BTW, isn't this sort of like that story about computers making ads? I don't know. Doesn't it seem there are some things that computers will never be able to do as good as a real person?
Computers are good a repetitive tasks, exacting tasks, and scientific tasks, but they'll never do things like be a friend, give you a hug, make the day brighter.
What makes you think that Windows won't run on Merced. There was just a story up about this about a month ago. MS is still in the runnings.
It wasn't said that W2K *won't* run on the Merced. It was said that W2K will *only* run on the Merced. No W2K for MIPS, Alpha, Sparc, G4. If I want a platform that I can use on *all* my servers, W2K won't fly.
Maybe the same people at IBM who decided that the PC would never sell in the "home-use" market are the same people that are making the big decisions about OS/2....
Microsoft wants to be the end-all in every market. IBM however has major problems trying to get into markets that aren't its core business. It seems like IBM is able to "self-regulate" itself. Its managers may be so "focused" that they can't see other markets. This might be the best thing that could happen to IBM...
I mentioned closed-source only to point out that particular, clear advantage of Linux over OS/2. I would also imagine that OS/2's TCO is also higher than Linux' because of licensing costs, as well as the fact that at least as much user training is req'd.
If your choice is Windows and OS/2, I disagree. Remember, it's only the last year when Linux "became" a market leader. Even still, in many places, the choice would not be Linux or OS/2, it'd be Windows or OS/2. OS/2 wins hand-down over Windows as a desktop platform.
Very soon Linux will be accepted as the defacto desktop OS. You are right. OS/2 will lose its attractiveness. Open Source OS's will provide a better "roadmap" for the future, lower TCO, more support, more applications.
All "who was first" semantics aside, it then appears that nostalgia is the overriding factor here. OS/2 does not seem to have any technical advantage or meaningful future.
OS/2 is in the position now of being more like a '66 Thunderbird. Certainly attractive to certain users, but not very practical.
That's not to say that OS/2 isn't technically superior, I believe it is. It has an object-oriented UI, shadows that work, a strong kernel. Others have listed features too.
Are the technically superior features enough to make OS/2 a better OS, in spite of the drawbacks that were mentioned? Closed-source, no POSIX.1 compatibility... Some people saw yes, some say no. It seems like IBM has decided that for all of us. The answer is no. It was an advanced OS at one point, but now there are others that are better.
Hello? Not to be argumentative, but isn't what is happening to OS/2 precisely what makes closed-source software bad?
Yes. Precisely. And I'm not saying that closed-source software *isn't* bad. Windows is another good example of closed source software that's bad. Microsoft has done a good maintaining binary support in it's OS. But not source code support. You are locked into rewriting your source code every few years. It's not like dropping an OS all together, but may as well be.
All in All, closed source is bad. However, if OS/2 were actively developed there would be a market for it. People would use it. It may not be the best development decision, but it's better then choosing Microsoft.:-)
No. BeOS may have a future. Because it is closed-source, you can never be sure of its future. Only open-source software is assured of a future, as long as anyone is still interested in it.
True again. We don't know what will happen in the future. A "road map" is hardly convincing, when dealing with the future. The only way to be certain that you have a viable solution is when you "own" that solution. As you said, if you product is based on Linux and everyone loses interest, you "own" Linux and can maintain it because you have the source. As OS/2 shows us, if you don't "own" the software, when a company drops it, you're sunk.
IBM, and others like them, are never going to sucker me into closed-source operating systems again.
Good for you. Unfortunately, I only come close to that ideal.:-) But I am careful which closed source OS's I use. And always try to use something that I know will be there as long as I need it whenever possible
OS/2 was the first 32bit, multi-tasking, OS out there.
True only if you further qualify "first 32-bit multi-tasking OS"; 32-bit machines supporting multitasking OSes existed long before the 80386 came out.
You're right. I wasn't specific enough. It was the first 32-bit OS written for the x86 "desktop" market. There were of course many other 32-bit OS's but none we'd see running Wordperfect.
It might have been the first 32-bit multi-tasking OS for "IBM-compatible PCs" - did it, in fact, come out before, say, System V/386? If not, then you might have to further qualify it as "the first 32-bit multi-tasking OS that might've become mass-market" (feel free to insert debate here about whether a PC UNIX, back then, was likely to become mass-market).
Again, that's true. There were, I'm guessing Unix ports, but they weren't in a position to be mass-market. I couldn't consider Unix at the time a contender to running Wordperfect either.
There is the drawback that OS/2 is fragmented on the source-code level, as well as the binary level, just like Windows (ie, no POSIX.1 compatibility)
In what way does that constitute "fragmentation"? I'd consider OS/2 "fragmented" only if there were multiple versions that weren't fully binary-compatible and weren't fully source-compatible (other than "not all applications built on/built for/written for release N run on Release N-1")
I am refering fragmentation the same way the Microsoft does. Not the there isn't compatibility, either source or binary within multiple versions. MS would never claim that 98 and NT were fragmented. But MS claims that fragmentation is within a group of OS's that all seemingly exist for the same function. IE, the server market. According Microsoft, if I write a program and it doesn't compile under a different OS, then that OS is fragmented. I disagree, of course, but for MS's sake I acknowledge their logic. For in the desktop market, if I write an app, and try to compile it for another OS, if I can't compile it, it must be fragmented. So I can write an app for Linux and compile it under FreeBSD, Solaris, Unixware, BeOS, but it'll fail miserably under Windows. So Windows, according to the gospel of Microsoft, must be fragmented. Of course, according the the same logic OS/2 and MacOS are also fragmented. But, as I noted before, we can overlook that for the uses the OS/2 and Mac serve. Now, there are "libraries" to provide POSIX.1 compatibility to Windows and others, but that's not the Windows API, just a third party library.
Anyways, FWIW, I don't think fragmentation is a problem. I think it's good to have a little fragmention, but not as much as Windows has. But MS has blown their fragmentation PR up so much to get people scared of "Unix" and started using their much worse OS, that I've felt I've needed to start pointing out the real fragmentation where ever I had the opportunity.
Who, may I ask, cares about OS/2? Is it just nostalgia? Is that ol' thing still around even? Seriously, best to let that wounded cow die and make way for better OSs. I realize this is a big issue amongst many/.ers, but there simply aren't any benefits to using OS/2 when you can get Linux free, especially when you consider that OS/2 is closed-source and has no future.
OS/2 was the first 32bit, multi-tasking, OS out there. It was and could be still better then Windows. But times were different back then. People believed MS when they were told that Windows was going to be the dominate OS. Microsoft strong-armed IBM into not pre-loading OS/2 on their PC's. And IBM still wasn't used to the PC market and didn't leverage it as well as they should have.
Closed source OS's are not bad, per say. BeOS is closed source, but it has a future. OS/2 could have a future also, if it was sold to a company that would actively develop it. There is the drawback that OS/2 is fragmented on the source-code level, as well as the binary level, just like Windows (ie, no POSIX.1 compatibility), but that is not the worst thing in the world.
I think I understand why IBM wouldn't want to have anything to do with OS/2 anymore. First, hardware has gotten powerful enough to run "Workstation" type OS's on PC hardware. And Linux runs on the hardware quite well, and provides a platform for the desktop that is already supported and has many applications ported to it. Also, they have Monetery too.
I don't understand why IBM wouldn't be willing to license the OS to Stardock though. Unless it's because they either get enough profit from it supporting the remaining OS/2 user base, or don't want to have to keep the user base and license the code to a third party, or don't want to lose the user base in the licensing agreement.
I'am happy that Mandrake guys challenge Redhat. It's force RH to improve their own product and it benefits for the users.
Competition is vital to having a good product, right?
Let's never forget that competition brings innovation. A common idea these days is that Linux should be the end-all of Operating Systems and we should just have one "distribution". But what would we have then? Just another "microsoft" product. There'd be none of that push to innovate anymore. The only innovation being done would be only that needed to sucker in "users".
But what do we have now? Red Hat and Mandrake. Gnome and KDE. And others. Let's not meld the KDE and Gnome projects together. They should always exist as different projects. They provide innovation that we wouldn't have otherwise. The LSB is good, but let's not make it something that forces distributions to all be identical. That would stop innovation.
Hey, Microsoft even need to be here. Microsoft provides strong innovation in the Linux market. Not their idea of "innovation" of course, but real innovation.
And after doing that once, how inclined are you to to fork out your dollars to go through that experience again ?
I've used Mandrake 6 for the past 3 months and feel the same way. I've upgraded E, Tcl/tk, gnome, KDE, Netscape, linuxconf, and added a ton of other stuff. This isn't like Windows where the OS is kept under lock and key and certain configuration can be assumed for upgrading. But Linux can't. You can't assume that the installation configuration will still be the same when it comes time to upgrade.
I'm not sure about upgrading. How does it work? Will it mess my system up? Has anyone else upgraded Mandrake? How about some feedback?
Nevertheless, there is a small PHB factor. Red Hat is now a know commodity. If I can get Linux installed and functioning, it will give me some ammunition when I suggest a different distro.
It goes like this. blah, blah, blah, Red Hat, blah, blah, blah, supportable, blah, blah, blah, widely used, blah, blah, blah, stock price >$100, blah, blah, blah. All of suddenly Linux isn't just a "interesting" OS played with by hackers. It a real, stable, supported, OS with a public company. So what if all they are aware of is Red Hat. It's a great start. So we convert all those Crummy Windows Servers (CMS (TM)) to Red Hat Linux. The PHB sits at his desk looking at charts. Productivities up, profits are up, moral is up at the support center (all the MCSE's are gone, but they weren't needed anymore anyways) and things are looking good. Now it's time to introduce to the PHB something also known as innovation. Competition! You just aren't locked into one OS platform. There are many that are all improved and maintained and can be even better then Red Hat. Yes, Debian has a good package manage system. Let's put that on the servers that need to be upgraded often. Turbo Linux has great clustering. FreeBSD will host our Databases. The Firewall will run on OpenBSD. Ah! Success! Doesn't this feel great?
Red Hat is the foot in the door. I can't wait until that door is wide open.
We would all get along if we could finally settle one ONE operating system to be used by ALL computers worldwide.
Good idea. Windows 2000, right? What, you don't want that? That's what happens when you don't have competition. That's why we need Apple, and BeOS, and Sun, and SCO, and Linux and the BSD's.
That's why having Gnome and KDE exist as seperate projects is so important. They stimulate each other into creating a better and better tool. Think of Windows. It has a window manager into the OS. What innovation takes place? Only that which is needed to sucker innocent users into thinking it's better. But that's what we'll get if we don't have two Window managers being developed in parallel. The market *needs* competition, even if it is Open Source.
Or at least some system of making sure that no matter what platform I'm using, I can run ANY software available with no compatibility issues.
A noble desire, but again one that isn't desirable. Sure, Java provides binary compatibility, and POSIX.1 provides source compatibility. These are fine for general type applications. But for optimized applications you need to take advantage of the hardware you're running on. Sun hardware, IBM hardware, SGI hardware. Yes, you can run the same apps on them, but you're not getting all the power you can out of them that way.
If I run a server on specific hardware and OS, I want it to be the best possible. If I run my Database on Sun's and Solaris, then I don't care how it runs on Alpha and Linux. However, easily being able to get it to run on different platforms if needed is a plus. For instance, say I'm a consultant and I develop a database for Sun and Solaris. If the next customer comes along and needs it on Alpha and Linux, then I need to be able to be responsive to my customer. Need I mention that if I'd developed my product on Windows, I'd have to completely rewrite it? Not so with the current Server OS's. That's the way I think it should be. Not fragmented, just optimisable.
Yeah, I managed to log in using my last name as well and changed the password. I clicked on profiles (or whatever it's called, I forgot already) and found out that it wasn't me, but someone else with the same last name.
Note, for last names that are consecutively numbering them. So the first the accounts are set up like this:
Given how poorly the DOJ brought out the real issues that should have been used against Microsoft, I can understand why Microsoft seems to feel so little threat from them.
The DoJ actually brought out the real issues very well. But remember 2 things. The issues that the trial dealt with were limited because the Judge didn't want the trial to go on forever. So the DoJ had to leave out the petty issues. The other thing is that it is Microsoft who's largely the only one (Except for the "microsoft" press) that's claiming that the DoJ did a poor job bringing out the real issues. There'd better not be any surprise there:-)
This isn't like a football game where the winning time congratulates the loser for the great game they played. Microsoft is the loser and they only "victory" they'll get is to try to make the winner look bad.
Microsoft's defense was *really* bad. In fact, the only defense that Microsoft really had was PR. I think they were counting on the courts really not being able to do enough even if they lost to hurt them. Therefore, they didn't need to bother defending themselves in court. When they lose, a bunch of PR, and Jesse Berst's help will "fix" it all up with their customers. They'll be the winner. The verdict against them will be explained as "the judge just didn't understand the case". And Microsoft will always be right.
Most people use the way MS demands oems to install MS or nothing as an example of their supposed monopoly, but these companies signed those contracts willingly. They want the most money possible and most of the people buying computers want Windows. These are the same people who bought pet rocks and tamogotchis. No one needs to force them to buy useless shit, they'll do it themselves.
These people did not sign the contracts willingly. Read the Trial Transcripts. These people signed the contracts because if they didn't Microsoft would gouge them into bankruptcy.
Yes, I agree that anybody can write there own software and use it, but that's not what most people want to do. Most people want to buy software that others have written, that's why there is a market. But if they can't buy the software because MS has told resellers that they can't get licenses for Windows unless they bundle X with it, then that's a monopoly.
Yes, we shouldn't be dependant on Windows. But it happened. There used to be choice of DOS vendors. But Microsoft was able to kill that off with Windows because noone had an OS that ran Windows apps. Oh, except for IBM, and Microsoft forced IBM to eitehr not preload OS/2 or lose the deal to license Windows. There was a complacency in the market at that time which let MS get away with these "business" practices while we weren't watching. And this is what we end up with.
It must never happen that we fail to be alert to Microsoft's "business" practices. We must be vigilant. Microsoft *will* do it again. But this time let's be ready. Windows DNA is just around the corner...
What does compatible mean any more? The concept has been sufficiently blurred over the last few years that such a designation is dubious at best. Furthermore, why "Redhat" compatable? Can some explain which parts won't work with SUSE or Debian and why?
Red Hat has their definitions of what certified and compatible means on their Hardware Certification Program Program Overview. Also keep in mind that being Red Hat compatible doesn't mean that it doesn't work with any other distribution, just that it meets Red Hat's criteria for compatibility.
Red Hat took the initiative to get a hardware certification program started. This is excellent on Red Hats part. But as others have mentioned, it's not enough. Another organization, perhaps the LSB, need to get a certification program started too. Then we'll be able to see "LSB Certified" hardware too. But Red Hat should be commended for their program, even though, in the future, it should be superceded, if at all possible.
If they name it as "Linux Compatable" and the modem doesn't work under Linux, someone should sue them. There's probably some truth in advertizing law that covers that.
Compatible The tested hardware has passed all certification tests, but required some amount of special attention in order to be properly configured. This most commonly means that the system requires special drivers or updates to be downloaded before the system is fully useable (eg, a system that must download an update to XFree86 because the version of XFree86 on the CD does not support their video hardware). In this case, the vendor may call the system Red Hat Linux Compatible in their advertising, but may not use any Red Hat logos or badges on this system. Further, the vendor should take steps to ensure that their standard support services are prepared to answer customers questions intelligently when asked why the stock Red Hat Linux won't operate properly on their hardware (this usually means making sure that the vendor's technical support department is aware of what updates must be performed to make the machine work properly). The information about what updates are needed and any other notes on this system will also be available via the hardware compatibility list on the Red Hat web site.
Aha! So the WinModem requires "special attention". The notebook can still be labeled as "Linux Compatible" though, but not "Linux Certified".
As others have mentioned, I presume the marketing department "jumped the gun". I imagine that there'll be drivers for the modem, in due time.
It's a shame that the docs of the hardware don't cover this or at least give some insight into why those particular ports are open, etc.. I think users that actually spend hard earned money (or not so hard earned) to buy the product deserve to know.
What I don't understand is why does Sega taught that people wouldn't find out! Portscanning is really easy and can be done by a lot of people.
The total market that Sega is marketing this to is not inclusive of techies/hackers. It just happens to include this segment. Portscanning the DC, is about the same as trying to hack a Furby. Most Furby owners don't try to hack it. And most DreamCast users would just be confused by a section in the manual describing something called "ports" that has absolutely *nothing* to do with the ability to use the Dreamcast
Then again, I'd like to think if you'd inquire directly to Sega, they'd answer a few of your questions. But they may have reason not too....
GPL on the other hand makes commercial closed source software impossible. Both licenses have their limitations.
On the other hand, how many commercial closed source software packages do you see using the BSD license? The BSD License is an open source license, and although BSD licensed code can be used in a closed source project, the closed software isn't released under the BSD. I am making sense?
I agree with the poster above. If a company wants to develop open source software, they are going to use a self-defending license. However, I see a strong benefit to supporting BSD's in commercial closed source products over Linux. Linux carries the stigma of "requiring" an open source license to all software released for it. Think of the common response to when a company announces a product for Linux. "Where's the source?" The BSD's don't carry this stigma. I feel that no one in the BSD camp would have a problem if a company released a closed source application for a BSD. So I see, in the future, when people finally understand that Linux is a strong stable platform, and that the BSD's are no different, or perhaps even better, we'll see companies released closed products first for the BSD's, and open source products under the GPL for Linux first. But that's just MHO:-)
I believe you may have misinterpreted that. IMHO he was saying they have been considering it for two years already.
Whew! For a while there I was under the assumption that Zaman was talking about another open source license with a termination clause. But it turns out that not only can't Microsoft develop a good product, they can't hire someone who knows english enough to construct a good sentence. Perhaps it would have been better worded...Microsoft has been considering for the last two years making some of its products open source.
Of course, we've got to remember that Microsoft has been telling its customers for the last two years that open source was not a good development model. Who would forget that? Now that the government starts to understand the benefit of open source, we find out that Microsoft has been "considering" the open source model for the last years.
Oh, next thing we'll here is that Microsoft *pioneered* the open source movement. Yep, as someone already mentioned, they were the "first" to support open source with gorilla.bas and nibbles.bas. Also they'll claim that their Open source model is "superior" to the competing ones, but it'll just be a more restrictive version of the SCSL. And it'll only cover products that aren't important to Microsoft's core business.
If you can't beat them, join them is what we're seeing from Microsoft now. Of course, they're no more joining us, then a parasite joins its host. Watch out for Micrsoft!
Reading this article was fascinating. The first thing I saw was Linux, an open-source operating system similar in functionality to Microsoft Windows, is being given serious consideration as an alternative for government computer users, the official said. "Similar in functionality?" It's nice of them to acknoledge that, even though it could be argued that Linux has more functionality then Windows. Still I has to save this to show anyone who tries to tell me that Linux is brain-dead.
Reading further we see: As a result, Linux boasts a robust code that rarely malfunctions and is extremely difficult for hackers to crack, Klosowski said. Microsoft, on the other hand, keeps its code secret and makes upgrades to its products on a yearly basis, he said. Microsoft software products have been the target of numerous computer viruses. Neato! More positive news. My heart is warmed.
Now we get a few laughs. Microsoft's main server software, Microsoft Windows NT 3.5, for instance, is certified... I see. It's version 3.5 that is Microsoft's main server product, with NT 4 being relegated to just "Newest" status.
Zaman is amazing. After all the PR microsoft has done trying to convince people that "open source" development is not a good way to develop code. After all, who would work for free, eh? But now we find out that according to Zaman, "Open source is a very innovative way to develop software," In fact, Microsoft is so convinced of the viability of the Open Source model that "...Microsoft has been considering making some of its software products open source for two years." Two years, eh? That's a real good license. I'm just dying to work on code that's open for 2 years.
A few paragraphs later Zaman states that government agencies are not excessively reliant on Microsoft products... But just 2 paragraphs later we read The government already relies extensively on Microsoft products for desktop and, increasingly, server applications. Only a slight contradiction, eh? I suppose we can overlook that.
And the last thing that we read is: Regardless of security concerns, Smith added, a multitude of software systems within an agency often can lead to interoperability problems. Very interesting. In the server market, you can't allow fragmentation within your product base. In the current server market, there is a lot of similarity within most server OS's, except one. That one is fragmented in the Server OS market. That OS is Windows. If I was an administer of a network and couldn't allow even one little bit of fragmentation, I'd keep Windows as far away from my servers as I could.
I wrote an essay on fragmentation of the Server Market. It may apply here.
I can't think of a way to fix this except something like your directory idea, but I hope it can avoid becoming too commercialized. The thing is, people don't seem to mind the concept of a phone book -- if you want to call someone and don't have the number, you look up the name in a directory and then make the call. This directory system should be more like that.
That's my point. Search engines that return listing based on content is great if you don't know exactly what site you're for. If you just want to find sites dealing with nanotechnology, for instance, search engines work pretty much fine. But search engines don't work as well if I want to find a specific site. My idea is a new protocol that works similarily to whois. Instead of domains, companies and individuals will register their name *only* along with the IP. Then when you search for "clue" for example, instead of getting every site on the internet that talks about games, and murders, and whatnot, you only get back a listing of the sites registered with the word clue in them along with the IP's. The browser then displays this in a readable fashion and the user can click on the site that they were looking for. In that way we wouldn't have the problem with restrictive domains that we have now. Clue Computing would be simple "Clue Computing". And Hasbro's Clue product site could be "Clue - Hasbro" or something.
So what do you think? Is it a good idea? Should I start a project to replace Domain Names with this superior solution?
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think we should let Tim off easy for going for the NT server solution he mentioned. After all, if everyone just followed the path of least resistance, we'd all be waiting around to be spoon fed solutions from Microsoft. Bad Tim, bad! Next time, "talk the talk".
You mean "walk the talk":-) Anyways, I think we can forgive him this one time. He tried what he thought was the most feasible solution at the time and he honestly admitted that it failed. Linux didn't provide the solution at the time and that was a failure too. We have to remember that although Linux is a superior solution to NT, it hasn't had the time to mature as NT has had. We need to get solutions on Linux so that in the future people *won't* be forced to use NT. We're not there yet, but every day I see more and more solutions for Linux. Let's keep working on them and soon one day the time well come when no one will be able to say, "The only way to do this was on NT".
Slashdot Mirror
Haha!
Guess not, eh?
Computers never win. Don't ever forget that.
BTW, isn't this sort of like that story about computers making ads? I don't know. Doesn't it seem there are some things that computers will never be able to do as good as a real person?
Computers are good a repetitive tasks, exacting tasks, and scientific tasks, but they'll never do things like be a friend, give you a hug, make the day brighter.
-Brent--
It wasn't said that W2K *won't* run on the Merced. It was said that W2K will *only* run on the Merced. No W2K for MIPS, Alpha, Sparc, G4. If I want a platform that I can use on *all* my servers, W2K won't fly.
-Brent--
Microsoft wants to be the end-all in every market. IBM however has major problems trying to get into markets that aren't its core business. It seems like IBM is able to "self-regulate" itself. Its managers may be so "focused" that they can't see other markets. This might be the best thing that could happen to IBM...
-Brent--
If your choice is Windows and OS/2, I disagree. Remember, it's only the last year when Linux "became" a market leader. Even still, in many places, the choice would not be Linux or OS/2, it'd be Windows or OS/2. OS/2 wins hand-down over Windows as a desktop platform.
Very soon Linux will be accepted as the defacto desktop OS. You are right. OS/2 will lose its attractiveness. Open Source OS's will provide a better "roadmap" for the future, lower TCO, more support, more applications.
All "who was first" semantics aside, it then appears that nostalgia is the overriding factor here. OS/2 does not seem to have any technical advantage or meaningful future.
OS/2 is in the position now of being more like a '66 Thunderbird. Certainly attractive to certain users, but not very practical.
That's not to say that OS/2 isn't technically superior, I believe it is. It has an object-oriented UI, shadows that work, a strong kernel. Others have listed features too.
Are the technically superior features enough to make OS/2 a better OS, in spite of the drawbacks that were mentioned? Closed-source, no POSIX.1 compatibility... Some people saw yes, some say no. It seems like IBM has decided that for all of us. The answer is no. It was an advanced OS at one point, but now there are others that are better.
-Brent--
Yes. Precisely. And I'm not saying that closed-source software *isn't* bad. Windows is another good example of closed source software that's bad. Microsoft has done a good maintaining binary support in it's OS. But not source code support. You are locked into rewriting your source code every few years. It's not like dropping an OS all together, but may as well be.
All in All, closed source is bad. However, if OS/2 were actively developed there would be a market for it. People would use it. It may not be the best development decision, but it's better then choosing Microsoft. :-)
No. BeOS may have a future. Because it is closed-source, you can never be sure of its future. Only open-source software is assured of a future, as long as anyone is still interested in it.True again. We don't know what will happen in the future. A "road map" is hardly convincing, when dealing with the future. The only way to be certain that you have a viable solution is when you "own" that solution. As you said, if you product is based on Linux and everyone loses interest, you "own" Linux and can maintain it because you have the source. As OS/2 shows us, if you don't "own" the software, when a company drops it, you're sunk.
IBM, and others like them, are never going to sucker me into closed-source operating systems again.Good for you. Unfortunately, I only come close to that ideal. :-) But I am careful which closed source OS's I use. And always try to use something that I know will be there as long as I need it whenever possible
-Brent--
Ah, yes. The anti-trust trial.
-Brent--
You're right. I wasn't specific enough. It was the first 32-bit OS written for the x86 "desktop" market. There were of course many other 32-bit OS's but none we'd see running Wordperfect.
It might have been the first 32-bit multi-tasking OS for "IBM-compatible PCs" - did it, in fact, come out before, say, System V/386? If not, then you might have to further qualify it as "the first 32-bit multi-tasking OS that might've become mass-market" (feel free to insert debate here about whether a PC UNIX, back then, was likely to become mass-market).Again, that's true. There were, I'm guessing Unix ports, but they weren't in a position to be mass-market. I couldn't consider Unix at the time a contender to running Wordperfect either.
In what way does that constitute "fragmentation"? I'd consider OS/2 "fragmented" only if there were multiple versions that weren't fully binary-compatible and weren't fully source-compatible (other than "not all applications built on/built for/written for release N run on Release N-1")I am refering fragmentation the same way the Microsoft does. Not the there isn't compatibility, either source or binary within multiple versions. MS would never claim that 98 and NT were fragmented. But MS claims that fragmentation is within a group of OS's that all seemingly exist for the same function. IE, the server market. According Microsoft, if I write a program and it doesn't compile under a different OS, then that OS is fragmented. I disagree, of course, but for MS's sake I acknowledge their logic. For in the desktop market, if I write an app, and try to compile it for another OS, if I can't compile it, it must be fragmented. So I can write an app for Linux and compile it under FreeBSD, Solaris, Unixware, BeOS, but it'll fail miserably under Windows. So Windows, according to the gospel of Microsoft, must be fragmented. Of course, according the the same logic OS/2 and MacOS are also fragmented. But, as I noted before, we can overlook that for the uses the OS/2 and Mac serve. Now, there are "libraries" to provide POSIX.1 compatibility to Windows and others, but that's not the Windows API, just a third party library.
Anyways, FWIW, I don't think fragmentation is a problem. I think it's good to have a little fragmention, but not as much as Windows has. But MS has blown their fragmentation PR up so much to get people scared of "Unix" and started using their much worse OS, that I've felt I've needed to start pointing out the real fragmentation where ever I had the opportunity.
-Brent--
OS/2 was the first 32bit, multi-tasking, OS out there. It was and could be still better then Windows. But times were different back then. People believed MS when they were told that Windows was going to be the dominate OS. Microsoft strong-armed IBM into not pre-loading OS/2 on their PC's. And IBM still wasn't used to the PC market and didn't leverage it as well as they should have.
Closed source OS's are not bad, per say. BeOS is closed source, but it has a future. OS/2 could have a future also, if it was sold to a company that would actively develop it. There is the drawback that OS/2 is fragmented on the source-code level, as well as the binary level, just like Windows (ie, no POSIX.1 compatibility), but that is not the worst thing in the world.
I think I understand why IBM wouldn't want to have anything to do with OS/2 anymore. First, hardware has gotten powerful enough to run "Workstation" type OS's on PC hardware. And Linux runs on the hardware quite well, and provides a platform for the desktop that is already supported and has many applications ported to it. Also, they have Monetery too.
I don't understand why IBM wouldn't be willing to license the OS to Stardock though. Unless it's because they either get enough profit from it supporting the remaining OS/2 user base, or don't want to have to keep the user base and license the code to a third party, or don't want to lose the user base in the licensing agreement.
-Brent--
Competition is vital to having a good product, right?
Let's never forget that competition brings innovation. A common idea these days is that Linux should be the end-all of Operating Systems and we should just have one "distribution". But what would we have then? Just another "microsoft" product. There'd be none of that push to innovate anymore. The only innovation being done would be only that needed to sucker in "users".
But what do we have now? Red Hat and Mandrake. Gnome and KDE. And others. Let's not meld the KDE and Gnome projects together. They should always exist as different projects. They provide innovation that we wouldn't have otherwise. The LSB is good, but let's not make it something that forces distributions to all be identical. That would stop innovation.
Hey, Microsoft even need to be here. Microsoft provides strong innovation in the Linux market. Not their idea of "innovation" of course, but real innovation.
-Brent--
I've used Mandrake 6 for the past 3 months and feel the same way. I've upgraded E, Tcl/tk, gnome, KDE, Netscape, linuxconf, and added a ton of other stuff. This isn't like Windows where the OS is kept under lock and key and certain configuration can be assumed for upgrading. But Linux can't. You can't assume that the installation configuration will still be the same when it comes time to upgrade.
I'm not sure about upgrading. How does it work? Will it mess my system up? Has anyone else upgraded Mandrake? How about some feedback?
-Brent--
Hehe, I think we'd better give that honor to Windows. I just downloaded another half a dozen security fixes to fix Windows 98 SE.
-Brent--
Red Hat is now a know commodity. If I can get Linux installed and functioning, it will give me some ammunition when I suggest a different distro.
It goes like this. blah, blah, blah, Red Hat, blah, blah, blah, supportable, blah, blah, blah, widely used, blah, blah, blah, stock price >$100, blah, blah, blah. All of suddenly Linux isn't just a "interesting" OS played with by hackers. It a real, stable, supported, OS with a public company. So what if all they are aware of is Red Hat. It's a great start. So we convert all those Crummy Windows Servers (CMS (TM)) to Red Hat Linux. The PHB sits at his desk looking at charts. Productivities up, profits are up, moral is up at the support center (all the MCSE's are gone, but they weren't needed anymore anyways) and things are looking good. Now it's time to introduce to the PHB something also known as innovation. Competition! You just aren't locked into one OS platform. There are many that are all improved and maintained and can be even better then Red Hat. Yes, Debian has a good package manage system. Let's put that on the servers that need to be upgraded often. Turbo Linux has great clustering. FreeBSD will host our Databases. The Firewall will run on OpenBSD. Ah! Success! Doesn't this feel great?
Red Hat is the foot in the door. I can't wait until that door is wide open.Me either.
-Brent--
Good idea. Windows 2000, right? What, you don't want that? That's what happens when you don't have competition. That's why we need Apple, and BeOS, and Sun, and SCO, and Linux and the BSD's.
That's why having Gnome and KDE exist as seperate projects is so important. They stimulate each other into creating a better and better tool. Think of Windows. It has a window manager into the OS. What innovation takes place? Only that which is needed to sucker innocent users into thinking it's better. But that's what we'll get if we don't have two Window managers being developed in parallel. The market *needs* competition, even if it is Open Source.
Or at least some system of making sure that no matter what platform I'm using, I can run ANY software available with no compatibility issues.A noble desire, but again one that isn't desirable. Sure, Java provides binary compatibility, and POSIX.1 provides source compatibility. These are fine for general type applications. But for optimized applications you need to take advantage of the hardware you're running on. Sun hardware, IBM hardware, SGI hardware. Yes, you can run the same apps on them, but you're not getting all the power you can out of them that way.
If I run a server on specific hardware and OS, I want it to be the best possible. If I run my Database on Sun's and Solaris, then I don't care how it runs on Alpha and Linux. However, easily being able to get it to run on different platforms if needed is a plus. For instance, say I'm a consultant and I develop a database for Sun and Solaris. If the next customer comes along and needs it on Alpha and Linux, then I need to be able to be responsive to my customer. Need I mention that if I'd developed my product on Windows, I'd have to completely rewrite it? Not so with the current Server OS's. That's the way I think it should be. Not fragmented, just optimisable.
-Brent--
Note, for last names that are consecutively numbering them. So the first the accounts are set up like this:
user: smithpass: smithnsi
user: smith1
pass: smith1nsi
user: smith2
pass: smith2nsi
user: smith3
pass: smith3nsi
user: smith4
pass: smith4nsi
Needless to say I don't consider that a good security measure either. And no, I'm not telling you what mine is numbered...
--
The DoJ actually brought out the real issues very well. But remember 2 things. The issues that the trial dealt with were limited because the Judge didn't want the trial to go on forever. So the DoJ had to leave out the petty issues. The other thing is that it is Microsoft who's largely the only one (Except for the "microsoft" press) that's claiming that the DoJ did a poor job bringing out the real issues. There'd better not be any surprise there :-)
This isn't like a football game where the winning time congratulates the loser for the great game they played. Microsoft is the loser and they only "victory" they'll get is to try to make the winner look bad.
Microsoft's defense was *really* bad. In fact, the only defense that Microsoft really had was PR. I think they were counting on the courts really not being able to do enough even if they lost to hurt them. Therefore, they didn't need to bother defending themselves in court. When they lose, a bunch of PR, and Jesse Berst's help will "fix" it all up with their customers. They'll be the winner. The verdict against them will be explained as "the judge just didn't understand the case". And Microsoft will always be right.
-Brent--
These people did not sign the contracts willingly. Read the Trial Transcripts. These people signed the contracts because if they didn't Microsoft would gouge them into bankruptcy.
Yes, I agree that anybody can write there own software and use it, but that's not what most people want to do. Most people want to buy software that others have written, that's why there is a market. But if they can't buy the software because MS has told resellers that they can't get licenses for Windows unless they bundle X with it, then that's a monopoly.
Yes, we shouldn't be dependant on Windows. But it happened. There used to be choice of DOS vendors. But Microsoft was able to kill that off with Windows because noone had an OS that ran Windows apps. Oh, except for IBM, and Microsoft forced IBM to eitehr not preload OS/2 or lose the deal to license Windows. There was a complacency in the market at that time which let MS get away with these "business" practices while we weren't watching. And this is what we end up with.
It must never happen that we fail to be alert to Microsoft's "business" practices. We must be vigilant. Microsoft *will* do it again. But this time let's be ready. Windows DNA is just around the corner...
-Brent--
Red Hat has their definitions of what certified and compatible means on their Hardware Certification Program Program Overview. Also keep in mind that being Red Hat compatible doesn't mean that it doesn't work with any other distribution, just that it meets Red Hat's criteria for compatibility.
Red Hat took the initiative to get a hardware certification program started. This is excellent on Red Hats part. But as others have mentioned, it's not enough. Another organization, perhaps the LSB, need to get a certification program started too. Then we'll be able to see "LSB Certified" hardware too. But Red Hat should be commended for their program, even though, in the future, it should be superceded, if at all possible.
-Brent--
From the Hardware Certification Program Program Overview we read:
Aha! So the WinModem requires "special attention". The notebook can still be labeled as "Linux Compatible" though, but not "Linux Certified".As others have mentioned, I presume the marketing department "jumped the gun". I imagine that there'll be drivers for the modem, in due time.
-Brent--
But can we make a Beowolf Cluster out of peace and harmony? :-)
-Brent--
The total market that Sega is marketing this to is not inclusive of techies/hackers. It just happens to include this segment. Portscanning the DC, is about the same as trying to hack a Furby. Most Furby owners don't try to hack it. And most DreamCast users would just be confused by a section in the manual describing something called "ports" that has absolutely *nothing* to do with the ability to use the Dreamcast
Then again, I'd like to think if you'd inquire directly to Sega, they'd answer a few of your questions. But they may have reason not too....
-Brent--
On the other hand, how many commercial closed source software packages do you see using the BSD license? The BSD License is an open source license, and although BSD licensed code can be used in a closed source project, the closed software isn't released under the BSD. I am making sense?
I agree with the poster above. If a company wants to develop open source software, they are going to use a self-defending license. However, I see a strong benefit to supporting BSD's in commercial closed source products over Linux. Linux carries the stigma of "requiring" an open source license to all software released for it. Think of the common response to when a company announces a product for Linux. "Where's the source?" The BSD's don't carry this stigma. I feel that no one in the BSD camp would have a problem if a company released a closed source application for a BSD. So I see, in the future, when people finally understand that Linux is a strong stable platform, and that the BSD's are no different, or perhaps even better, we'll see companies released closed products first for the BSD's, and open source products under the GPL for Linux first. But that's just MHO :-)
-Brent--
Whew! For a while there I was under the assumption that Zaman was talking about another open source license with a termination clause. But it turns out that not only can't Microsoft develop a good product, they can't hire someone who knows english enough to construct a good sentence. Perhaps it would have been better worded ...Microsoft has been considering for the last two years making some of its products open source.
Of course, we've got to remember that Microsoft has been telling its customers for the last two years that open source was not a good development model. Who would forget that? Now that the government starts to understand the benefit of open source, we find out that Microsoft has been "considering" the open source model for the last years.
Oh, next thing we'll here is that Microsoft *pioneered* the open source movement. Yep, as someone already mentioned, they were the "first" to support open source with gorilla.bas and nibbles.bas. Also they'll claim that their Open source model is "superior" to the competing ones, but it'll just be a more restrictive version of the SCSL. And it'll only cover products that aren't important to Microsoft's core business.
If you can't beat them, join them is what we're seeing from Microsoft now. Of course, they're no more joining us, then a parasite joins its host. Watch out for Micrsoft!
-Brent--
Reading further we see: As a result, Linux boasts a robust code that rarely malfunctions and is extremely difficult for hackers to crack, Klosowski said. Microsoft, on the other hand, keeps its code secret and makes upgrades to its products on a yearly basis, he said. Microsoft software products have been the target of numerous computer viruses. Neato! More positive news. My heart is warmed.
Now we get a few laughs. Microsoft's main server software, Microsoft Windows NT 3.5, for instance, is certified... I see. It's version 3.5 that is Microsoft's main server product, with NT 4 being relegated to just "Newest" status.
Zaman is amazing. After all the PR microsoft has done trying to convince people that "open source" development is not a good way to develop code. After all, who would work for free, eh? But now we find out that according to Zaman, "Open source is a very innovative way to develop software," In fact, Microsoft is so convinced of the viability of the Open Source model that "...Microsoft has been considering making some of its software products open source for two years." Two years, eh? That's a real good license. I'm just dying to work on code that's open for 2 years.
A few paragraphs later Zaman states that government agencies are not excessively reliant on Microsoft products... But just 2 paragraphs later we read The government already relies extensively on Microsoft products for desktop and, increasingly, server applications. Only a slight contradiction, eh? I suppose we can overlook that.And the last thing that we read is: Regardless of security concerns, Smith added, a multitude of software systems within an agency often can lead to interoperability problems. Very interesting. In the server market, you can't allow fragmentation within your product base. In the current server market, there is a lot of similarity within most server OS's, except one. That one is fragmented in the Server OS market. That OS is Windows. If I was an administer of a network and couldn't allow even one little bit of fragmentation, I'd keep Windows as far away from my servers as I could.
I wrote an essay on fragmentation of the Server Market. It may apply here.
-Brent--
That's my point. Search engines that return listing based on content is great if you don't know exactly what site you're for. If you just want to find sites dealing with nanotechnology, for instance, search engines work pretty much fine. But search engines don't work as well if I want to find a specific site. My idea is a new protocol that works similarily to whois. Instead of domains, companies and individuals will register their name *only* along with the IP. Then when you search for "clue" for example, instead of getting every site on the internet that talks about games, and murders, and whatnot, you only get back a listing of the sites registered with the word clue in them along with the IP's. The browser then displays this in a readable fashion and the user can click on the site that they were looking for. In that way we wouldn't have the problem with restrictive domains that we have now. Clue Computing would be simple "Clue Computing". And Hasbro's Clue product site could be "Clue - Hasbro" or something.
So what do you think? Is it a good idea? Should I start a project to replace Domain Names with this superior solution?
-Brent--
You mean "walk the talk" :-) Anyways, I think we can forgive him this one time. He tried what he thought was the most feasible solution at the time and he honestly admitted that it failed. Linux didn't provide the solution at the time and that was a failure too. We have to remember that although Linux is a superior solution to NT, it hasn't had the time to mature as NT has had. We need to get solutions on Linux so that in the future people *won't* be forced to use NT. We're not there yet, but every day I see more and more solutions for Linux. Let's keep working on them and soon one day the time well come when no one will be able to say, "The only way to do this was on NT".
-Brent--