes sense. Although I'm curious, would it make more sense to buy Sun workstations of vanilla Intel/AMD workstations in this scenario? A friend who is a real Solaris lover has a HP Pavillion running Solaris x86 because he wanted Solaris and the HP gave him the most power for his budget. Sun's hardware is amazing in large part because of well designed chip architecture that supports a very scalable number of SMP processors, which makes a difference on the high end. Given the size of and value of the x86 market, can Sun's processors compete in the midrange, or does the high-end x86 just have more power?
>>>"On Sun hardware, Solaris is robust, Linux is not" is just FUD. You are not going to install Linux on that Enterprise 10k, but Linux on a Ultra 30 is a really good option.
Is it? The reason, in part, that Linux is so solid (I've been amazed with the robustness, and my attempts to administer a personal system are amusing at best) is the millions of eyeballs theory. Not only do lots of people fix things, you have a lot of users who can notice problems. Also, because Linux developers tend to be accessible and users help newbies, bugs are very likely to be reported. While bugs in MS systems tend not to get reported because users wouldn't no where to begin.
Sun/Linux however is a small niche, so it wouldn't have the HUGE support that Intel/Linux has. Solaris is heavily tested by Sun on their hardware platforms, and given that there hardware is sold in certain configurations with the OS, I trust that they have a great ability to debug and test their systems, and that bugs when reported are dealt with quickly. Does Sun/Linux have the same situation?
Alex