Nowadays everything goes through the search pages of google, thats why business everywhere spend milions on SEO and SEM. What will happen in an App store centric world?. Take for instance the travel industry, which relies heavely on online marketing. In the coming years the users would switch from searching for travel offers through google, to using their preferred travel apps. With the added benefit that apps have the potential to be more attractive and dynamic than HTML/Ajax websites.
I think in the coming years there will be a transition, a switch from the browser to the app store as a mean to access the internet.
I think they should but an start button on the Win 8 desktop, let corporate users customize if they prefer to bootstrap metro or desktop style, and call it a day. For the mobile and tablet markets, I think Win 8/RT is a winner. Clearly superior to Android, if you ask me.
Sort Of. You can execute CLR applications, but using the WinRT library, which is not the same as the ASP.NET we're used to.
Currently you can attach the WinRT library using C#, C++ and JavaScript.
This is completely unaccurate. Windows RT supports applications build using WinRT, which is the planned substitute for the current Win32 API. Windows 8 Pro supports WinRT and WIN32. Current desktop applications are build upon WIN32, but as time passes more applications will run on both OS, because they will be using WinRT. For more information, look at here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime.
Windows RT has nothing to do with running on ARM. In fact, there are plans a future versión of Windows RT running on Intel Atom.
If we're talking about US vs europeans, pls explain to me why someone should trust those that in the last century had still colonies all over the world and started two global wars, the last one with a genocide. Sigh, I'm from Europe, but it makes me sick when someone suggests that Europe might have a moral superiority over the US.
Propietary unixes are those who are competing with linux, not windows. Linux already destroyed AIX and Solaris marketshare, while the windows server platform was largely unaffected.
I see way too much belief in an inminent victory over Microsoft in the OSS community. Microsotf has got a server system which is nowadays very reliable for mission critical systems, a very good development framework with.NET, and a clear domination of the desktop, which will not disapear in the short term.
And I would like to remind you that the idea of a web based alternative to Office is not new. There was a web version of openoffice some years ago which failed.
Re:They might have some scalability issues
on
NYSE Moves to Linux
·
· Score: 1
It's not the same market. You're referring to computing clusters which solve massively paralelizable problems. It's basically a service for the scientific community.
DB systems mainly scale vertically on few big servers, instead of thousand of cheap servers. These are setups for medium/big companies/public organizations.
They might have some scalability issues
on
NYSE Moves to Linux
·
· Score: 2, Informative
If I recall correctly, 1 year and a half ago only IBM was able to put 64 CPUs on a Xeon based architecture. SLES 9 was only certified for up to 16 CPUs. The 64 bits version did not even support NUMA, and that had a direct impact on OS performance under high load, which I was able to measure very easily. The memory bus could saturate just because the OS was not able to put the processes on the memory chip which was near the assigned processor. That distribution had a 2.6.5 kernel version. Redhat was almost on the same kernel version. The version under development was 2.6.17. Suse said that NUMA was going to be supported in SLES 10, which shipped one year ago. I don't know if it did.
I guess the situation has improved in the last year, but my point is that linux is a newcomer in the big iron world.
But the point is that Sun/HP/IBM have been managing big irongs with more than 64 cpus for 5-10 years already, in critical mission bussiness.
This is a political decision. Not a technical one. Linux has it's role in the server market, and it's a very important one. But I think it's not still mature enough to compete in high-performance, high scalable, mission critical environments with OS/400, AIX, Solaris, etc. Neither are the OS suppliers, Suse and Redhat.
I've been using Linux from the beginning of my IT career, that was 12 years ago. At that time ppl were installing mainly slakware 3.0 with the mythic 1.2.13 kernel.
I remember when I setup a local ISP with 128 kbits of bandwidth and 300 email users using just one server, with kernel 2.0.0, with a motherboard sporting a chipset Triton and a whopping 128 MBytes of RAM.
Later I went to a medium size company where I ended as the IT manager. Through the years we migrated all our Sun servers to Suse Linux. Right now this company online sales system is based on linux, and things are going great.
I consider myself a linux expert after all these years using different versions of linux kernels and setting up an IT infrastructure which is mission crytical and moves more than 2000 million dollars. I've been a great linux supporter, and I'm still very proficient managing it.
But as succesful as a server system linux has been, at the desktop the community has failed miserably to produce a simple consistent desktop solution to reach the masses. KDE and gnome should have merged years ago and psch together. X should have been abandoned for a new and more efficient graphics system, years ago too. Anyone remmeber the GGI project? That one offered hope for some time, then failed. We were in need of a Linus Torvald leading a common desktop effort. It did not happen
In the meantime, the windows server system has become much more stable. In the late 90s linux was incredibly more stable than windows. Now the difference is very narrow, and you can already run a mission crytical business on linux, without much an effort.
To make things worse,.NET is a development platform which is very well designed, easy to use and cheap (compared to the Java/Oracle combo), so you can expect.NET gaining market share at great speed.
You can check it if you want at www.netcraft.com. Never the difference in market share between apache and IIS was so slim.
Very dangerous too for the OOS movement is also the fact that all the managers seem to think now that OOS will be the solution to their company and IT problems. Those who saw the.dot rise and fall will understand me.
So I'm just beginning to invest heavily my spare time in learning.NET and windows server management, as I think that we'll see in the next years lots of company migrating their linux systems to windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Nowadays everything goes through the search pages of google, thats why business everywhere spend milions on SEO and SEM. What will happen in an App store centric world?. Take for instance the travel industry, which relies heavely on online marketing. In the coming years the users would switch from searching for travel offers through google, to using their preferred travel apps. With the added benefit that apps have the potential to be more attractive and dynamic than HTML/Ajax websites. I think in the coming years there will be a transition, a switch from the browser to the app store as a mean to access the internet.
I think they should but an start button on the Win 8 desktop, let corporate users customize if they prefer to bootstrap metro or desktop style, and call it a day. For the mobile and tablet markets, I think Win 8/RT is a winner. Clearly superior to Android, if you ask me.
Sort Of. You can execute CLR applications, but using the WinRT library, which is not the same as the ASP.NET we're used to. Currently you can attach the WinRT library using C#, C++ and JavaScript.
This is completely unaccurate. Windows RT supports applications build using WinRT, which is the planned substitute for the current Win32 API. Windows 8 Pro supports WinRT and WIN32. Current desktop applications are build upon WIN32, but as time passes more applications will run on both OS, because they will be using WinRT. For more information, look at here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime. Windows RT has nothing to do with running on ARM. In fact, there are plans a future versión of Windows RT running on Intel Atom.
If we're talking about US vs europeans, pls explain to me why someone should trust those that in the last century had still colonies all over the world and started two global wars, the last one with a genocide. Sigh, I'm from Europe, but it makes me sick when someone suggests that Europe might have a moral superiority over the US.
Propietary unixes are those who are competing with linux, not windows. Linux already destroyed AIX and Solaris marketshare, while the windows server platform was largely unaffected.
.NET, and a clear domination of the desktop, which will not disapear in the short term.
I see way too much belief in an inminent victory over Microsoft in the OSS community. Microsotf has got a server system which is nowadays very reliable for mission critical systems, a very good development framework with
And I would like to remind you that the idea of a web based alternative to Office is not new. There was a web version of openoffice some years ago which failed.
It's not the same market. You're referring to computing clusters which solve massively paralelizable problems. It's basically a service for the scientific community.
DB systems mainly scale vertically on few big servers, instead of thousand of cheap servers. These are setups for medium/big companies/public organizations.
If I recall correctly, 1 year and a half ago only IBM was able to put 64 CPUs on a Xeon based architecture. SLES 9 was only certified for up to 16 CPUs. The 64 bits version did not even support NUMA, and that had a direct impact on OS performance under high load, which I was able to measure very easily. The memory bus could saturate just because the OS was not able to put the processes on the memory chip which was near the assigned processor. That distribution had a 2.6.5 kernel version. Redhat was almost on the same kernel version. The version under development was 2.6.17. Suse said that NUMA was going to be supported in SLES 10, which shipped one year ago. I don't know if it did.
I guess the situation has improved in the last year, but my point is that linux is a newcomer in the big iron world.
But the point is that Sun/HP/IBM have been managing big irongs with more than 64 cpus for 5-10 years already, in critical mission bussiness.
This is a political decision. Not a technical one. Linux has it's role in the server market, and it's a very important one. But I think it's not still mature enough to compete in high-performance, high scalable, mission critical environments with OS/400, AIX, Solaris, etc. Neither are the OS suppliers, Suse and Redhat.
I've been using Linux from the beginning of my IT career, that was 12 years ago. At that time ppl were installing mainly slakware 3.0 with the mythic 1.2.13 kernel.
.NET is a development platform which is very well designed, easy to use and cheap (compared to the Java/Oracle combo), so you can expect .NET gaining market share at great speed.
.dot rise and fall will understand me.
.NET and windows server management, as I think that we'll see in the next years lots of company migrating their linux systems to windows.
I remember when I setup a local ISP with 128 kbits of bandwidth and 300 email users using just one server, with kernel 2.0.0, with a motherboard sporting a chipset Triton and a whopping 128 MBytes of RAM.
Later I went to a medium size company where I ended as the IT manager. Through the years we migrated all our Sun servers to Suse Linux. Right now this company online sales system is based on linux, and things are going great.
I consider myself a linux expert after all these years using different versions of linux kernels and setting up an IT infrastructure which is mission crytical and moves more than 2000 million dollars. I've been a great linux supporter, and I'm still very proficient managing it.
But as succesful as a server system linux has been, at the desktop the community has failed miserably to produce a simple consistent desktop solution to reach the masses. KDE and gnome should have merged years ago and psch together. X should have been abandoned for a new and more efficient graphics system, years ago too. Anyone remmeber the GGI project? That one offered hope for some time, then failed. We were in need of a Linus Torvald leading a common desktop effort. It did not happen
In the meantime, the windows server system has become much more stable. In the late 90s linux was incredibly more stable than windows. Now the difference is very narrow, and you can already run a mission crytical business on linux, without much an effort.
To make things worse,
You can check it if you want at www.netcraft.com. Never the difference in market share between apache and IIS was so slim.
Very dangerous too for the OOS movement is also the fact that all the managers seem to think now that OOS will be the solution to their company and IT problems. Those who saw the
So I'm just beginning to invest heavily my spare time in learning