Hey, give the guy credit. Even with a known bug, his work to get there was absolutely top-notch. And, better still, his explanation of his path, including the wrong turns, is first rate. Besides his clear technical skill, his description of how he went about the hack was the best such tale I've ever read.
Folks, you're all saying it's a hoax, but you know what, I still don't see the proof. No one is standing up and saying "We tricked em!" Saying, "Of course, it's a hoax because of licensing, it's been talked about for years, etc." isn;t enough.
As for cluelessness and the like, hey, I said up front that it might be a hoax.
Is is a hoax? I've spent more time digging away at it and I can't prove it. Annoyingly, I'm finding more circumstanial proof that it is real. Nothing positive yet, but it's what I'm finding.
If anyone knows what's real here, I really want to know. If it does turn out to be a hoax, of course I'll report it. There's no mistake to correct, there is a story that needs a better ending. If anyone out there can help me ferret out the truth I'd welcome the help and give the credit where it's due. If you know my work at all, you know I call them like I see them.
It sounds to me like you're going to need those developers around for a longish time if you're doing a ramp up. That being the case, hire them.
Why? All other issues aside, it's really pretty simple. The IRS will eventually come knocking on your door in you contract with someone, especially if they work inhouse, for six months or more. If you keep it shorter than that, they won't Sure, maybe it won't happen this year, or even the next, but when it does happen, there's nothing like an IRS agent at your door to make life miserable.
I'm no Java fan, but from where we've seen so far J-Commerce's JStore series may be just what you need. Check it out at:
http://www.j-commerce.com
It has a complete POS setup that expands from mom and pop stores to good-sized chains. Best of all, it's got great interoperability, with ODBC and JDBC support, with other systems.
I wish that there was decent, modern WordStar. As is, I still run WordStar 7.0 in DOS as my word processor of choice whenever I'm stuck on a Windows machine.
As memory serves me, there was a WordStar command clone that worked on MS-DOS and Unix in under 64K named... vde?
On Unix, I'm a vi fan, but it would be great to have a full-fledged WordStar clone for Linux.
For me it was a KayPro II running CP/M. Course the first time I used Pascal was on an DEC PDP-11 running Unix sometime in the late 70s. That was a Bad idea.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
NT on RS- The real dealRe:IBM going the right way?
on
RS/6000 Linux Box
·
· Score: 1
In a word, no.
NT is going to be playing a bigger role on PC-based systems (sorry OS/2ers), but AIX still rules on Power workstations.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
IBM's Strategy: Please the customer
on
RS/6000 Linux Box
·
· Score: 1
Unlike some companies we all could name, IBM's take on this is pretty simple: Customers want Linux on RS boxes, so they're expanding their support for it.
It's all a matter of taste. The earlier books are frothy and light. I find that fine in small doses. But, had the series kept on that way I wouldn't have kept reading it. Instead, the books start to revolve around characters. The humour may pop up less often, but, for me, his humour is much more funny--and sometimes moving--in the context of his later more complex books. The later books are also much stronger in both character and narrative.
Even the least of Prachett's books--Moving Pictures for my money--is better than most good books from other authors.
>>What if Microsoft or the new triumvirate (AOL-Netscape-Sun) try to pay off the OSI with huge quantities of money so they can control the usage of the term "open source"? At least they can't do that now. Ah, but Microsoft already is claiming that NT is open source because a few universities have code read access to NT source. Hence, one of the reasons an attempt was made to trademark open source. With no trademark protection in sight, any vendor with enough nerve can label their product open source. Would you some Open Source fries with that?
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
See http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,2277 930,00.html
and a cracker is a cracker. I make a point of spelling out the difference every now and again, and I'll keeping doing it--and encouraging my buds in techno-journalism to so so as well until people start using it correctly.
and how could it? It's been talked about by fans in worshipful tones for years; I've already read a serious predicion that it will break Titantic's record box-office. Nothing can live up to hype like that.
A lot of Linux folks are learning that while being technically better is great, you've got to play marketing games as well if you want your GUI, tool, what have you, to be seen.
KDE didn't call it KDE 2000 or 2.0, it was a first announcement, made its point and that was that. Were that all press releases so down to earth!
SMP support was in there as of... what 1.3? But until 2.2, it was very rough even by early Linux standards
From where I sit, SMP really only becomes a practical option with 2.2. There's lot of work still to be done, but it's work's being done by a lot of good Linux kernel folks.
What I say in the paragraphs, preceding the lines quoted, boils down to that Linux SMP/RAID isn't as mature as NT SMP/RAID. Anyone disagree? I didn't think so.
As I point out earlier in the article, there's not even a gold driver for the in-test RAID controller. Given that Linux, for this platform, is running in a beta configuration, no matter how well tuned, it would indeed be a 'bear' for Linux to prevail even with tuning. Even so, though, I state, based on my testing and a lot of back and forth to other writers, benchmark writers and Linux experts at PC Week, S@R, Samba and ZD Benchmarks folks, that "Linux's numbers would have been much closer to NT, if not HIGHER, had Linux been as well tuned as NT."
That's not winning in my book.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
PS. Were high-end scaling the be-all and end-all of what you needed in the real-world, everyone should be running AIX. It's not and people aren't.
>>Nobody in their right mind would install as a server a Pentium II 266, 64 Meg RAM with a 4 gig IDE drive. This is the hardware that ZD used in their test. When Microsoft stops claiming that that's more than enough machine for a NT 4 server, we'll quit reviewing NT on similar platforms.
Another reason for our choice of platforms is that while we all lust in our heart for quad-pentiums with a gig of memory to call our own, the simple truth is most of us, and most businesses, can't afford them. Yes, CPUs and memory are cheaper than ever, but businesses don't replace their legacy equipment all that often. Our studies show us that a plurality of local LAN business servers out there are less well equipped than our test machines. So it is that one reason we test on low-end systems is that that's what many of our readers still have to deal with it.
Again, though, if MS just said you need at least X and Y to run NT, we'd use it. It wouldn't be fair to do otherwise. But, they don't, the users don't, so we don't.
At least with 2000, they're being 'somewhat' more realistic--128MBs and 300MHz minimums. I quote 'somewhat' because I suspect that those minimums will prove to be bare-bone minimums.
Stampede actually made it out the door first with a 2.2 binary. This Sm@rt Reseller article, as first reprinted in PC Week and ZDNet, left off the all important 'deck' line which stated:
The early _reseller_ Linux leader is Caldera by a beta.
Which puts the story into its proper context. It's since has been corrected.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, give the guy credit. Even with a known bug, his work to get there was absolutely top-notch. And, better still, his explanation of his path, including the wrong turns, is first rate. Besides his clear technical skill, his description of how he went about the hack was the best such tale I've ever read.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Folks, you're all saying it's a hoax, but you know what, I still don't see the proof. No one is standing up and saying "We tricked em!" Saying, "Of course, it's a hoax because of licensing, it's been talked about for years, etc." isn;t enough.
As for cluelessness and the like, hey, I said up front that it might be a hoax.
Is is a hoax? I've spent more time digging away at it and I can't prove it. Annoyingly, I'm finding more circumstanial proof that it is real. Nothing positive yet, but it's what I'm finding.
If anyone knows what's real here, I really want to know. If it does turn out to be a hoax, of course I'll report it. There's no mistake to correct, there is a story that needs a better ending. If anyone out there can help me ferret out the truth I'd welcome the help and give the credit where it's due. If you know my work at all, you know I call them like I see them.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
sjvn@zd.com
It sounds to me like you're going to need those developers around for a longish time if you're doing a ramp up. That being the case, hire them.
Why? All other issues aside, it's really pretty simple. The IRS will eventually come knocking on your door in you contract with someone, especially if they work inhouse, for six months or more. If you keep it shorter than that, they won't Sure, maybe it won't happen this year, or even the next, but when it does happen, there's nothing like an IRS agent at your door to make life miserable.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
I'm no Java fan, but from where we've seen so far J-Commerce's JStore series may be just what you need. Check it out at:
http://www.j-commerce.com
It has a complete POS setup that expands from mom and pop stores to good-sized chains. Best of all, it's got great interoperability, with ODBC and JDBC support, with other systems.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
I wish that there was decent, modern WordStar. As is, I still run WordStar 7.0 in DOS as my word processor of choice whenever I'm stuck on a Windows machine.
As memory serves me, there was a WordStar command clone that worked on MS-DOS and Unix in under 64K named... vde?
On Unix, I'm a vi fan, but it would be great to have a full-fledged WordStar clone for Linux.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
For me it was a KayPro II running CP/M. Course the first time I used Pascal was on an DEC PDP-11 running Unix sometime in the late 70s. That was a Bad idea.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
In a word, no.
NT is going to be playing a bigger role on PC-based systems (sorry OS/2ers), but AIX still rules on Power workstations.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Unlike some companies we all could name, IBM's take on this is pretty simple: Customers want Linux on RS boxes, so they're expanding their support for it.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Nonsense.
It's all a matter of taste. The earlier books are frothy and light. I find that fine in small doses. But, had the series kept on that way I wouldn't have kept reading it. Instead, the books start to revolve around characters. The humour may pop up less often, but, for me, his humour is much more funny--and sometimes moving--in the context of his later more complex books. The later books are also much stronger in both character and narrative.
Even the least of Prachett's books--Moving Pictures for my money--is better than most good books from other authors.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
You're mistaken.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
"how many times did they have to reboot NT during the test?"
None.
But, you wouldn't expect to either. Linux's stability advantage over NT is shown over weeks and months, not hours or days.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
FWIW, my take on it why this deal is a Big deal, rather than just, "ho-hum another big biz gets a clue" you can check out:
1 625,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,228
Steven
>>What if Microsoft or the new triumvirate (AOL-Netscape-Sun) try to pay off the OSI with
7 930,00.html
huge quantities of money so they can control the usage of the term "open source"? At least they can't do that now.
Ah, but Microsoft already is claiming that NT is open source because a few universities have code read access to NT source. Hence, one of the reasons an attempt was made to trademark open source. With no trademark protection in sight, any vendor with enough nerve can label their product open source. Would you some Open Source fries with that?
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
See
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,227
for our news take on all this.
and a cracker is a cracker. I make a point of spelling out the difference every now and again, and I'll keeping doing it--and encouraging my buds in techno-journalism to so so as well until people start using it correctly.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
and how could it? It's been talked about by fans in worshipful tones for years; I've already read a serious predicion that it will break Titantic's record box-office. Nothing can live up to hype like that.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Hey, give them a break.
A lot of Linux folks are learning that while being technically better is great, you've got to play marketing games as well if you want your GUI, tool, what have you, to be seen.
KDE didn't call it KDE 2000 or 2.0, it was a first announcement, made its point and that was that. Were that all press releases so down to earth!
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
All I can say is it was there from the first seconds my fingers hit the keyboard to write the story.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
SMP support was in there as of... what 1.3? But until 2.2, it was very rough even by early Linux standards
From where I sit, SMP really only becomes a practical option with 2.2. There's lot of work still to be done, but it's work's being done by a lot of good Linux kernel folks.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
No, reboot, I mean re-read. ;-)
What I say in the paragraphs, preceding the lines quoted, boils down to that Linux SMP/RAID isn't as mature as NT SMP/RAID. Anyone disagree? I didn't think so.
As I point out earlier in the article, there's not even a gold driver for the in-test RAID controller. Given that Linux, for this platform, is running in a beta configuration, no matter how well tuned, it would indeed be a 'bear' for Linux to prevail even with tuning. Even so, though, I state, based on my testing and a lot of back and forth to other writers, benchmark writers and Linux experts at PC Week, S@R, Samba and ZD Benchmarks folks, that "Linux's numbers would have been much closer to NT, if not HIGHER, had Linux been as well tuned as NT."
That's not winning in my book.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
PS. Were high-end scaling the be-all and end-all of what you needed in the real-world, everyone should be running AIX. It's not and people aren't.
>>Nobody in their right mind would install as a server a Pentium II 266, 64 Meg RAM with a 4 gig IDE drive. This is the hardware that ZD used in their test.
When Microsoft stops claiming that that's more than enough machine for a NT 4 server, we'll quit reviewing NT on similar platforms.
Another reason for our choice of platforms is that while we all lust in our heart for quad-pentiums with a gig of memory to call our own, the simple truth is most of us, and most businesses, can't afford them. Yes, CPUs and memory are cheaper than ever, but businesses don't replace their legacy equipment all that often. Our studies show us that a plurality of local LAN business servers out there are less well equipped than our test machines. So it is that one reason we test on low-end systems is that that's what many of our readers still have to deal with it.
Again, though, if MS just said you need at least X and Y to run NT, we'd use it. It wouldn't be fair to do otherwise. But, they don't, the users don't, so we don't.
At least with 2000, they're being 'somewhat' more realistic--128MBs and 300MHz minimums. I quote 'somewhat' because I suspect that those minimums will prove to be bare-bone minimums.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Numbers? You want numbers? We've got numbers.
, 387506,00.html
6 321,00.html
0 22,00.html
Our Jan. NT v. Linux headliner:
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/infopack/0,5483
New Samba on PacHiTech v. NT
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,39
Linux v. Netware - The New King of the Hill: Linux
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/news/0,4538,398
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Stampede actually made it out the door first with a 2.2 binary. This Sm@rt Reseller article, as first reprinted in PC Week and ZDNet, left off the all important 'deck' line which stated:
The early _reseller_ Linux leader is Caldera by a beta.
Which puts the story into its proper context. It's since has been corrected.
Steven, Senior Technology Editor, S@R
No investment, but they have worked closely with Caldera on integrating Netware into Linux.
Steven
Senior Technology Editor
Sm@rt Reseller
There will be more articles coming from Sm@rt Reseller (http://www.zdnet.com/sr) in the next few weeks with hard numbers on Linux performance.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
Vote high for the story just to make it #1. If you think it's a great story, that's wonderful, if you don't, don't give it a 7.
Thank you. The author.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Senior Technology Editor, Sm@rt Reseller
http://www.zdnet.com/sr