Monolithic kernels have been around for at least a decade and change. The model has been turned into reality. The theory has turned into practice. Now that we have ages of real experience, the microkernel model still holds substantial advantages despite being _behind_ on the development curve vs. a monolithic kernel.
I think Andy's quite right, but it's a dead issue, unfortunately.
Low power means less heat dissipation, which means no CPU fans. This is a good thing in all computers, not just laptops.
Consider the added effects--having low enough heat loss that you can live with a passive heat sink means that you're also saving the power that it would take to drive your cooling fan(s). For every watt of power consumed by your CPU, you're probably sucking 2-4 watts for your whole system.
As an aside, my firewall is an old P-II/233MHz, and I'm stocking up on spare parts for it because it was about the last x86 processor that could be run without a CPU fan. Hopefully I'll be able to get a fanless and nearly silent machine as surplus for my next firewall, but the way things are going, it's going to be a few years yet.
We've been using open source for decades, like most other shops with Unix systems. If management is making an "open source stratagem," then it's only because aobut five years ago, open source became a religion instead of a descriptor.
So just how does "lots of computer-related toys" translate to "most advanced?"
Seriously, where's the discussion about environmental controls? HVAC improvements? Energy efficiency? Chemical and electronic emissions?
Don't get me wrong--this isn't a bad idea, nor is it a bad building. It's cool but relatively straightforward to create a building with endless technological integration, on the level they're talking.
But HVAC is a very big, expensive, INCREDIBLY important, and not yet solved problem, which probably has more long-term relevance than anything they spent $80M on in this project.
Who is this "McNeely" guy anyways? Does the CEO of Sun know him?
Seriously, there wasn't a single fact in this article--only ranting--and they got McNealy's name wrong every single time. Why are we giving it any credence at all?
Heh. I remember playing Adventure on my dad's lab's Pet2001 (and later the fancy 4016. Woo!!). With a (very little) bit of understanding of strings vs. numbers, I coded a few thousand lines of a game like that. Then I started typing games in from magazines, and realised that they did things VERY differently. That was the end of my adventure-writing career.
(Be forewarned though. I'm a borderline 'Sun nut':-)
I've been doing HPUX and Solaris support back and forth for many years. Maybe HP is better in the US, but in Canada getting useful help from Sun has always been incredibly simple compared to HP. The HP support here sucks. Sucks, sucks, sucks!!! (As an international aside, the HP tech support website has been a bloody embarassment, compared to Sun's. Compared to ANYONE else's, in fact--including IBM!)
Patching HP is easier because it has to be--they crank out almost an order of magnitude more patches than Sun, and roll back and equally larger number. I've never understood why 'patchadd ' is considered so difficult.
And as much as I loved the Alpha processor, OSF/1 still gives me hives.
I think that community is one of those things you find, depending on your needs. I've found the Solaris unofficial support network to be far stronger than that for HP-UX, but I don't spend as much time with HP. In reality, I suspect they're probably equal.
One thing that Sun does which HP doesn't compete with at all: Oil and Gas (i.e. geological/geophysical) applications run on Solaris/Sparc, and are only now potentially moving to Linux/x86--not HP.
The hardware model for Solaris has always struck me as MUCH simpler to work with than HP. Sun's integrated disk volume management tools are laughable, though, as compared to HP.
The bottom line is that they're both good OSes. Solaris has a bigger market share, but is dwindling faster, without the backing of a profitable commodity printer company. Really, there should be lots of room for them both.
For starters, trade secret protection is gone once the secret is made public. At the very most, the DVD CCA could file suit against Jon Johansen for improperly making their trade secret public. Once it's out though, there's no protection for it. Also, keep in mind that the trade secret ruling was in the USA, not Norway.
Now copyright. First of all, there was no copyright filed. Secondly, it's irrelevant--the DeCSS code DOES NOT CONTAIN THE DVD CCA'S CODE! There is no material belonging to the DVD CCA in the DeCSS code. There is nothing that violates their potential (unfiled) copyright.
As an aside; "Just b/c it is no longer a secret does not mean you can still distribute it."
With a trade secret, that is EXACTLY what it means! If it becomes public, then it is distributable.
Guilt free? That's easy--there should NOT be any guilt at watching your own legally purchased, rented, or borrowed DVDs. The platform must NOT be a legal limitation.
Do you actually mean 'within the law?' In that case, you're home free too! As you can see on the EFF website, the decryption code lawsuits have been dropped! DeCSS is safe, legal, and free!
Very well said indeed! I agree entirely, except possibly the RealNetworks claim.
There are some companies I won't EVER give a second chance. Real is one of them. Unless their CEO and marketing staff from the days of the spyware fiasco get thrown out on their collective asses, without any benefits, pension, perks, options, or padding, I'll avoid them. If the company is taken over in a hostile bid, which leaves these same people penniless (good) or facing criminal charges (better), I'll consider actively promoting them.
quicktime is my streaming media of choice, and mpeg for downloadable. Streaming ogg (icecast, I think? Not sure) would be ideal, but real sunk so low as to make me think that MS is an equivalent evil.
How about a formal apology from Real? It's not quite penniless and bleeding on the sidewalk, but it would be an indication that they've recognised their poor behaviour. I've seen nothing of the sort, though.
I'd personally be happier if Linux stayed under the radar of MS until hell froze over. As soon as they start developing for it, they'll start producing 'gotta have it' proprietary, incompatible software. By the time the Linux desktop is TRULY mainstream, MS will own it once again.
"How about the fact that by adding conditions on use to GPL software, they may actually be breaking the Licence? rendering it void. Thus it now becomes a breach of copyright law to run the CD?"
If this is the case, then there's a legitimate complaint. It still doesn't address the my point, that of not putting the GPL front and centre, the single most important aspect of the entire desktop.
"Or how about, SUN is trying to hide from the user the rights they have under the GPL regarding copying and distribution of GPL software?"
Maybe Sun just doesn't think their end users are SO MIND-BOGGLINGLY STUPID that they can't figure out how to find and read their agreement. If they are that stupid, then tattooing the GPL on their ass won't help in the slightest.
You're right, of course. There's one thing, and to appreciate it, you have to imagine these two scenarios (albeit with a strong pro-Sun bias):
Scenario #1. CTO: "Linux! I keep hearing about Linux, and how cheap it is. Our competitors across the street are claiming a 200% performance-per-dollar increase over these Unix workstations. Get me some of that!" IT: "OK, it's looking really good and our vendors are supporting it. What distro do you want?" CTO: "Huh? What do the vendors support?" IT: "Well, most of 'em support some version of RedHat, but most of those versions aren't supported by RedHat anymore. This app. vendor promotes SuSE, but this other one uses the Debian packaging system." CTO: "I...see. OK, what about stepping back and just replacing some of the desktop PCs for the basic users? Email, wordprocessing, and web browsing. Can we do that?" IT: "Sure. KOffice or OpenOffice? For a browser, we can chose Mozilla's stable or current versions, or Firefox which is really mozilla; or we can go with Opera. Email will depend on if we need to plug into our Exchange servers." CTO: "Well, this is starting to sound iffy. How long will it take before we can test it to see if it works?" IT:" We should be able to get a proper pilot test within two months, if things go well. Five if they don't." CTO: "Fuck that! We're staying AWAY from Linux, and next year we'll buy our poor competitors for $0.10 on the dollar!"
Now, Scenario #2. Sun's answer.
CTO: "Linux! I keep hearing about Linux, and how cheap it is. Our competitors across the street are claiming a 200% performance-per-dollar increase over these Unix workstations that YOU sold me! I'm gonna get me some of that, unless you can talk really fast." Sun: "Not at all. We can replace your base desktop users (email, office suite, web browsing) with preconfigured Intel/AMD systems. All testing, development, patching, and integration is done by us. We'll provide a pilot by next Tuesday, provide phone support at no cost, and meet with you at the end of it. If you like the pilot, the software bundle including tested, packaged updates will run $100 per desk, less in quantity. We guarantee it will run with your Exchange servers without modification. Hardware contract will be wholescale replacement on a 48 hour turnaround basis." CTO: "THIS is worth my money! Where do I sign?"
"You really could get the CD and run it without ever knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have."
So Fucking What?
Where in the beloved GPL does it say, "any use or inclusion of GNU software in any bundle must be accompanied by a thee piece band and six minutes of CGI fireworks on the end user's screen."
I had a lot more respect for the people behind groklaw before this. However, this rant is worthy of Stallman, or even (shudder) Eric Raymond.
What's her point? Sounds like a bunch of whining to me.
Yes, it's been said before. And the distinction still has exactly ZERO relevance for companies who are producing a product based on the GPL.
If you're making a product and use some modified-GPL stuff as a development tool, then this might have some relevance. Even at that though, is distribution defined clearly? Does it count if a company distributes the binaries for a tool within its own company?
Now I'm not about to defend OSS with fangs bared and claws extended. However, it seems that the problems the author has pointed out are mostly (four out of five) specific to projects. Maybe all OSS projects share these faults, but they're implementation flaws, not philosophical flaws. (the last point, OSS-as-religion, is DEFINITELY a philosophical flaw.)
Most of these implementation problems stem from one fundamental and nearly, insurmountable flaw in the OSS system: No overriding authority. When a project is created, there needs to be someone there to ensure that code review requirements are met, that documentation is maintained, that the software is tested, and that overall QC/QA schedules are implemented. (and met!)
Without these things, the project gets increasingly bad as it grows in size. A project owned and developed entirely by a single person (or maybe as much as a group of three tight-knit developers) will be as strong or weak as that person. A project owned and developed by a large group will be as weak as the combined weaknesses of all the people working on it, unless there is some explicitly imposed structure on the project. Look at the Linux kernel--Linus has had authority over that since day one, and it's been a brilliant success of OSS. THAT is a system that works. Mozilla, with its roadmaps and checkpoints and different release trees, is another. mplayer, to grab another, suffers from exactly what this article points out, and most of those flaws can be traced back to a lack of structure (even amongst a fairly small group working on it).
Let's face it folks--anarchy doesn't create good software, except occasionally by accident. OSS can't afford to rely on accidentally good software any more than IBM or Sun.
One of these days I'll head back to Cryptonomicon, and have another go at it. I really want to finish this book because...well mostly because.
Still, I'm not too hopeful. I took it on a week-long holiday with no plans other than reading, and after about 200 pages, went back to reread "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Stephenson writes (or at least wrote) in a loooong, verbose, and self-consciously aware style which makes me roll my eyes. I kept thinking, "if only he had a strict editor, this might be a great book."
So has his style gotten any tighter, and as a side question, how far into Cryptonomicon do I have to get before it becomes overwhelming engrossing?
Oh yes, Calgary is certainly a good place to live and work. There certainly IS high tech here in spades.
But have we achieved the lofty goal of a diverse economy? Not hardly!
Why is there high tech in Calgary? To support the oil companies. Who buys computers in Calgary? The oil companies. Who supports the arts, sports, and culture in Calgary? The oil companies.
Look at our venues: The Pengrowth Saddledome, The Epcor centre for the performing arts, Talisman centre, and so on. Look at the consumers of computer cycles in town: Big oil companies doing geophysical mapping.
Calgary is full of businesses that aren't gas and oil, but most of them would crumble without the G&O industry feeding them.
As for the rest of the province, the second industry behind oil is agriculture, and for the last decade or so, has absolutely tanked. Edmonton is probably the best off right now, because of the numerous biotech spinoffs from the University of Alberta.
Nonetheless, we are still a HEAVILY oil-dependent province, despite what our government likes to claim. If oil drops down to $18/barrel again for an extended period, we'll be fighting with the maritimes for the title of poorest location in Canada.
Last time I checked out contract list, we were still supporting a fairly large number of Sparc/Solaris boxes at the city of Calgary. Much of the storage has migrated from antique Sun systems to NetApp, though.
I don't know what part of the city's infrastructure has moved to Linux, but it's certainly not all of it. This article seems a bit...blind.
"Kids aren't buying music--it's because of file sharing!" "Kids aren't watching TV--it's because of computer games!" "Our software isn't selling--it's because of Microsoft!"
How hard is it to figure out that YOUR CONTENT SUCKS!!!? Maybe those other things play a part. Maybe the competition for your audience has become stiffer. Producing ever-increasingly BAD content and blaming the competition isn't going to fix anything!
Slashdot Mirror
What part of "...now we're all pretty addicted and want to play together online all the time" did you fail to comprehend?
" Now that we've got a stable, mature, and well rounded XServer..."
Wow, you were lucky! All I ever had under Linux was XFree86.
Interesting, but I'd say incorrect.
Monolithic kernels have been around for at least a decade and change. The model has been turned into reality. The theory has turned into practice. Now that we have ages of real experience, the microkernel model still holds substantial advantages despite being _behind_ on the development curve vs. a monolithic kernel.
I think Andy's quite right, but it's a dead issue, unfortunately.
Low power means less heat dissipation, which means no CPU fans. This is a good thing in all computers, not just laptops.
Consider the added effects--having low enough heat loss that you can live with a passive heat sink means that you're also saving the power that it would take to drive your cooling fan(s). For every watt of power consumed by your CPU, you're probably sucking 2-4 watts for your whole system.
As an aside, my firewall is an old P-II/233MHz, and I'm stocking up on spare parts for it because it was about the last x86 processor that could be run without a CPU fan. Hopefully I'll be able to get a fanless and nearly silent machine as surplus for my next firewall, but the way things are going, it's going to be a few years yet.
OK, this is just so nerdy, so utterly whacko, and such a large scale piece of craziness that you HAVE to love it.
I've been laughing for the last three minutes. This is great! Even my wife likes the idea. Cheers to those doing it.
Don't forget the open source muppet zealots!
We've been using open source for decades, like most other shops with Unix systems. If management is making an "open source stratagem," then it's only because aobut five years ago, open source became a religion instead of a descriptor.
"Solaris itself is based on BSD software."
Um, no it isn't.
SunOS was based on BSD code. Solaris was a clear and distinct cut over, using SysV code.
(Keeping in mind that SunOS=SunOS 4.x=Solaris 1, and Solaris=SunOS 5.x=Solaris 2/7+)
So just how does "lots of computer-related toys" translate to "most advanced?"
Seriously, where's the discussion about environmental controls? HVAC improvements? Energy efficiency? Chemical and electronic emissions?
Don't get me wrong--this isn't a bad idea, nor is it a bad building. It's cool but relatively straightforward to create a building with endless technological integration, on the level they're talking.
But HVAC is a very big, expensive, INCREDIBLY important, and not yet solved problem, which probably has more long-term relevance than anything they spent $80M on in this project.
Who is this "McNeely" guy anyways? Does the CEO of Sun know him?
Seriously, there wasn't a single fact in this article--only ranting--and they got McNealy's name wrong every single time. Why are we giving it any credence at all?
Heh. I remember playing Adventure on my dad's lab's Pet2001 (and later the fancy 4016. Woo!!). With a (very little) bit of understanding of strings vs. numbers, I coded a few thousand lines of a game like that. Then I started typing games in from magazines, and realised that they did things VERY differently. That was the end of my adventure-writing career.
Solaris dying? Nah.
:-)
(Be forewarned though. I'm a borderline 'Sun nut'
I've been doing HPUX and Solaris support back and forth for many years. Maybe HP is better in the US, but in Canada getting useful help from Sun has always been incredibly simple compared to HP. The HP support here sucks. Sucks, sucks, sucks!!! (As an international aside, the HP tech support website has been a bloody embarassment, compared to Sun's. Compared to ANYONE else's, in fact--including IBM!)
Patching HP is easier because it has to be--they crank out almost an order of magnitude more patches than Sun, and roll back and equally larger number. I've never understood why 'patchadd ' is considered so difficult.
And as much as I loved the Alpha processor, OSF/1 still gives me hives.
I think that community is one of those things you find, depending on your needs. I've found the Solaris unofficial support network to be far stronger than that for HP-UX, but I don't spend as much time with HP. In reality, I suspect they're probably equal.
One thing that Sun does which HP doesn't compete with at all: Oil and Gas (i.e. geological/geophysical) applications run on Solaris/Sparc, and are only now potentially moving to Linux/x86--not HP.
The hardware model for Solaris has always struck me as MUCH simpler to work with than HP. Sun's integrated disk volume management tools are laughable, though, as compared to HP.
The bottom line is that they're both good OSes. Solaris has a bigger market share, but is dwindling faster, without the backing of a profitable commodity printer company. Really, there should be lots of room for them both.
DeCSS is, beyond a doubt, safe, legal, and free.
For starters, trade secret protection is gone once the secret is made public. At the very most, the DVD CCA could file suit against Jon Johansen for improperly making their trade secret public. Once it's out though, there's no protection for it. Also, keep in mind that the trade secret ruling was in the USA, not Norway.
Now copyright. First of all, there was no copyright filed. Secondly, it's irrelevant--the DeCSS code DOES NOT CONTAIN THE DVD CCA'S CODE! There is no material belonging to the DVD CCA in the DeCSS code. There is nothing that violates their potential (unfiled) copyright.
As an aside;
"Just b/c it is no longer a secret does not mean you can still distribute it."
With a trade secret, that is EXACTLY what it means! If it becomes public, then it is distributable.
Finally, what the hell is b/c?
Guilt free? That's easy--there should NOT be any guilt at watching your own legally purchased, rented, or borrowed DVDs. The platform must NOT be a legal limitation.
Do you actually mean 'within the law?' In that case, you're home free too! As you can see on the EFF website, the decryption code lawsuits have been dropped! DeCSS is safe, legal, and free!
Furthermore, Jon Johansen was acquitted on all charges.
Download DeCSS! Use it! Feel free, in every sense of the word! This was a rare victory for the good guys.
Very well said indeed! I agree entirely, except possibly the RealNetworks claim.
There are some companies I won't EVER give a second chance. Real is one of them. Unless their CEO and marketing staff from the days of the spyware fiasco get thrown out on their collective asses, without any benefits, pension, perks, options, or padding, I'll avoid them. If the company is taken over in a hostile bid, which leaves these same people penniless (good) or facing criminal charges (better), I'll consider actively promoting them.
quicktime is my streaming media of choice, and mpeg for downloadable. Streaming ogg (icecast, I think? Not sure) would be ideal, but real sunk so low as to make me think that MS is an equivalent evil.
How about a formal apology from Real? It's not quite penniless and bleeding on the sidewalk, but it would be an indication that they've recognised their poor behaviour. I've seen nothing of the sort, though.
And this is good...why?
I'd personally be happier if Linux stayed under the radar of MS until hell froze over. As soon as they start developing for it, they'll start producing 'gotta have it' proprietary, incompatible software. By the time the Linux desktop is TRULY mainstream, MS will own it once again.
"How about the fact that by adding conditions on use to GPL software, they may actually be breaking the Licence? rendering it void. Thus it now becomes a breach of copyright law to run the CD?"
If this is the case, then there's a legitimate complaint. It still doesn't address the my point, that of not putting the GPL front and centre, the single most important aspect of the entire desktop.
"Or how about, SUN is trying to hide from the user the rights they have under the GPL regarding copying and distribution of GPL software?"
Maybe Sun just doesn't think their end users are SO MIND-BOGGLINGLY STUPID that they can't figure out how to find and read their agreement. If they are that stupid, then tattooing the GPL on their ass won't help in the slightest.
You're right, of course. There's one thing, and to appreciate it, you have to imagine these two scenarios (albeit with a strong pro-Sun bias):
Scenario #1.
CTO: "Linux! I keep hearing about Linux, and how cheap it is. Our competitors across the street are claiming a 200% performance-per-dollar increase over these Unix workstations. Get me some of that!"
IT: "OK, it's looking really good and our vendors are supporting it. What distro do you want?"
CTO: "Huh? What do the vendors support?"
IT: "Well, most of 'em support some version of RedHat, but most of those versions aren't supported by RedHat anymore. This app. vendor promotes SuSE, but this other one uses the Debian packaging system."
CTO: "I...see. OK, what about stepping back and just replacing some of the desktop PCs for the basic users? Email, wordprocessing, and web browsing. Can we do that?"
IT: "Sure. KOffice or OpenOffice? For a browser, we can chose Mozilla's stable or current versions, or Firefox which is really mozilla; or we can go with Opera. Email will depend on if we need to plug into our Exchange servers."
CTO: "Well, this is starting to sound iffy. How long will it take before we can test it to see if it works?"
IT:" We should be able to get a proper pilot test within two months, if things go well. Five if they don't."
CTO: "Fuck that! We're staying AWAY from Linux, and next year we'll buy our poor competitors for $0.10 on the dollar!"
Now, Scenario #2. Sun's answer.
CTO: "Linux! I keep hearing about Linux, and how cheap it is. Our competitors across the street are claiming a 200% performance-per-dollar increase over these Unix workstations that YOU sold me! I'm gonna get me some of that, unless you can talk really fast."
Sun: "Not at all. We can replace your base desktop users (email, office suite, web browsing) with preconfigured Intel/AMD systems. All testing, development, patching, and integration is done by us. We'll provide a pilot by next Tuesday, provide phone support at no cost, and meet with you at the end of it. If you like the pilot, the software bundle including tested, packaged updates will run $100 per desk, less in quantity. We guarantee it will run with your Exchange servers without modification. Hardware contract will be wholescale replacement on a 48 hour turnaround basis."
CTO: "THIS is worth my money! Where do I sign?"
"You really could get the CD and run it without ever knowing it had anything GNU/Linuxy in it or that the GPL provides you with guaranteed freedoms that Sun would like you not to know you have."
So Fucking What?
Where in the beloved GPL does it say, "any use or inclusion of GNU software in any bundle must be accompanied by a thee piece band and six minutes of CGI fireworks on the end user's screen."
I had a lot more respect for the people behind groklaw before this. However, this rant is worthy of Stallman, or even (shudder) Eric Raymond.
What's her point? Sounds like a bunch of whining to me.
Yes, it's been said before. And the distinction still has exactly ZERO relevance for companies who are producing a product based on the GPL.
If you're making a product and use some modified-GPL stuff as a development tool, then this might have some relevance. Even at that though, is distribution defined clearly? Does it count if a company distributes the binaries for a tool within its own company?
Now I'm not about to defend OSS with fangs bared and claws extended. However, it seems that the problems the author has pointed out are mostly (four out of five) specific to projects. Maybe all OSS projects share these faults, but they're implementation flaws, not philosophical flaws. (the last point, OSS-as-religion, is DEFINITELY a philosophical flaw.)
Most of these implementation problems stem from one fundamental and nearly, insurmountable flaw in the OSS system: No overriding authority. When a project is created, there needs to be someone there to ensure that code review requirements are met, that documentation is maintained, that the software is tested, and that overall QC/QA schedules are implemented. (and met!)
Without these things, the project gets increasingly bad as it grows in size. A project owned and developed entirely by a single person (or maybe as much as a group of three tight-knit developers) will be as strong or weak as that person. A project owned and developed by a large group will be as weak as the combined weaknesses of all the people working on it, unless there is some explicitly imposed structure on the project. Look at the Linux kernel--Linus has had authority over that since day one, and it's been a brilliant success of OSS. THAT is a system that works. Mozilla, with its roadmaps and checkpoints and different release trees, is another. mplayer, to grab another, suffers from exactly what this article points out, and most of those flaws can be traced back to a lack of structure (even amongst a fairly small group working on it).
Let's face it folks--anarchy doesn't create good software, except occasionally by accident. OSS can't afford to rely on accidentally good software any more than IBM or Sun.
One of these days I'll head back to Cryptonomicon, and have another go at it. I really want to finish this book because...well mostly because.
Still, I'm not too hopeful. I took it on a week-long holiday with no plans other than reading, and after about 200 pages, went back to reread "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Stephenson writes (or at least wrote) in a loooong, verbose, and self-consciously aware style which makes me roll my eyes. I kept thinking, "if only he had a strict editor, this might be a great book."
So has his style gotten any tighter, and as a side question, how far into Cryptonomicon do I have to get before it becomes overwhelming engrossing?
I disagree.
Oh yes, Calgary is certainly a good place to live and work. There certainly IS high tech here in spades.
But have we achieved the lofty goal of a diverse economy? Not hardly!
Why is there high tech in Calgary? To support the oil companies. Who buys computers in Calgary? The oil companies. Who supports the arts, sports, and culture in Calgary? The oil companies.
Look at our venues: The Pengrowth Saddledome, The Epcor centre for the performing arts, Talisman centre, and so on. Look at the consumers of computer cycles in town: Big oil companies doing geophysical mapping.
Calgary is full of businesses that aren't gas and oil, but most of them would crumble without the G&O industry feeding them.
As for the rest of the province, the second industry behind oil is agriculture, and for the last decade or so, has absolutely tanked. Edmonton is probably the best off right now, because of the numerous biotech spinoffs from the University of Alberta.
Nonetheless, we are still a HEAVILY oil-dependent province, despite what our government likes to claim. If oil drops down to $18/barrel again for an extended period, we'll be fighting with the maritimes for the title of poorest location in Canada.
Last time I checked out contract list, we were still supporting a fairly large number of Sparc/Solaris boxes at the city of Calgary. Much of the storage has migrated from antique Sun systems to NetApp, though.
I don't know what part of the city's infrastructure has moved to Linux, but it's certainly not all of it. This article seems a bit...blind.
Oh, wait. No I don't.
carry on.
"Kids aren't buying music--it's because of file sharing!"
"Kids aren't watching TV--it's because of computer games!"
"Our software isn't selling--it's because of Microsoft!"
How hard is it to figure out that YOUR CONTENT SUCKS!!!? Maybe those other things play a part. Maybe the competition for your audience has become stiffer. Producing ever-increasingly BAD content and blaming the competition isn't going to fix anything!