Time travel? Where on earth did you get that idea? Care to source that?
Death beams? He was just looking at an efficient weapon because he was under the idea (or delusion), like those physicists in the Manahattan Project, that a powerful weapon would end all war. His notion was that this could be done by harnessing electricity. Is this what you mean by a death beam?
You know you're reading BS when he doesn't even address the issue of why the legitimate posts inquiring about PIFTS.exe were deleted from the forums. Apparently, all deleted posts were spam, according to the response.
But hey, if I don't believe Symantec, then I must be a so-called "conspiracy theorist", cos' everyone knows there are no such thing as conspiracies. Unless, of course, they're government approved.
Please do tell us more. Was this in the news? Did someone you know work there, or did someone's kid go to school there? I would definitely like to know more about a virus written specifically for RedHat that could take down an entire network, especially when it only happens in Saskatchewan.
Really? Care to provide some kind of source for this? The only thing resembling a virus that I've seen infect an OS X machine was a macro virus targeting - you guessed it - MS Office. Not OS X.
I'm just wondering, why is this considered flamebait and why should it be ignored?
Terrorists kill people, "Linux Zealots" don't. Perhaps it shouldn't be ignored, because it shows just how far some people are willing to go to discredit OSS. They have to resort to the "T" word in order to tarnish the movement, when the people he refers to represent a fraction of the overall community. But even this minority could never reasonably be referred to as terrorist. It's ridiculous.
Zealots from all walks of life do have much in common, in that they hold extreme points of view and seldom allow for debate, but that doesn't make them terrorists. Terrorists instill terror on the population, so that people fear for their physical safety. At worst, a Linux "Zealot" just goes on about Linux ruling and MS sucking. Let's get a grip.
All I can say is a friend of mine's girlfriend bought an IBM XP box back in October, installed Kazaa, and tried to play an mp3. The message recieved was "You must upgrade your digital rights management workstation in order to play this file". The usual "OK" or "Cancel". After some bitching on my part ( I was asked to help them out), I chose OK. Nothing happened - not even a request to reboot. We waited, tried to play the file, but it wouldn't play. It didn't "just work". They had no idea what a DRM station was - they thought they had a computer that could play music.
Rebooted (what else?), and then clicked the file. After a pause, IE comes up with a an MS URL which redirects to a web page on the artist. How transparent is that? With the exception of RH 8, this would not be the case with any pre-configured Linux box.
In my experience, MS operating systems don't "just work", and I've supported all of them to a greater or lesser degree for the last 5 years. Things might work for a while, but then they break mysteriously. Ask the average user who knows next to nothing about Windows if it just works. Right now, I'd say Apple are the only vendor who can rightly make this claim, but even they occasionally miss the mark.
Mplayer, while a pain in the ass to install and configure, once done, is a joy to use. It plays almost anything you can throw at it and was developed by a small group of programmers for no wages. If somebody bought a preconfigured Linux box with Mplayer installed with sensible defaults, it would be as easy (though not as slick in the UI dept.) as WMP, and would certainly play more files.
Give me a sub-1000 dollar system and a decent Linux distro and I'll give you something that just works.
"...for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge."
Every person I know who has bought a Windows PC has to get me to setup their dialup account. Yet we always here about how easy it is for the average Joe and Jane to connect to the Internet with Windows, and how hard it is with Linux. Yet every Windows Joe I know as to pay me bucks to get them connected to the Internet. Go figure.
"Linux not only crashes and has bugs, but some of them are caused by ego clashing and political tension... AND there are zealots who will try and cover them up."
Have you ever worked in the real world? There are diasgreements, political tension, ego clashing, and zealots. Open source projects are no different than other projects in any field in any company. People are people, and whenever you have a large group of people working together on a large project, there will be problems. So Linux or any other open source project will be subject to the same problems.
"Mozilla (the shining jewel of Open Source) is years late and many dollars short of beating IE."
But at least we have a browser "market" now. And Mozilla has come a long way in the past year. I use Konqueror and Mozilla and the only area where IE beats it is in sites "optimized" for IE. Mozilla and Konqueror are at least as good as IE on non-IE optimized sites.
"Loki is dead and so goes the myht that Linux is a market that is large and willing to buy. They listened to the Linux zealots and got screwed."
OK, so that must mean what exactly? It only means that the gaming market is difficult to make money from when developing on a non-Windows platform. They tried and failed. I guess you figure that if Loki can't make a profit from selling games, then Linux must suck. There are many more markets out there.
"Slashdot is squelching topics and moderators are abusing their power - so there goes the myth of the open minds of the Open Source community. The dream is gone and good riddance."
Really, I'd say if you feel that way why bother showing up? What dream? The open source community is not about open minds (though there probably are many of them), it's about open source software. Nothing else. It's no different than any other community. Some have closed minds, some have open minds. The "myth of the open minds of the Open Source community" probably exists in your mind. Anyone with a little bit of world experience knows that there are closed minds everywhere and in every community.
"But your much better off when you realize it is simply another dynamic - it is not the best one and it certainly isn't the only one.Fight tyranny and repression.... read/. at -1!"
How about fighting real "tyranny and repression"? Really...
...is yet another marketing effort to alter the existing perception that MS lacks security. It is perception that really matters to Microsoft, not reality. Very typical of them to create a new word when one already exists. It's not about security, it about "Trustworthy Computing".
If businesses wanted "proven reliability", then why did so many migrate en masse to Windows 95? Marketing and sales. Nothing to do with "proven reliability". I doubt K-Office and StarOffice are high on glitz and glamour. You must be joking. While I'm not crazy about StarOffice, it's never crashed on me or any of my present or former clients. It lacks speed and elegance, but not stability. Microsoft are more concerned with meeting sales and marketing objectives than putting out a stable product. It's more important that we think they're putting out something stable than actually putting out something stable.Perception is everything for a company like MS. And as for getting a kernel panic for changing a font - again, you're joking, right?
Training
It's not a huge step to go from MS Office to SO. I think the article makes clear that the users of MS Office, while they may have had problems with SO, they could still do most of the things they did in MS-Office. Now obviously we all have our problems with SO, but it doesn't reinvent the wheel in terms of the way things are done. If you know MS Office well, you should have no problems learning SO. Obtuse error messages? Really, do you use Windows? Talk about abtuse error messages.
"Each user must be trained in how to login to their system, navigate a new and dramatically different desktop, then they have to be trained in how to use a brand new office suite. While this process can be spread out using staged upgrades, the downtime still adds up.
They have to be trained to login to their system anyway. This is standard for me when supporting a user who is used to Windows 9.x or Mac and then moves to Winnt or win2k. The Desktop is not that radically different if they're using KDE. I can tell you that the end user on a linux system doesn't even have to worry about the filesystem. They can only write files in their home dir, and that's pretty simple. In Windows, they can write pretty much anywhere they want. Training is not a huge downtime issue. If you want to see downtime add up, just have everyone use Outlook Express for email for a year and just watch how fast downtime adds up. The only free e-mail client that will cost you thousands of dollars in downtime.
Accountability
Microsoft accountable and Alan Cox and Linus not? I can contact a kernel developer, I can know who is responsible for what, I can debate with a developer about this or that. And I wouldn't call these guys hobbysts, either. Really. I haven't a clue who is accountable at Microsoft, and I doubt anyone at Microsoft does either:-)
Netscape had a monopoly and blew it. When faced with an obvious competitive threat from the bundled and free Explorer, they basically didn't take any effective measures to protect their market share.
They didn't really have a monopoly. They were the first browser on the market, but it wasn't long before MS came along with IE. Who could compete with a company that spends something like 500 million dollars marketing a product they will never sell? Since IE, the only other commercial browser I know of is Opera. It's suicidal to get into the browser market after IE.
Have consumers, in net, been harmed by Microsoft's giving the browser away for free, bundled?
The haven't been harmed directly, since it is convenient, but that browser should have been either Netscape, Opera, IE or any one of a handful of possible browsers we'll never hear of. The point is that companies should have been able to develop, market, and sell browsers. They should have been able to sell their browsers in large volumes to OEMs. MS deliberately and efficiently killed the browser market because they saw the browser as making the OS irrelevant, and if they couldn't buy Netscape then they might as well kill it along with the rest of the market.
On the benefit side, consumers don't have to buy Explorer separately or download it and install it separately or even think about it very much.
I think this would have been the case anyway, it's just that the OEMs would be making the choices. (And anyway, I almost always have to get the latest version of IE whenever I do a fresh install for a client.)Some OEMs would install IE, others Netscape. What we don't know is what benefits we would have as consumers had their been competition. The browser scene on linux was dismal up until last year, when open source browsers started maturing. In fact, open source has rejuvented the browser "market". Only now are we starting to get some idea of what it might have been like had their been choice and proper standards compliance.
Before then, you downloaded one with an ftp client, or bought Netscape in a box from the local computer store. Had competition been able to thrive in the browser and OS market, partnerships between an OS vendor and Netscape (or Opera) would have been formed and the prices would have been built into the price of the OS.
It might seem like speculation, but what I'm saying is that had there been competition, the browser market would have shaped up like any other market. Browsers would be cheap, but they would still be paid for one way or the other, unless it's OSS.
Microsoft clearly killed this market, making it impossible for anyone to make money from selling a browser.
He got off easy, you say.
Meanwhile the state were seeking "120 year prison sentence and $50,000 fine for each Felony count plus $ 415,000 in restitution and damages for a total of $815,000!".
Justice, and what people regard as justice, is skewed in the United States. A man beats another man to death over hockey and gets involuntary manslaughter
involuntary manslaughter. Now that's getting off easy. How can the state justify seeking these kinds of penalties for a crime(???) that didn't affect lives and probably didn't cost anyone anything? Running Outlook Express on an office computer probably costs more than the consequences of his "crime". Let's get a grip on priorities here.
Sir, I'm done with you. If you have valid points, they're lost on me now. You are always offtopic and are continually interfering with my enjoyment of posts that are on topic.
Your arguments are lost in your noise and trolling. Has it occured to you that you might have been moderated offtopic because you are offtopic? If I were a moderator, I'd mod you down right now.
Enough already. Grow up. Surely there are other ways of making your points heard. You're beginning to sound like a disaffected high school student bitterly complaining of getting poor marks.
I have nothing against dissent. But when it begins to interfere with my enjoyment of other reader's ontopic comments I get pissed.
I am in now way affiliated with/. Editors, can you please answer this guy so he can shut up already. I want to see a story on this, because he won't stop otherwise.
I still like it and still watch it. I think the show's improved since the departure of Duchovny, and lately they've been getting back to the roots of the show with these great stand-alone episodes. It is probably time for it to go, but I think a lot of people who have not watched it in the last 3 years will see that the last 3 seasons weren't as bad as all that when they start getting them in syndication. The story arc may have gotten old, but when they worked on an episode that would not have any reference to any story arc, it still shined IMHO.
Really, a show that shold be put out of its misery is the Simpson's. Now that has really gone downhill in the last 3 years.
At about the time the 2.4 kernel was first released, we were bulding a server for serving out large media files for encoding. We were on a limited budget, so we put together a PC with about 256 MB RAM running on a K6-2/500. Set it up with a combination of RAID 1 and RAID 5 with 2x40GB and 2x80 GB IDE drives. While running with the stock RH 6.2 kernel we had no problems. But we needed the 2.4 kernel for large files, so we waited until we couldn't wait any longer.
This turned out to be problematic to say the least. While we had 7 servers running RH 6.2 and never had a crash, the machine serving up the media files would lock up whenever copying large files, or whenever many files were being copied. Kept me working through a few weekends trying the latest kernel and then stress testing the server with large file copies. We wound up reverting back to a 2.2 kernel because the crashes were too frequent.
I haven't tried the RH kernels for 2.4 on anything other than desktop systems. I can say that, on RH 7.1 at least, the 2.4 kernel in use is rock solid and has never crashed for me at home or on desktop systems at work. I never got the chance to try the kernels on RH 7.1, but I suspect Redhat kernels would probably be more stable. They've got the resources to stress test and modify kernels for specific needs.
I liked the article. He's not a kernel hacker and writes from his experience of the 2.4 kernel with clients. Only problem I see is WTH was he thinking using Mandrake 8.0 for a server? That version of Mandrake, more than any other I've used, I've found to be very unstable on 2.4.
I guess if one could work out the TCO of using non-open source products, you could make a case for it. Everyone understands what it means to save money, and despite what some people think, the benefits of running, say, a ubiquitous proprietary OS do not justify the returns. I think this is a case that can be easily made.
However, I think large-scale deployments of open-source software only make sense if a migration has to take place anyway. No point in this if city council has already paid the money to MS to upgrade to Windows 2000 or Office 2000. Then, you have to wait to the next end if upgrade cycle.
Wholeheartedly agree. Dissent is healthy and usually a sign of a dynamic social, cultural and intellectual environment. Lack of dissent anywhere is usually a sign of stagnation.
The interview is a good sign that Linux will continue to evolve, that OSS gives users an opportunity to participate and reflect on the development of their OS. This is better than some debate going on behind closed doors that no one will ever know about.
For the most part I agree, though I don't see Linus suing them for trademark violations.
I don't know what to think of this. On the one hand it seems insane that MS (or the court, for that matter) can compel them to turn over e-mail addresses and other personal info. Why?
OTOH, this makes me even more sceptical about Lindows - and I have to say it, the more I hear it the less I like it. The name, that is, and that's all it is right now. A name, combining Linux with Windows. If they're violating the MS trademark, I don't why the same wouldn't apply for Linux.
I agree. It makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is how a superb piece of technology like BeOS winds up in the dustbin of computing history. A sleek and lean desktop OS. Who knows how things might have turned out if there was such a thing as competition in the desktop market?
I was hoping that Palm would consider doing something else with it. Too bad. It's the perfect answer for those Mac people who hate PCs.
...and this may be the 'Net appliance that breaks the PC barrier to the Internet for the other half of the Canadian population not on the Internet.
People should be able to get on the internet with this kind of ease. I'll always stick with a computer, but for many this is the perfect appliance to connect to the Internet with.
It ain't cheap, but sounds perfect for people who want to connect to the Internet but don't want the hassle or complication of a Windows PC.
Oh, and gotta love their use of Linux for this purpose - great thing is most people using it won't even notice linux, yet that's what they'll be using. That's the way it should be if Linux is going to be for the masses.
And as a Canadian, it's appropriate a canuck based company should be thinking along the lines of an appliance like this. Canadians, if I'm not mistaken, are more likely to be on the Internet than Europeans or Americans.
Hope it works for them.
Re:Won't really help Windows as a server
on
Apache 2.0 vs. IIS
·
· Score: 1
I know, I just don't get it. I can't see any good reason why anyone would want to run Apache on Windows, but there must be some.
Slashdot Mirror
Time travel? Where on earth did you get that idea? Care to source that?
Death beams? He was just looking at an efficient weapon because he was under the idea (or delusion), like those physicists in the Manahattan Project, that a powerful weapon would end all war. His notion was that this could be done by harnessing electricity. Is this what you mean by a death beam?
Mods, how on earth is this comment "insightful"? More like a troll!
You know you're reading BS when he doesn't even address the issue of why the legitimate posts inquiring about PIFTS.exe were deleted from the forums. Apparently, all deleted posts were spam, according to the response.
But hey, if I don't believe Symantec, then I must be a so-called "conspiracy theorist", cos' everyone knows there are no such thing as conspiracies. Unless, of course, they're government approved.
Please do tell us more. Was this in the news? Did someone you know work there, or did someone's kid go to school there? I would definitely like to know more about a virus written specifically for RedHat that could take down an entire network, especially when it only happens in Saskatchewan.
Really? Care to provide some kind of source for this? The only thing resembling a virus that I've seen infect an OS X machine was a macro virus targeting - you guessed it - MS Office. Not OS X.
I'm just wondering, why is this considered flamebait and why should it be ignored?
Terrorists kill people, "Linux Zealots" don't. Perhaps it shouldn't be ignored, because it shows just how far some people are willing to go to discredit OSS. They have to resort to the "T" word in order to tarnish the movement, when the people he refers to represent a fraction of the overall community. But even this minority could never reasonably be referred to as terrorist. It's ridiculous.
Zealots from all walks of life do have much in common, in that they hold extreme points of view and seldom allow for debate, but that doesn't make them terrorists. Terrorists instill terror on the population, so that people fear for their physical safety. At worst, a Linux "Zealot" just goes on about Linux ruling and MS sucking. Let's get a grip.
All I can say is a friend of mine's girlfriend bought an IBM XP box back in October, installed Kazaa, and tried to play an mp3. The message recieved was "You must upgrade your digital rights management workstation in order to play this file". The usual "OK" or "Cancel". After some bitching on my part ( I was asked to help them out), I chose OK. Nothing happened - not even a request to reboot. We waited, tried to play the file, but it wouldn't play. It didn't "just work". They had no idea what a DRM station was - they thought they had a computer that could play music.
Rebooted (what else?), and then clicked the file. After a pause, IE comes up with a an MS URL which redirects to a web page on the artist. How transparent is that? With the exception of RH 8, this would not be the case with any pre-configured Linux box.
In my experience, MS operating systems don't "just work", and I've supported all of them to a greater or lesser degree for the last 5 years. Things might work for a while, but then they break mysteriously. Ask the average user who knows next to nothing about Windows if it just works. Right now, I'd say Apple are the only vendor who can rightly make this claim, but even they occasionally miss the mark.
Mplayer, while a pain in the ass to install and configure, once done, is a joy to use. It plays almost anything you can throw at it and was developed by a small group of programmers for no wages. If somebody bought a preconfigured Linux box with Mplayer installed with sensible defaults, it would be as easy (though not as slick in the UI dept.) as WMP, and would certainly play more files.
Give me a sub-1000 dollar system and a decent Linux distro and I'll give you something that just works.
I put a DVD in my W2K box, it plays.
Try to open an mp3 in win xp - it doesn't play.
"...for consumer-level users, simply configuring Linux to dial into an ISP (Internet service provider) is a challenge."
Every person I know who has bought a Windows PC has to get me to setup their dialup account. Yet we always here about how easy it is for the average Joe and Jane to connect to the Internet with Windows, and how hard it is with Linux. Yet every Windows Joe I know as to pay me bucks to get them connected to the Internet. Go figure.
"GCC isn't the worlds best compiler "
/. at -1!"
Who said it was?
"Linux not only crashes and has bugs, but some of them are caused by ego clashing and political tension... AND there are zealots who will try and cover them up."
Have you ever worked in the real world? There are diasgreements, political tension, ego clashing, and zealots. Open source projects are no different than other projects in any field in any company. People are people, and whenever you have a large group of people working together on a large project, there will be problems. So Linux or any other open source project will be subject to the same problems.
"Mozilla (the shining jewel of Open Source) is years late and many dollars short of beating IE."
But at least we have a browser "market" now. And Mozilla has come a long way in the past year. I use Konqueror and Mozilla and the only area where IE beats it is in sites "optimized" for IE. Mozilla and Konqueror are at least as good as IE on non-IE optimized sites.
"Loki is dead and so goes the myht that Linux is a market that is large and willing to buy. They listened to the Linux zealots and got screwed."
OK, so that must mean what exactly? It only means that the gaming market is difficult to make money from when developing on a non-Windows platform. They tried and failed. I guess you figure that if Loki can't make a profit from selling games, then Linux must suck. There are many more markets out there.
"Slashdot is squelching topics and moderators are abusing their power - so there goes the myth of the open minds of the Open Source community. The dream is gone and good riddance."
Really, I'd say if you feel that way why bother showing up? What dream? The open source community is not about open minds (though there probably are many of them), it's about open source software. Nothing else. It's no different than any other community. Some have closed minds, some have open minds. The "myth of the open minds of the Open Source community" probably exists in your mind. Anyone with a little bit of world experience knows that there are closed minds everywhere and in every community.
"But your much better off when you realize it is simply another dynamic - it is not the best one and it certainly isn't the only one.Fight tyranny and repression.... read
How about fighting real "tyranny and repression"? Really...
...is yet another marketing effort to alter the existing perception that MS lacks security. It is perception that really matters to Microsoft, not reality. Very typical of them to create a new word when one already exists. It's not about security, it about "Trustworthy Computing".
If businesses wanted "proven reliability", then why did so many migrate en masse to Windows 95? Marketing and sales. Nothing to do with "proven reliability". I doubt K-Office and StarOffice are high on glitz and glamour. You must be joking. While I'm not crazy about StarOffice, it's never crashed on me or any of my present or former clients. It lacks speed and elegance, but not stability. Microsoft are more concerned with meeting sales and marketing objectives than putting out a stable product. It's more important that we think they're putting out something stable than actually putting out something stable.Perception is everything for a company like MS. And as for getting a kernel panic for changing a font - again, you're joking, right?
TrainingIt's not a huge step to go from MS Office to SO. I think the article makes clear that the users of MS Office, while they may have had problems with SO, they could still do most of the things they did in MS-Office. Now obviously we all have our problems with SO, but it doesn't reinvent the wheel in terms of the way things are done. If you know MS Office well, you should have no problems learning SO. Obtuse error messages? Really, do you use Windows? Talk about abtuse error messages.
"Each user must be trained in how to login to their system, navigate a new and dramatically different desktop, then they have to be trained in how to use a brand new office suite. While this process can be spread out using staged upgrades, the downtime still adds up.
They have to be trained to login to their system anyway. This is standard for me when supporting a user who is used to Windows 9.x or Mac and then moves to Winnt or win2k. The Desktop is not that radically different if they're using KDE. I can tell you that the end user on a linux system doesn't even have to worry about the filesystem. They can only write files in their home dir, and that's pretty simple. In Windows, they can write pretty much anywhere they want. Training is not a huge downtime issue. If you want to see downtime add up, just have everyone use Outlook Express for email for a year and just watch how fast downtime adds up. The only free e-mail client that will cost you thousands of dollars in downtime.
AccountabilityMicrosoft accountable and Alan Cox and Linus not? I can contact a kernel developer, I can know who is responsible for what, I can debate with a developer about this or that. And I wouldn't call these guys hobbysts, either. Really. I haven't a clue who is accountable at Microsoft, and I doubt anyone at Microsoft does either:-)
They didn't really have a monopoly. They were the first browser on the market, but it wasn't long before MS came along with IE. Who could compete with a company that spends something like 500 million dollars marketing a product they will never sell? Since IE, the only other commercial browser I know of is Opera. It's suicidal to get into the browser market after IE.
Have consumers, in net, been harmed by Microsoft's giving the browser away for free, bundled?The haven't been harmed directly, since it is convenient, but that browser should have been either Netscape, Opera, IE or any one of a handful of possible browsers we'll never hear of. The point is that companies should have been able to develop, market, and sell browsers. They should have been able to sell their browsers in large volumes to OEMs. MS deliberately and efficiently killed the browser market because they saw the browser as making the OS irrelevant, and if they couldn't buy Netscape then they might as well kill it along with the rest of the market.
On the benefit side, consumers don't have to buy Explorer separately or download it and install it separately or even think about it very much.I think this would have been the case anyway, it's just that the OEMs would be making the choices. (And anyway, I almost always have to get the latest version of IE whenever I do a fresh install for a client.)Some OEMs would install IE, others Netscape. What we don't know is what benefits we would have as consumers had their been competition. The browser scene on linux was dismal up until last year, when open source browsers started maturing. In fact, open source has rejuvented the browser "market". Only now are we starting to get some idea of what it might have been like had their been choice and proper standards compliance.
If you know an American citizen, you can always send them a link to Dan Kegel's site and ask them to sign his petition.
Not since Microsoft made it a "standard".
Before then, you downloaded one with an ftp client, or bought Netscape in a box from the local computer store. Had competition been able to thrive in the browser and OS market, partnerships between an OS vendor and Netscape (or Opera) would have been formed and the prices would have been built into the price of the OS.
It might seem like speculation, but what I'm saying is that had there been competition, the browser market would have shaped up like any other market. Browsers would be cheap, but they would still be paid for one way or the other, unless it's OSS.
Microsoft clearly killed this market, making it impossible for anyone to make money from selling a browser.
Justice, and what people regard as justice, is skewed in the United States. A man beats another man to death over hockey and gets involuntary manslaughter involuntary manslaughter. Now that's getting off easy. How can the state justify seeking these kinds of penalties for a crime(???) that didn't affect lives and probably didn't cost anyone anything? Running Outlook Express on an office computer probably costs more than the consequences of his "crime". Let's get a grip on priorities here.
Sir, I'm done with you. If you have valid points, they're lost on me now. You are always offtopic and are continually interfering with my enjoyment of posts that are on topic.
/. Editors, can you please answer this guy so he can shut up already. I want to see a story on this, because he won't stop otherwise.
Your arguments are lost in your noise and trolling. Has it occured to you that you might have been moderated offtopic because you are offtopic? If I were a moderator, I'd mod you down right now.
Enough already. Grow up. Surely there are other ways of making your points heard. You're beginning to sound like a disaffected high school student bitterly complaining of getting poor marks.
I have nothing against dissent. But when it begins to interfere with my enjoyment of other reader's ontopic comments I get pissed.
I am in now way affiliated with
I still like it and still watch it. I think the show's improved since the departure of Duchovny, and lately they've been getting back to the roots of the show with these great stand-alone episodes. It is probably time for it to go, but I think a lot of people who have not watched it in the last 3 years will see that the last 3 seasons weren't as bad as all that when they start getting them in syndication. The story arc may have gotten old, but when they worked on an episode that would not have any reference to any story arc, it still shined IMHO.
Really, a show that shold be put out of its misery is the Simpson's. Now that has really gone downhill in the last 3 years.
Same here.
At about the time the 2.4 kernel was first released, we were bulding a server for serving out large media files for encoding. We were on a limited budget, so we put together a PC with about 256 MB RAM running on a K6-2/500. Set it up with a combination of RAID 1 and RAID 5 with 2x40GB and 2x80 GB IDE drives. While running with the stock RH 6.2 kernel we had no problems. But we needed the 2.4 kernel for large files, so we waited until we couldn't wait any longer.
This turned out to be problematic to say the least. While we had 7 servers running RH 6.2 and never had a crash, the machine serving up the media files would lock up whenever copying large files, or whenever many files were being copied. Kept me working through a few weekends trying the latest kernel and then stress testing the server with large file copies. We wound up reverting back to a 2.2 kernel because the crashes were too frequent.
I haven't tried the RH kernels for 2.4 on anything other than desktop systems. I can say that, on RH 7.1 at least, the 2.4 kernel in use is rock solid and has never crashed for me at home or on desktop systems at work. I never got the chance to try the kernels on RH 7.1, but I suspect Redhat kernels would probably be more stable. They've got the resources to stress test and modify kernels for specific needs.
I liked the article. He's not a kernel hacker and writes from his experience of the 2.4 kernel with clients. Only problem I see is WTH was he thinking using Mandrake 8.0 for a server? That version of Mandrake, more than any other I've used, I've found to be very unstable on 2.4.
I guess if one could work out the TCO of using non-open source products, you could make a case for it. Everyone understands what it means to save money, and despite what some people think, the benefits of running, say, a ubiquitous proprietary OS do not justify the returns. I think this is a case that can be easily made.
However, I think large-scale deployments of open-source software only make sense if a migration has to take place anyway. No point in this if city council has already paid the money to MS to upgrade to Windows 2000 or Office 2000. Then, you have to wait to the next end if upgrade cycle.
Wholeheartedly agree. Dissent is healthy and usually a sign of a dynamic social, cultural and intellectual environment. Lack of dissent anywhere is usually a sign of stagnation.
The interview is a good sign that Linux will continue to evolve, that OSS gives users an opportunity to participate and reflect on the development of their OS. This is better than some debate going on behind closed doors that no one will ever know about.
Great interview.
For the most part I agree, though I don't see Linus suing them for trademark violations.
I don't know what to think of this. On the one hand it seems insane that MS (or the court, for that matter) can compel them to turn over e-mail addresses and other personal info. Why?
OTOH, this makes me even more sceptical about Lindows - and I have to say it, the more I hear it the less I like it. The name, that is, and that's all it is right now. A name, combining Linux with Windows. If they're violating the MS trademark, I don't why the same wouldn't apply for Linux.
I agree. It makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is how a superb piece of technology like BeOS winds up in the dustbin of computing history. A sleek and lean desktop OS. Who knows how things might have turned out if there was such a thing as competition in the desktop market?
I was hoping that Palm would consider doing something else with it. Too bad. It's the perfect answer for those Mac people who hate PCs.
...and this may be the 'Net appliance that breaks the PC barrier to the Internet for the other half of the Canadian population not on the Internet.
People should be able to get on the internet with this kind of ease. I'll always stick with a computer, but for many this is the perfect appliance to connect to the Internet with.
It ain't cheap, but sounds perfect for people who want to connect to the Internet but don't want the hassle or complication of a Windows PC.
Oh, and gotta love their use of Linux for this purpose - great thing is most people using it won't even notice linux, yet that's what they'll be using. That's the way it should be if Linux is going to be for the masses.
And as a Canadian, it's appropriate a canuck based company should be thinking along the lines of an appliance like this. Canadians, if I'm not mistaken, are more likely to be on the Internet than Europeans or Americans.
Hope it works for them.
I know, I just don't get it. I can't see any good reason why anyone would want to run Apache on Windows, but there must be some.
Anyone got any?