I don't think Linux becoming popular makes Andy Tenenbaum wrong about micro kernels.
But it does. Tanenbaum predicted monolithic kernels were on their way out of the mainstream and that only micro-kernel architectures would survive. Linux is here to prove otherwise.
I think had Minix been more libre licensing slashdot geeks would be chanting Andy's name rather than Linus's.
Minix was a pile of crap. Period. It had no real multitasking, and it's cross-platform support was done by using a lowest-common-denominator aproach at the cost of performace. If all we had was Minix (no FreeBSD, no Linux), Windows would have taken over completely by now and I'd probably wouldn't be taking an Informatics Engineering course since I wouldn't have had the chance to play with an OS at such a low level when I was at the PFY stage. That's life.:)
I mean I was talking with people about the distributed OS concept back in 96 or so. I have to wonder why the concept has sat mostly unexplored for this long.
Because of no real killer app has been found yet. For most distributed computing work PVM/MPI is all you need. Distributing the OS is a neat concept, but, in itself, gets you nothing. It's one of those concepts that was to be the One True Solution (tm) but was proven not essential. Sort of like microkernel OS's. When Linus started Linux Andy Tanenbaum declared it a monster. He argued that at that time starting work on a monolithic kernel was an idiotic idea. He was proven wrong. Same here, I guess. Unix was supposed to be obsolete, but it has served us well thus far, and probably will for alot longer. It's nice to know we have good alternatives to take off when Unix is truly dead.
Unfortunately, due to server difficulties The Domesday Book Online has been unavailable for a short time. We apologise to all those who have tried but been unable to get to the site. The site as it was is now back online, but a new and much improved version will soon be unveiled so watch this space...
Install Linux/xBSD and XFree86 on all the workstations and configure [k|x|g]dm to connect to a few servers. Instant thin client. As for the servers, Dual Athlon boxes with alot of memory running Linux/xBSD would do fine. If Windows is a must have, ignore this.
Right now they have dynamic IPs, and they actually drop your connection on purpose, just to change your IP. Kiling dhcpcd and then restarting it solves the problem, but it's annoying nonetheless.
Are you sure this isn't dhcpcd crapping out. I used pump, changed to dhcpcd because it was crapping out every two days and then to dhcp-client for the same reason. It's been fine ever since. Try it.
Give them just header and binary files and not the actual code. That way they can test your software, view the basic structure of the thing, without actually having the source.
As for white papers about algorithms/data scructures/etc, print them on non-photocopiable paper and have them sign a time-limited-give-me-your-first-born kind of NDA.
When installing OSX, the tools to repartition a harddrive are hidden in a pulldown menu and only available at the beginning of the install. I only found them out because I'd read some Debian installation instructions.
All the docs are for idiots. I am not an idiot. I know my way around computers, compile my own kernels, etc... So I dislike not being able to do stuff because there is no expert documentation anywere.
I could go on, but it's really a mentality thing. Apple designs it for idiots. Fine. It's easy to use. Just give me good expert documentation and I'll be happy.
I didn't mean the hardware. dual-CPU OSX boxes with load-balancing and a whole hell of a lot of storage would be my choice too I suppose. I just wouldn't run OSX on then but linux instead. OSX and for that matter Darwin doesn't have the kind of server use or design for me to consider it as a server OS. It's a great Desktop OS (I personaly don't like the fact that the user is treated like an idiot, Expert Mode? hint hint Apple). Probably the best I've seen. I just wouldn't put it on my servers.
Funny? I wasn't joking. The only reason Dell/Compaq/HP have more sales than Apple although they sell equivalent hardware at about the same price is because of all the build-it-yourself beige (or aluminium with a window if you're into that) PC scene. Given cheap PPC hardware that will run MacOSX and Linux, Apple's sales will increase and we'll get another cheap hardware platform to run linux on, plus a corporate backed great OS for those non-free things we sometimes need. The OpenSource community wins, Apple wins and the x86 market may lose, but who cares.
This was exactly my point. And it's why I'm asking if PostgreSQL can take over from them. And it's why I mentioned replication since it's a much requested feature. Are there any other major ones missing?
No company will buy a linux solution if it isn't supported. And most don't have a full IT staff so they need someone else to handle all the non-obvious bug/performance stuff. That's where Redhat comes in. Question is. Is their support good enough?
I run a web/proxy/print/dhcp/ssh server that's my firewall too on a P133 with 48 megs of memory. Windows NT probably won't install in this machine. Why? Because it has a bloated, in-kernel graphics subsystem, meaning it isn't designed to run headless. Mac OSX has the same problem. It's designed as a desktop OS. If you're talking about the server version, then fine. But i'd rather use Debian/PPC for a server OS. Because it has better package management and has almost everything I'd ever need packaged for the PPC. Contrast that to OSX where I'd have to compile everything myself, and then keep checking everything for updated versions. And let's not forget the actual kernel. Linux will beat OSX in benchmarks.
If you were running slashdot on a PPC, what do you think would hold up better, OSX or Linux? I know where my money is.
Imagine the ripple-or rather, tsunami-effect on the future of systems design and development in the retail, wholesale and consumer goods sectors. What happens to a Microsoft or Oracle in that environment?
So if PostgreSQL reaches 7.3 with full replication support and if Redhat (or Suse or whatever) support it (and Linux) well, we might get some major corporate players on our side. It would be huge.
Forget about Oracle changing all it's servers over to Linux. Oracle is a 1000-pound gorilla that requires manual tuning for performance and that (i've been told) has crap support tools.
What we need isn't Mac OS X for Intel. What we need are cheap PPC machines, with dull beige designs.
That way dual-booting might actually be a nice thing. On one side you have linux, on the other you have OSX, a beautiful and powerfull OS, not some Microsoft piece of crap. Plus we get nice hardware. Altivec anyone?
When will we be able to eat juicy steaks without having to actually kill the cow? Anytime soon? Could be the end of the entire vegetarian scene. Major cultural shock aproaching...
Slashdot Mirror
Does this mean you take your glass to the toilet?
Oh!! right! So they're still developing for the Classic version. I don't really care, but what the heck.
Mac OS X is unix like right? Why doesn't perl run in a non-emulated mode?
Agreed. Just thought more people would like a reference to it.
But it does. Tanenbaum predicted monolithic kernels were on their way out of the mainstream and that only micro-kernel architectures would survive. Linux is here to prove otherwise.
I think had Minix been more libre licensing slashdot geeks would be chanting Andy's name rather than Linus's.
Minix was a pile of crap. Period. It had no real multitasking, and it's cross-platform support was done by using a lowest-common-denominator aproach at the cost of performace. If all we had was Minix (no FreeBSD, no Linux), Windows would have taken over completely by now and I'd probably wouldn't be taking an Informatics Engineering course since I wouldn't have had the chance to play with an OS at such a low level when I was at the PFY stage. That's life. :)
For an opinion about this antitrust issue and Microsoft's behaviour check Cringley's column this week.
Because of no real killer app has been found yet. For most distributed computing work PVM/MPI is all you need. Distributing the OS is a neat concept, but, in itself, gets you nothing. It's one of those concepts that was to be the One True Solution (tm) but was proven not essential. Sort of like microkernel OS's. When Linus started Linux Andy Tanenbaum declared it a monster. He argued that at that time starting work on a monolithic kernel was an idiotic idea. He was proven wrong. Same here, I guess. Unix was supposed to be obsolete, but it has served us well thus far, and probably will for alot longer. It's nice to know we have good alternatives to take off when Unix is truly dead.
Unfortunately, due to server difficulties The Domesday Book Online has been unavailable for a short time. We apologise to all those who have tried but been unable to get to the site. The site as it was is now back online, but a new and much improved version will soon be unveiled so watch this space...
And now they are going to be slashdotted. Ironic.
Install Linux/xBSD and XFree86 on all the workstations and configure [k|x|g]dm to connect to a few servers. Instant thin client. As for the servers, Dual Athlon boxes with alot of memory running Linux/xBSD would do fine. If Windows is a must have, ignore this.
Are you sure this isn't dhcpcd crapping out. I used pump, changed to dhcpcd because it was crapping out every two days and then to dhcp-client for the same reason. It's been fine ever since. Try it.
As for white papers about algorithms/data scructures/etc, print them on non-photocopiable paper and have them sign a time-limited-give-me-your-first-born kind of NDA.
When installing OSX, the tools to repartition a harddrive are hidden in a pulldown menu and only available at the beginning of the install. I only found them out because I'd read some Debian installation instructions.
All the docs are for idiots. I am not an idiot. I know my way around computers, compile my own kernels, etc... So I dislike not being able to do stuff because there is no expert documentation anywere.
I could go on, but it's really a mentality thing. Apple designs it for idiots. Fine. It's easy to use. Just give me good expert documentation and I'll be happy.
I didn't mean the hardware. dual-CPU OSX boxes with load-balancing and a whole hell of a lot of storage would be my choice too I suppose. I just wouldn't run OSX on then but linux instead. OSX and for that matter Darwin doesn't have the kind of server use or design for me to consider it as a server OS. It's a great Desktop OS (I personaly don't like the fact that the user is treated like an idiot, Expert Mode? hint hint Apple). Probably the best I've seen. I just wouldn't put it on my servers.
Funny? I wasn't joking. The only reason Dell/Compaq/HP have more sales than Apple although they sell equivalent hardware at about the same price is because of all the build-it-yourself beige (or aluminium with a window if you're into that) PC scene. Given cheap PPC hardware that will run MacOSX and Linux, Apple's sales will increase and we'll get another cheap hardware platform to run linux on, plus a corporate backed great OS for those non-free things we sometimes need. The OpenSource community wins, Apple wins and the x86 market may lose, but who cares.
This was exactly my point. And it's why I'm asking if PostgreSQL can take over from them. And it's why I mentioned replication since it's a much requested feature. Are there any other major ones missing?
No company will buy a linux solution if it isn't supported. And most don't have a full IT staff so they need someone else to handle all the non-obvious bug/performance stuff. That's where Redhat comes in. Question is. Is their support good enough?
If you were running slashdot on a PPC, what do you think would hold up better, OSX or Linux? I know where my money is.
So if PostgreSQL reaches 7.3 with full replication support and if Redhat (or Suse or whatever) support it (and Linux) well, we might get some major corporate players on our side. It would be huge.
Forget about Oracle changing all it's servers over to Linux. Oracle is a 1000-pound gorilla that requires manual tuning for performance and that (i've been told) has crap support tools.
That way dual-booting might actually be a nice thing. On one side you have linux, on the other you have OSX, a beautiful and powerfull OS, not some Microsoft piece of crap. Plus we get nice hardware. Altivec anyone?
So how is slashdoting an online petition any diferent from Microsoft rigging a poll? Slashdot is reaching new lows.
(relax it's a joke)
We need to round up all the sysadmins who setup mail servers as open relays. The morons that believe the stuff that comes in spam are less important.
Maybe...
So the FBI's key logger gets announcements on Slashdot now? How much are they paying for this?
Let me get this straight. You charge them a "technology fee" *first* and then dedice what get's done with it?
So you code Windows apps then...