I wouldn't balkanize them further into different companies for database, user applications, different levels of OS, since that unnecessarily weakens each business. If a breakup does occur [...], then each component should be kept strong enough to compete successfully but not so strong as to allow monopolist tactics.
I think the idea of splitting Microsoft into companies that each have a seperate focus is a good one. Why couldn't a company that just markets a database be strong enough to compete? Oracle does very well as a database company, I thought? Or have I missed some other market they are in? Think of other markets? Does Ford make boats? Does a shoe store sell computers? Does my telephone company sell pizzas? Does the newspaper company sell coffee?
However, I don't think that splitting up Microsoft into little bitty companies is going to solve much. The company that owns Windows will still be able to force OEM's to only preload Windows or suffer higher licensing costs. At least the company owning IE will no longer be able to use Windows to force OEM's to put the IE icon on the desktop.
The only way to solve the OS anti-competitive behaviour is to split the Windows department into 3 or more companies and give them each rights to the code. That way there is a choice of Windows, and if one company tries to be anti-competitive, the OEM's would dump them for another company. This would also give the opportunity for OEM's to be free to preload other OS's (Be, Linux, FreeBSD), because they would no longer incur the wrath of one monopolistic OS vendor.
Maybe the same thing would need to be done with Office. Same possibility for anti-competitive behaviour, but no signs of that happening yet. Maybe that'll only come when StarOffice gets more popular, and hasn't been needed to keep MS's dominance in that market yet.
Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, BeOS, and OS/2 (well, not anymore) are all x86 operating systems that can compete with MS for the Intel desktop. The fact is that MS has an ENORMOUS market share, but just because it's an established powerbase, doesn't mean it's anticompetitive, does it?
They may be great OS's. And may be able to compete with Windows. But when Microsoft tells the OEM's that they have to only preload Windows or suffer higher licensing fees, then Microsoft has forced the OEM's to either preload other OS's which isn't a large part of the market *now*, although it could be later, and not be competitive with other OEM's, or not preload other OS's, in which case the other OS's can't compete.
They may be great OS's, but if Microsoft prevents them from being preloaded by OEM's, they can't compete. Only a monopoly can force that. Microsoft couldn't do that if they had only a small share of the market. The OEM's would laugh them out the doors. So it doesn't matter how many OS's there are that can compete in the Microsoft market. If Microsoft is involved in anti-competitive practices then they are guilty. And that's what the trial is about.
That's what I think they'll say. And I think it'll be the true too. The GPL is a completely 180 to what companies do. Remember that. They *aren't* going to get it right at first, because there's been no precedent. That's why we need people like Bruce Perens to help "direct" these companies into the new paradigm.
RMS' vision is taking hold. But we must be encouraging. To throw everyone who makes a mistake out of the market, is a big mistake. We'll never get companies to support the GPL if we don't help them get to where they should be.
Personally, as far as ZDNet selling out to Microsoft, I think if it's being done (and I am of the opinion that it _is_ being done), it's not a company-wide policy, but rather a few so-called journalists doing whatever the Redmond PR department tells them to. I've seen some positive press for Linux from some people at ZDNet, notably the SmartReseller bunch.
I want to let you know I agree with this. ZD has a Linux section on their site, which seems quite positive. Also, I read Smart Reseller myself, and get the hardcopy magazine, and can't think off-hand of any time I've been really displeased with anything in it. Those in ZD who consistantly knock themselves over their behinds with illogical arguments against Linux are just a loud-mouthed minority.
More controversy equals more page served equals more banner ads equals more dollars. That's probably the sole reasoning behind his columns.
Yep, they probably made a killing of that article. The shame of online articles with per click banner ads. It's not important to have real reporting and journalism anymore. Crap which gets people to the site is more worthwhile then a true article that no one notices.
If Corel have proprietary software that they want to keep under wraps for whatever reason, they should specify that the license applies only to that software and that it does not alter or effect the existing license on any of the other code included with their distribution.
And that's probably Corel's only mistake here. And yet it probably should be assumed to be implied. The proprietory apps in the distribution that Corel developed falls under their license. But that license doesn't alter the license of the GPL'ed apps. So if I need Apache, I can download it, or grab it off the cd and do whatever I want with it. It's the same thing.
So the real question is, Is that what Corel meant, but failed to articulate? Or did they mean I can't freely distribute Apache from their distribution? Because if it's the first, it's not reall a problem, and Bruce and the OSI will help resolve it. If it's the second, it is a problem and hopefully, Bruce will be able to resolve it.
Of course, it also involves their changes to the GPL code. If they made changes they didn't release, then they may just want to make sure that the code is rock-solid before releasing. Is this a bad thing? Not IMHO. Of course, that means we'll have to accept Corel's decision to not distribute until it's "formally" released
Corel would find more bugs if the beta period was open to everyone.
Yes, but I'm sure they have their reasons. A small beta, with a limited hardware focus, can be good. Makes sure that all the real obvious bugs are out. And stuff like that.
This is the *first* round of beta testing. If it were open, you know that they'd get a 100,000+ downloads. What happens if they quickly found a major bug that caused a lot of corruption. Not likely, but that's why you restrict the beta at first, among other reasons. I'll be much happier testing it for them after I know that more then the handful of people in Corel QA'ed it.
Corel *will* be having a second beta. If fact they indicated that it will possibly be an open beta. Now don't you think it'd be better to encourage them to definately make the second beta open, then critize the first? I just don't think it's that big of deal, this is just a restricted closed beta. They just got a larger QA "department".
Check out their FAQ. It'll answer a few more of your questions.
They are saying that its internal, well let them keep it internal, dont go out and get other to test it.
I agree with this. It is a *restricted* beta. They aren't letting everyone buy into like Microsoft. So perhaps we should be content to let them "control" it, like they have while they've developed it all this time. When it's released, we make sure it's under the GPL as released code must be.
But we must also watch to make sure this "favor" isn't abused. For instance if another company tries to have an eternal beta, that's different.
Does anyone know? Has their development on Wine, and so on been worked alongside of the Wine group, or did they, in a manner of speaking, fork the project?
While the DOJ trial was going on, it was in Microsoft's interest to have all the MSerfs expound the virtue of other operating systems, now that Win 2000 is upon us, it isn't. ZD is just looking out for number 1.
I've thought that too. I actually considered the possibility of ZDNet publishing articles at the request, or Microsoft. As in Microsoft going to ZD and saying, "We need you to run a few articles that point out some good things with Linux. We'll be using Linux as in example of competition in the trial in the next few days and we need some real world examples that Linux is a strong competitor." ZD publishes a few articles, and it *just* happens that in the next few days the trial covers Linux. A few days after that ZD runs another article saying, "You can use Linux, but you'll be fired..."
Coincidence? Probably. But we know that ZD depends on Microsoft, not just for advertising dollars, but also for a market to sell their publications to. Just think. If no one uses Windows, who's going to buy their pro-Windows magazines. So they are going to do all they can to protect Microsoft's marketshare.
We do ourselves a disfavour by assuming that anyone criticising Linux has ulterior motives -- promoting NT, for instance, as many people seem to think.
I the most part I agree with your statement. But remember, although he didn't specifically state NT in his article, he did say that Linux at least needs to be good enough to power eBay, which is currently "powered" by NT. I assume he was talking about the front-end.
Not that Linux *can't* power eBay. We don't know that, we just know that eBay has decided to use NT. Did they ever do some field trials and determine that Linux couldn't handle the load? Or did they just choose NT because that's what you were supposed to use on the servers?
The whole point of his article was that because Linux couldn't do everything, it shouldn't do anything. (except power low-end black boxes) But that's wrong. When I am evaluating what to run an e-mail server on to handle 120 users, one of my criteria is *not* whether the OS can handle 10,000 IRC users.
There are many OS's that all have different strengths. So let's use each OS to it's fullest strength, and not restrict our OS choice to one OS that supposedly can do "everything". Use FreeBSD for your IRC servers, use Solaris for Database, use linux for web servers. No problem with that, is there? Dvorak seems to imply that there is
I don't know about you, but I don't advocate using Linux in any area where there is a better solution. Does anyone? Oh, except drooling, adolescent kiddies on/. that don't really have any position of influence.
I predict that eventually, companies who own entire class A networks, and perhaps some class B networks, will end up getting into the access buisness when they find out that they have this TREASURE trove of IP numbers that are scarcer and scarcer. This could lead to a whole new outlook on things ISP's..
Whoa! It's going to be even bigger then domain name squatting. You want an IP address? I've got this one here that's easily rememberable. Let's see, I can let it go for a paltry $10,000.
However, when it comes to home usage, I'd like my apps and my data on MY PC thank you very much. I don't want to get on my computer one night to find that I can't type up a paper, letter, report, whatever because whoever I'm getting my apps from has had a server crash. Now granted, my computer could crash just as easily -- but then only I'm affected, not thousands of users.
I don't think Sun is concerned about the "home" market. There are many market segments, one thing isn't going to fit all. Certainly, home usage is going to be Linux/Microsoft/PC/Specialized devices (PlayStation, WebTV, Other black boxes). But the Business segment which thin client fits into very well is a different story.
Anyway who's worked in a large corporation knows that computing is server centric even if they use fat clients. If they actually have the apps on the clients, the databases, word documents, excel spreadsheets, and other data is on the server. If the network is down, it's a small consolation that you can run Word. There's no access to your data anyways. So thin-client *are* a viable solution. If your data is gone, apps being gone doesn't cause too much more lost productivity.
While I actually/_LIKE_/ the idea of pervasive, "thin"/dumb clients, if you look at the figures it doesn't make/all/ that much sense in the home user arena.
PLEASE! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!! I think I'm gonna cry...
Everytime an article comes up about thin clients, a ton of people pipe up and say, "that's a stupid idea. Who's going to play Quake on a thin client?" Believe me, no one is going to ever play Quake on a thin client. At least they'd be dumb to try. But when I consider upgrading the PC's in the office, believe me, I do *not* have the ability to play Quake as one of the criteria for the choice that I make.
It's like complaining that Ford made a bad decision to produce a 4 passenger car, because you and your 6 buddies can't fit into it. There's a huge market that's filled by all sorts of different vehicles. When's the last time you've heard someone complain about a company that made semi-trucks, because semi-trucks aren't a family vehicle?
It's the same way with the computer market. It's a huge market with the ability for all sorts of hardware to fit in. The computer market isn't a cookie cutter market where every computer has to be the same, regardless of need. Sun has chosen one segment of the market to focus on, a segment where the thin client *does* make sense.
Who's the one saying that the "mainframe" is dead? Is it not Microsoft? Why would they say that? They have a client server product, which was great in the 80's and early 90's. If the market abandons the client/server market then Microsoft is doomed. They have virtually no thin-client technology. So of course they are going to try to force us into the client/server mentality for as long as they can. But I'll be the first to say it. Microsoft, the client/server model is dead. DEAD!
Not in every segment though. This is what people need to realize. You play Quake on your PC, and I'll run my call center on thin client technology. And no, the lack of ability to play Quake won't hurt me at all.
Does anyone think it's odd that these formerly relevant computer companies (who are trying to better their position with Microsoft) are suing Netscape?
Wait a minute? Wasn't it just yesterday that there was a news story having a blurb that companies sued Microsoft because of their inability to compete in the market? Now we have a comment that companies trying to better their positions with Microsoft by suing Netscape.
Neither accusation is true, though. Especially the accusation that the Anti-trust trial is a way for Netscape to make up for their failings. In this case, I think NCR is looking for an easy buck. Netscape has less lawyers then Microsoft, so that's who they hit. I can't imagine Microsoft IE *not* doing anything that Netscape does.
Indeed, the only fair system is where a crime gets prosecuted when it is commited. Raising a knife at someone is not a crime, plunging it in is.
Intent to commit a crime is just as guilty as committing the crime. You need to read about more drug busts. And other crime investigations. Because believe me, this is common. FBI agents play undercover to get drug deals all the time. And the drug traffickers are arrested and tried. No difference.
Still, I would not want such a person in charge of a major internet infrastructure, but that has already been taken care of by Infoseek and Disney.
I disagree with this. If Infoseek dismissed him because he committed a crime, that's wrong. You are innocent till proven guilty. However, I suppose there are many reasons you can dismiss someone. If they are in jail or on trial, it's hard to have a job.
If linux had a BSD style license.. then companies could get involved easier.
The GPL isn't stupid. The GPL is actually very powerful. It lets many companies develop a application together that they all need, instead of each developing a poorer app to do the same thing. It allows companies to have control over their production environment even when the code comes from another company. It frees companies to release their source code without having to worry about another company using it to compete against them.
However, there is a benefit to the BSD license. Linux is going to do a lot to get Open Source seen as a viable solution. But it won't stop with Linux, I predict that in a short time BSDs will also be extremely popular. The GPL and BSD license' both serve different, yet very extremely important purposes. We need both.
One of the major problems I see with Linux and the GPL is the mindset that that all software should have the source code available. Yeah RMS!! This is great for companies that want the power of "community development" and want to release projects with source code that can't be "stolen". However, there'll always be companies for whatever reason want to release "closed" programs, or completely (unrestricted) free software. These companies will choose BSD's as their primary platform. That way they don't release the application, and the only feedback they get is "Where's the source?":-)
I hate to burst your optimism, but this test doesn't look to me like it is come out in favor of linux.
*pop* Thanks for bringing me back to reality. I was really trying hard to be positive. But I know deep down inside that you are (probably) right.
...sounds to me like this is going to be result in "with our ultra-scientific testing results, we've determined that MS Windows NT is without a doubt more stable, reliable, user-friendly, and lower in total cost of ownership than Linux." I've seen it too many times before.
And I thought Linux was strong in all those areas. But you are right. The test results don't depend on how the OS's themselves hold up, but more on the biases of the testor's.
Well, PC Week has said there will be a series of tests, so I guess the best thing to do would be to watch the tests carefully, and be sure to point out all the problems, the best we can.
This test will prove nothing. If the NT box is cracked/hacked/took down everyone on/. will say. Microsoft sucks, NT sucks, it got cracked etc. etc. If the linux Machine is hacked someone will cry that whoever did whatever did not tighten the security enough.. Either way it proves nothing.. So whats it matter.. What a silly contest
Yep, and the converse is true too. If Linux is hacked, then MS will say, "See, trust your servers with us." But if NT is hacked, they will say "The admins weren't competent".
It has been said already. Crack challenges prove squat. If one OS or the other gets cracked, it won't prove that either is more secure. It'll just prove that a one point in time, one script kiddie cracked one server. And nothing more.
Also, security depends more on how the server was configured then just the OS used. Mindcraft anyone? When I first saw this I thought, "Sure MS could pay PC Week to 'misconfigure' Linux". But back to the presumption that PC Week is independent and hasn't been paid by MS, how competant were the admins that configured these servers? Probably the MS admin was MCSE certified. Perhaps the Linux admin has taken the Red Hat certification, at minimun?
What happened to predictions that windows2000test would be cracked in minutes? 8 open ports and no successful attempts? Last reboot almost a month ago? C'mon people!
Good grief! We've got real issues to work with other then spending the next three months playing with Microsoft's beta OS.
When Microsoft announced the challenge we did our duty and "checked out" the server. And guess what? It failed miserably. Having proved that we went back to playing with our toys.
Perhaps if MS wants any more testing they can go out and pay a real security company to test their OS. We're just tired of knocking their poor server down, enough is enough.
Its ran for a month without reboot? If so, good for them. Goes to show that MS can develop a server that runs great - when no one uses it.
All to often testing focuses on the speeds and feeds of a product. PC Week Interactive aims to change that. This first is a series of tests aim to look past the standard performance features of an application, and examine its reliability, usability, security, and total cost of ownership.
It's nice to see tests from high visiblity labs focusing more important things then whether a "car" can do 350 miles an hour, or 195 miles an hours, when the speed limit only lets the "car" go 85 mph.
Sure, the PHB's might be awed by a server the can pump out static data 4 times faster then the bandwidth of a T1, but there are more important details to look at.
When I look at buying a new car, I do more then just check how high the speedometer goes. Handling, braking, comfort, a great stereo system. Top speed in a car, unless you a racing, is largely insignificant when deciding on a car. A company that relies on the top speed of a car to selling it, will find that they have a niche market.
Microsoft relies on "optimising" it's servers to be fast on high end hardware. This is impressive to PHB's, but lacks the real important details needed in servers in production. It won't be long until the PHB's learn that speed isn't the most important thing in a server and they'll have knowledgable admins put servers in production that have real "features".
Or maybe I'm just giving PHB's too much credit. Maybe they'll never learn. But it sounds like PC Week, at least has gotten the idea. Good for them
Um, I don't want to be the one complaining about new cool (hot?) processors, but to start hyping something we'll see in two years sounds a little bit extreme. I mean, that's almost the way Wintel do business, right?
Well, yes, if Motorola was the Monopoly and they where just throwing out a few numbers to keep everybody duped into using their product instead of a superior competitor's product, then I would agree it was the way Wintel do business.
But I don't see it this way. Car companies demo future designs all the time. I know what cars of the future are probably going to look like. Many other companies make future announcements. It's not just enough to know where you are now, you need to know where you are going.
A "roadmap" is indespensible. Motorola is doing it right by letting us know what the future will look like. This isn't the "vapourware" that we get from other companies that when the competition releases a technically superior they cry, "Oh, we've been planning this for years. Why we'll have a similar product release in just a short time!"
Good for Motorola! I can't wait to use the G5 in my servers in coming years. Right along with my Alpha's, and Sparc's.
It was said that W2K will *only* run on the Merced.
Then i must have a merced then, since i can run W2K here...:)
<sigh> Okay, then. The only 64bit chip W2K will run on is the Merced. *Or*, alternatively, you could say that W2K will only run on Intel chips. The point is, If I have a group of different servers, all doing different things. One type of processor geared toward I/O, another towards computational, another graphical, and I want to reduce support by running only one OS, that OS probably won't be W2K.
To make that contest useful, they should run the program once and take whatever comes out.
Nah. After all, you don't expect human writers to submit first drafts. Tweaking is inevitably required.
Yes, tweaking should be done, but it should be done by the computer. What the computer spits out should be the final draft. This is about whether the computer can create content, not whether humans can create content from computer output.
You don't do your homework, and then have your "friend" tweak it and *then* submit it as yours, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
I think the idea of splitting Microsoft into companies that each have a seperate focus is a good one. Why couldn't a company that just markets a database be strong enough to compete? Oracle does very well as a database company, I thought? Or have I missed some other market they are in? Think of other markets? Does Ford make boats? Does a shoe store sell computers? Does my telephone company sell pizzas? Does the newspaper company sell coffee?
However, I don't think that splitting up Microsoft into little bitty companies is going to solve much. The company that owns Windows will still be able to force OEM's to only preload Windows or suffer higher licensing costs. At least the company owning IE will no longer be able to use Windows to force OEM's to put the IE icon on the desktop.
The only way to solve the OS anti-competitive behaviour is to split the Windows department into 3 or more companies and give them each rights to the code. That way there is a choice of Windows, and if one company tries to be anti-competitive, the OEM's would dump them for another company. This would also give the opportunity for OEM's to be free to preload other OS's (Be, Linux, FreeBSD), because they would no longer incur the wrath of one monopolistic OS vendor.
Maybe the same thing would need to be done with Office. Same possibility for anti-competitive behaviour, but no signs of that happening yet. Maybe that'll only come when StarOffice gets more popular, and hasn't been needed to keep MS's dominance in that market yet.
-Brent--
In Microsoft's case it's more likely that some cash will change hands and Dell will quit preloading Linux.
-Brent--
That's an A+ start to a sig. I'm going to have to remember that. :-)
-Brent--
They may be great OS's. And may be able to compete with Windows. But when Microsoft tells the OEM's that they have to only preload Windows or suffer higher licensing fees, then Microsoft has forced the OEM's to either preload other OS's which isn't a large part of the market *now*, although it could be later, and not be competitive with other OEM's, or not preload other OS's, in which case the other OS's can't compete.
They may be great OS's, but if Microsoft prevents them from being preloaded by OEM's, they can't compete. Only a monopoly can force that. Microsoft couldn't do that if they had only a small share of the market. The OEM's would laugh them out the doors. So it doesn't matter how many OS's there are that can compete in the Microsoft market. If Microsoft is involved in anti-competitive practices then they are guilty. And that's what the trial is about.
-Brent--
That's what I think they'll say. And I think it'll be the true too. The GPL is a completely 180 to what companies do. Remember that. They *aren't* going to get it right at first, because there's been no precedent. That's why we need people like Bruce Perens to help "direct" these companies into the new paradigm.
RMS' vision is taking hold. But we must be encouraging. To throw everyone who makes a mistake out of the market, is a big mistake. We'll never get companies to support the GPL if we don't help them get to where they should be.
Thanks Bruce!
-Brent--
I want to let you know I agree with this. ZD has a Linux section on their site, which seems quite positive. Also, I read Smart Reseller myself, and get the hardcopy magazine, and can't think off-hand of any time I've been really displeased with anything in it. Those in ZD who consistantly knock themselves over their behinds with illogical arguments against Linux are just a loud-mouthed minority.
More controversy equals more page served equals more banner ads equals more dollars. That's probably the sole reasoning behind his columns.Yep, they probably made a killing of that article. The shame of online articles with per click banner ads. It's not important to have real reporting and journalism anymore. Crap which gets people to the site is more worthwhile then a true article that no one notices.
It's a shame...
-Brent--
And that's probably Corel's only mistake here. And yet it probably should be assumed to be implied. The proprietory apps in the distribution that Corel developed falls under their license. But that license doesn't alter the license of the GPL'ed apps. So if I need Apache, I can download it, or grab it off the cd and do whatever I want with it. It's the same thing.
So the real question is, Is that what Corel meant, but failed to articulate? Or did they mean I can't freely distribute Apache from their distribution? Because if it's the first, it's not reall a problem, and Bruce and the OSI will help resolve it. If it's the second, it is a problem and hopefully, Bruce will be able to resolve it.
Of course, it also involves their changes to the GPL code. If they made changes they didn't release, then they may just want to make sure that the code is rock-solid before releasing. Is this a bad thing? Not IMHO. Of course, that means we'll have to accept Corel's decision to not distribute until it's "formally" released
-Brent--
Yes, but I'm sure they have their reasons. A small beta, with a limited hardware focus, can be good. Makes sure that all the real obvious bugs are out. And stuff like that.
This is the *first* round of beta testing. If it were open, you know that they'd get a 100,000+ downloads. What happens if they quickly found a major bug that caused a lot of corruption. Not likely, but that's why you restrict the beta at first, among other reasons. I'll be much happier testing it for them after I know that more then the handful of people in Corel QA'ed it.
Corel *will* be having a second beta. If fact they indicated that it will possibly be an open beta. Now don't you think it'd be better to encourage them to definately make the second beta open, then critize the first? I just don't think it's that big of deal, this is just a restricted closed beta. They just got a larger QA "department".
Check out their FAQ. It'll answer a few more of your questions.
-Brent--
I agree with this. It is a *restricted* beta. They aren't letting everyone buy into like Microsoft. So perhaps we should be content to let them "control" it, like they have while they've developed it all this time. When it's released, we make sure it's under the GPL as released code must be.
But we must also watch to make sure this "favor" isn't abused. For instance if another company tries to have an eternal beta, that's different.
Does anyone know? Has their development on Wine, and so on been worked alongside of the Wine group, or did they, in a manner of speaking, fork the project?
-Brent--
I've thought that too. I actually considered the possibility of ZDNet publishing articles at the request, or Microsoft. As in Microsoft going to ZD and saying, "We need you to run a few articles that point out some good things with Linux. We'll be using Linux as in example of competition in the trial in the next few days and we need some real world examples that Linux is a strong competitor." ZD publishes a few articles, and it *just* happens that in the next few days the trial covers Linux. A few days after that ZD runs another article saying, "You can use Linux, but you'll be fired..."
Coincidence? Probably. But we know that ZD depends on Microsoft, not just for advertising dollars, but also for a market to sell their publications to. Just think. If no one uses Windows, who's going to buy their pro-Windows magazines. So they are going to do all they can to protect Microsoft's marketshare.
-Brent--
I the most part I agree with your statement. But remember, although he didn't specifically state NT in his article, he did say that Linux at least needs to be good enough to power eBay, which is currently "powered" by NT. I assume he was talking about the front-end.
Not that Linux *can't* power eBay. We don't know that, we just know that eBay has decided to use NT. Did they ever do some field trials and determine that Linux couldn't handle the load? Or did they just choose NT because that's what you were supposed to use on the servers?
The whole point of his article was that because Linux couldn't do everything, it shouldn't do anything. (except power low-end black boxes) But that's wrong. When I am evaluating what to run an e-mail server on to handle 120 users, one of my criteria is *not* whether the OS can handle 10,000 IRC users.
There are many OS's that all have different strengths. So let's use each OS to it's fullest strength, and not restrict our OS choice to one OS that supposedly can do "everything". Use FreeBSD for your IRC servers, use Solaris for Database, use linux for web servers. No problem with that, is there? Dvorak seems to imply that there is
I don't know about you, but I don't advocate using Linux in any area where there is a better solution. Does anyone? Oh, except drooling, adolescent kiddies on /. that don't really have any position of influence.
-Brent--
Whoa! It's going to be even bigger then domain name squatting. You want an IP address? I've got this one here that's easily rememberable. Let's see, I can let it go for a paltry $10,000.
-Brent--
I don't think Sun is concerned about the "home" market. There are many market segments, one thing isn't going to fit all. Certainly, home usage is going to be Linux/Microsoft/PC/Specialized devices (PlayStation, WebTV, Other black boxes). But the Business segment which thin client fits into very well is a different story.
Anyway who's worked in a large corporation knows that computing is server centric even if they use fat clients. If they actually have the apps on the clients, the databases, word documents, excel spreadsheets, and other data is on the server. If the network is down, it's a small consolation that you can run Word. There's no access to your data anyways. So thin-client *are* a viable solution. If your data is gone, apps being gone doesn't cause too much more lost productivity.
-Brent--
PLEASE! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!!! I think I'm gonna cry...
Everytime an article comes up about thin clients, a ton of people pipe up and say, "that's a stupid idea. Who's going to play Quake on a thin client?" Believe me, no one is going to ever play Quake on a thin client. At least they'd be dumb to try. But when I consider upgrading the PC's in the office, believe me, I do *not* have the ability to play Quake as one of the criteria for the choice that I make.
It's like complaining that Ford made a bad decision to produce a 4 passenger car, because you and your 6 buddies can't fit into it. There's a huge market that's filled by all sorts of different vehicles. When's the last time you've heard someone complain about a company that made semi-trucks, because semi-trucks aren't a family vehicle?
It's the same way with the computer market. It's a huge market with the ability for all sorts of hardware to fit in. The computer market isn't a cookie cutter market where every computer has to be the same, regardless of need. Sun has chosen one segment of the market to focus on, a segment where the thin client *does* make sense.
Who's the one saying that the "mainframe" is dead? Is it not Microsoft? Why would they say that? They have a client server product, which was great in the 80's and early 90's. If the market abandons the client/server market then Microsoft is doomed. They have virtually no thin-client technology. So of course they are going to try to force us into the client/server mentality for as long as they can. But I'll be the first to say it. Microsoft, the client/server model is dead. DEAD!
Not in every segment though. This is what people need to realize. You play Quake on your PC, and I'll run my call center on thin client technology. And no, the lack of ability to play Quake won't hurt me at all.
-Brent--
Wait a minute? Wasn't it just yesterday that there was a news story having a blurb that companies sued Microsoft because of their inability to compete in the market? Now we have a comment that companies trying to better their positions with Microsoft by suing Netscape.
Neither accusation is true, though. Especially the accusation that the Anti-trust trial is a way for Netscape to make up for their failings. In this case, I think NCR is looking for an easy buck. Netscape has less lawyers then Microsoft, so that's who they hit. I can't imagine Microsoft IE *not* doing anything that Netscape does.
-Brent--
Intent to commit a crime is just as guilty as committing the crime. You need to read about more drug busts. And other crime investigations. Because believe me, this is common. FBI agents play undercover to get drug deals all the time. And the drug traffickers are arrested and tried. No difference.
Still, I would not want such a person in charge of a major internet infrastructure, but that has already been taken care of by Infoseek and Disney.I disagree with this. If Infoseek dismissed him because he committed a crime, that's wrong. You are innocent till proven guilty. However, I suppose there are many reasons you can dismiss someone. If they are in jail or on trial, it's hard to have a job.
-Brent--
The GPL isn't stupid. The GPL is actually very powerful. It lets many companies develop a application together that they all need, instead of each developing a poorer app to do the same thing. It allows companies to have control over their production environment even when the code comes from another company. It frees companies to release their source code without having to worry about another company using it to compete against them.
However, there is a benefit to the BSD license. Linux is going to do a lot to get Open Source seen as a viable solution. But it won't stop with Linux, I predict that in a short time BSDs will also be extremely popular. The GPL and BSD license' both serve different, yet very extremely important purposes. We need both.
One of the major problems I see with Linux and the GPL is the mindset that that all software should have the source code available. Yeah RMS!! This is great for companies that want the power of "community development" and want to release projects with source code that can't be "stolen". However, there'll always be companies for whatever reason want to release "closed" programs, or completely (unrestricted) free software. These companies will choose BSD's as their primary platform. That way they don't release the application, and the only feedback they get is "Where's the source?" :-)
-Brent--
*pop* Thanks for bringing me back to reality. I was really trying hard to be positive. But I know deep down inside that you are (probably) right.
And I thought Linux was strong in all those areas. But you are right. The test results don't depend on how the OS's themselves hold up, but more on the biases of the testor's.
Well, PC Week has said there will be a series of tests, so I guess the best thing to do would be to watch the tests carefully, and be sure to point out all the problems, the best we can.
-Brent--
Yep, and the converse is true too. If Linux is hacked, then MS will say, "See, trust your servers with us." But if NT is hacked, they will say "The admins weren't competent".
It has been said already. Crack challenges prove squat. If one OS or the other gets cracked, it won't prove that either is more secure. It'll just prove that a one point in time, one script kiddie cracked one server. And nothing more.
Also, security depends more on how the server was configured then just the OS used. Mindcraft anyone? When I first saw this I thought, "Sure MS could pay PC Week to 'misconfigure' Linux". But back to the presumption that PC Week is independent and hasn't been paid by MS, how competant were the admins that configured these servers? Probably the MS admin was MCSE certified. Perhaps the Linux admin has taken the Red Hat certification, at minimun?
-Brent--
Good grief! We've got real issues to work with other then spending the next three months playing with Microsoft's beta OS.
When Microsoft announced the challenge we did our duty and "checked out" the server. And guess what? It failed miserably. Having proved that we went back to playing with our toys.
Perhaps if MS wants any more testing they can go out and pay a real security company to test their OS. We're just tired of knocking their poor server down, enough is enough.
Its ran for a month without reboot? If so, good for them. Goes to show that MS can develop a server that runs great - when no one uses it.
-Brent--
Check out their Why We're Doing this page.
It's nice to see tests from high visiblity labs focusing more important things then whether a "car" can do 350 miles an hour, or 195 miles an hours, when the speed limit only lets the "car" go 85 mph.Sure, the PHB's might be awed by a server the can pump out static data 4 times faster then the bandwidth of a T1, but there are more important details to look at.
When I look at buying a new car, I do more then just check how high the speedometer goes. Handling, braking, comfort, a great stereo system. Top speed in a car, unless you a racing, is largely insignificant when deciding on a car. A company that relies on the top speed of a car to selling it, will find that they have a niche market.
Microsoft relies on "optimising" it's servers to be fast on high end hardware. This is impressive to PHB's, but lacks the real important details needed in servers in production. It won't be long until the PHB's learn that speed isn't the most important thing in a server and they'll have knowledgable admins put servers in production that have real "features".
Or maybe I'm just giving PHB's too much credit. Maybe they'll never learn. But it sounds like PC Week, at least has gotten the idea. Good for them
-Brent--
Of course, that doesn't help if it's PC Week that /.'ed :-)
Good Luck!
-Brent--
Well, yes, if Motorola was the Monopoly and they where just throwing out a few numbers to keep everybody duped into using their product instead of a superior competitor's product, then I would agree it was the way Wintel do business.
But I don't see it this way. Car companies demo future designs all the time. I know what cars of the future are probably going to look like. Many other companies make future announcements. It's not just enough to know where you are now, you need to know where you are going.
A "roadmap" is indespensible. Motorola is doing it right by letting us know what the future will look like. This isn't the "vapourware" that we get from other companies that when the competition releases a technically superior they cry, "Oh, we've been planning this for years. Why we'll have a similar product release in just a short time!"
Good for Motorola! I can't wait to use the G5 in my servers in coming years. Right along with my Alpha's, and Sparc's.
-Brent--
<sigh> Okay, then. The only 64bit chip W2K will run on is the Merced. *Or*, alternatively, you could say that W2K will only run on Intel chips. The point is, If I have a group of different servers, all doing different things. One type of processor geared toward I/O, another towards computational, another graphical, and I want to reduce support by running only one OS, that OS probably won't be W2K.
But you knew that ... :)
-Brent--
Yes, tweaking should be done, but it should be done by the computer. What the computer spits out should be the final draft. This is about whether the computer can create content, not whether humans can create content from computer output.
You don't do your homework, and then have your "friend" tweak it and *then* submit it as yours, do you?
-Brent--