Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
So, if I make a few changes to the above, how is this any different?
Windows is a closed-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a corporation that controls all of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Windows is released.
It's funny, isn't it? Usually when critiquing to products, when you want to promote one you usually focus on it's strong points, and where the product you are comparing doesn't measure up. Yet he seemed to be content to point out why the "strong" points of Linux weren't really that strong, without realizing what he was really saying.
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system.
Huh? If it's bad that you can't get your changes into the "official" source tree, doesn't that imply that it's much worse not being able to modify the kernel at all? Because unless I missed the announcement, JP will not have very much success getting his changes incorporated into the Windows kernel, and probably have a lot less success modifying the kernel at all.
Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
Now we find that companies that add features that aren't accepted into the core distribution will need to redevelop and retest every time a new version of Linux is released. A new distribution? I am afraid that he doesn't know what he's talking about here. Does he mean a distribution as in Debian? Nay, he appears to mean a distribution as in 2.2.9 -> 2.2.10. At any rate, I guess one of the benefits is that once you've developed for Windows, no further development or testing needs to be done. Your code will run on all further releases and updates to Windows as is. Huh? I suppose this is why everytime Microsoft releases a Service Pack, software needs to be tested against it to see what it breaks.
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux.
I shouldn't even need to waste my time on this one. Whereas Microsoft's products are integrated so tightly with one another that you can't replace any part with any other, Linux is built on an open-API, POSIX compliant subsystem, allowing modularized applications with the ability to have a flexible solutions that allows you to meet your needs in every situation. Sounds like Linux's "weak" point is stronger the Windows there too.
Hey, I'm all for a competitor to Windows, just give me more than what Microsoft has to offer-not less.
Well, I'm not going to write a whole essay on his article, other people have said enough. However, his last comment needs a reply. He's shown what Linux can do that Windows can't, if he's serious he should show what Windows can do that Linux can't.
If it were an NT only survey, though, why do they brag about NT Server's prevalence? They say that it "remains the dominent departmental OS server as one would expect." This is a strange survey.
I think that Unix is an enterprise OS Server. That's where Bill wants to go next. I consider a departmental OS Server's to be doing things like file servers and groupware stuff. Ie, competing against Netware and Linux. In this market MS does remain the dominant departmental OS.
Yet notice the intro of the report where it has a disclaimer that this group represents largely Microsoft customers and the results are likely to reflect a skewed response in that direction. All the results should be interpreted with this in mind. For instance, Exchange was given a figure of 65% as the principal corporate messaging software. If this were a survey of Lotus customers in the same demographics, probably Notes/Domino would have had a larger figure.
In conclusion I would have to say that the survey should be interpreted in this manner: In a survey of Microsoft customers you would expect Microsoft's OS to be used as the principal server OS. NT is used on 71% of the departmental servers making it the most dominant server OS. Bill Gates should be pleased and mighty relieved that his Server OS is still used by his customers. Whew!
He just says one is being developed. To some people, that's synonymous with non-existant.
Now there's a true but very interesting statement. If something is in development then that is perceived that it is synonymous with, say, vapourware. Yet, when Microsoft announces something is "in development," magazines, articles, and editors all praise the wonderful product that Microsoft is going to change the world with. And how it is going to be so much better then what their competitor's have out now!
If the same attitude was used when reporting on Linux, I would expect them to be glowing with praise about the up and coming journaling filesystem, and how it was going to blow all other journaling filsystems out of the water.
It's funny, I'm not seeing any press.... However, Linux doesn't need cheesy articles to compete like Microsoft does. All Linux needs is real-life success stories!!!!! Let Microsoft get bloated editorials praising them. I'll go with actual success stories anytime.
...take advantage of platform features on Windows in this case does not appear to mean the same embrace and destroy strategy as seen in the halloween documents. Instead, Microsoft wants to take standard PERL and optimise it for the Windows platform. It will be the same PERL as before, but will run better. And it will still be Open Source. Thumbs up for Activestate!
The Flight Gear Flight Simulator project is a free, open-source, multi-platform, cooperative flight sim development project. Source code for the entire project is available and licensed under the GPL. The Flight Gear project is working to create a sophisticated flight simulator framework for the development and pursuit of interesting flight simulator ideas. We are developing a good basic sim that can be expanded and improved upon by anyone interested in contributing. There are many exciting possibilties for an open, free flight sim. We hope that this project will be interesting and useful to many people in many areas.
- I think they're going to have a hell of a time trying to enforce the no porn rule. Filtering software is all far from perfect...
You may be pleasently surprised. Traditionally filtering software filter *out* bad sites. However, it's getting more common unfortunately for filtering software to filter *in* good sites that it allows you to view. I.e. the server will have a list of only 3000 sites that are considered appropriate. That way if you try to see www.santaclause.com which is a nice children's list, if it hasn't been added to the list yet, you're stuck. Same with slashdot.org. This type of filtering *does* catch every bad site. However, surfing the web with only access to amazon.com, travelocity.com, and microsoft.com doesn't tend to be the most fulfilling experience. Let's hope Burger King doesn't use *that* type of filtering. But perhaps they will, because then they can get companies to *pay* them to add their site. Woo-hoo!
will they somehow firewall out ports 110 and 21? or just fail to include an e-mail program? i'm wondering if they'll have telnet. if they have telnet, you can check your e-mail from there, assuming you know the POP3 commands.
Or if they allow telnet you can just logon to your shell account and use Pine:-)
My understanding is that they will only have a client for http. Therefore, no e-mail, no telnet, no IRC. What they mean be no e-mail, I would assume, is that they will have no POP3 or SMTP client, therefore no e-mail. Probably if you had web-based e-mail, that would not be restricted by the proxy. But then again they may block things like SSL and user authentication.
They already said that they would be censoring access. However, it is not said whether they were filtering bad sites out, or good sites in. If they were filtering good sites in, meaning that the proxy server has a list of the sites you can view, instead of a list of sites that you can't view, it makes it more probable that they wouldn't let you get any sort of e-mail.
Its a neat idea but it won't be free. The browser home page will be burgerking.com, there'll be scrolling ad banners, popups, etc.
You are right, it won't be free. It'll cost $20 an hour, but comes with a free meal:-)
Humor aside, you will be right. Advertising is everything. Portal sites are popular these days and Burger King wouldn't miss a chance to get a few extra dollars by advertising to all those people that buy a value-meal. I know that if I got 15 few minutes, I'd use it. OK, not in the way that Burger King expected, but that's beside the point. Most people will use the internet terminals and that means guarenteed viewing for advertisers.
If they really want Linux people to step up to the plate, they really ought to make their pages readable by browsers their audience are likely to be using!
Actually, they are making their pages readable by browsers that the intended audience is using. The intended audience is not the Linux market, as it may seem. They know that posted a web page telling about how much better NT is and how it costs different and is supported differently isn't going to cause Linux supporters to change their mind.
I perceive from that page that they consider Linux a threat. Otherwise they would have ignored the whole thing and just been content with the results that they paid for. But now it has backfired on them by creating lot's of good publicity for Linux and bad publicity for NT. So now they create a web page targeted for those how are considering Linux full of tables and tables of useless figures promoting NT, with a little blurb at the top fingering Linux developers.
Did reading the piles of figures change you mind? It didn't do much too mine. Especially where they talks about paper MCSE's and how much more it cost to run a Unix server. Unfortunately, it failed to talk about actual software costs. NT probably isn't cheaper then Linux after you add the costs of extra hardware and licensing fees to the amount you saved by using paper MCSE's who you can afford to pay minimum wage. It makes my glad that I got out of the Microsoft market, to a market where employer's can afford to pay *me* what I'm worth, because they don't have to pay Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
I found it on their ftp site under the "english" directory. ftp://ftp.netscape.org/pub/com municator/english/4.61
-Brent
Linux is an open-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a small team that controls this portion of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Linux is released.
So, if I make a few changes to the above, how is this any different?
Windows is a closed-source project; therefore, all changes to the kernel are subject to review and approval by a corporation that controls all of the operating system. Companies that add features they need, but that are not accepted into the core distribution, may find themselves in a redevelopment and retesting cycle every time a new version of Windows is released.
It's funny, isn't it? Usually when critiquing to products, when you want to promote one you usually focus on it's strong points, and where the product you are comparing doesn't measure up. Yet he seemed to be content to point out why the "strong" points of Linux weren't really that strong, without realizing what he was really saying.
Huh? If it's bad that you can't get your changes into the "official" source tree, doesn't that imply that it's much worse not being able to modify the kernel at all? Because unless I missed the announcement, JP will not have very much success getting his changes incorporated into the Windows kernel, and probably have a lot less success modifying the kernel at all.
Now we find that companies that add features that aren't accepted into the core distribution will need to redevelop and retest every time a new version of Linux is released. A new distribution? I am afraid that he doesn't know what he's talking about here. Does he mean a distribution as in Debian? Nay, he appears to mean a distribution as in 2.2.9 -> 2.2.10. At any rate, I guess one of the benefits is that once you've developed for Windows, no further development or testing needs to be done. Your code will run on all further releases and updates to Windows as is. Huh? I suppose this is why everytime Microsoft releases a Service Pack, software needs to be tested against it to see what it breaks.
I shouldn't even need to waste my time on this one. Whereas Microsoft's products are integrated so tightly with one another that you can't replace any part with any other, Linux is built on an open-API, POSIX compliant subsystem, allowing modularized applications with the ability to have a flexible solutions that allows you to meet your needs in every situation. Sounds like Linux's "weak" point is stronger the Windows there too.
Well, I'm not going to write a whole essay on his article, other people have said enough. However, his last comment needs a reply. He's shown what Linux can do that Windows can't, if he's serious he should show what Windows can do that Linux can't.
-BrentI think that Unix is an enterprise OS Server. That's where Bill wants to go next. I consider a departmental OS Server's to be doing things like file servers and groupware stuff. Ie, competing against Netware and Linux. In this market MS does remain the dominant departmental OS.
Yet notice the intro of the report where it has a disclaimer that this group represents largely Microsoft customers and the results are likely to reflect a skewed response in that direction. All the results should be interpreted with this in mind. For instance, Exchange was given a figure of 65% as the principal corporate messaging software. If this were a survey of Lotus customers in the same demographics, probably Notes/Domino would have had a larger figure.
In conclusion I would have to say that the survey should be interpreted in this manner: In a survey of Microsoft customers you would expect Microsoft's OS to be used as the principal server OS. NT is used on 71% of the departmental servers making it the most dominant server OS. Bill Gates should be pleased and mighty relieved that his Server OS is still used by his customers. Whew!
Now there's a true but very interesting statement. If something is in development then that is perceived that it is synonymous with, say, vapourware. Yet, when Microsoft announces something is "in development," magazines, articles, and editors all praise the wonderful product that Microsoft is going to change the world with. And how it is going to be so much better then what their competitor's have out now!
If the same attitude was used when reporting on Linux, I would expect them to be glowing with praise about the up and coming journaling filesystem, and how it was going to blow all other journaling filsystems out of the water.
It's funny, I'm not seeing any press....
However, Linux doesn't need cheesy articles to compete like Microsoft does. All Linux needs is real-life success stories!!!!! Let Microsoft get bloated editorials praising them. I'll go with actual success stories anytime.
...take advantage of platform features on Windows in this case does not appear to mean the same embrace and destroy strategy as seen in the halloween documents. Instead, Microsoft wants to take standard PERL and optimise it for the Windows platform. It will be the same PERL as before, but will run better. And it will still be Open Source. Thumbs up for Activestate!
http://www.flightgear.org/ is an open-source flight simulator that has a port to Linux.
They describe on their website:
You may be pleasently surprised. Traditionally filtering software filter *out* bad sites. However, it's getting more common unfortunately for filtering software to filter *in* good sites that it allows you to view. I.e. the server will have a list of only 3000 sites that are considered appropriate. That way if you try to see www.santaclause.com which is a nice children's list, if it hasn't been added to the list yet, you're stuck. Same with slashdot.org. This type of filtering *does* catch every bad site. However, surfing the web with only access to amazon.com, travelocity.com, and microsoft.com doesn't tend to be the most fulfilling experience. Let's hope Burger King doesn't use *that* type of filtering. But perhaps they will, because then they can get companies to *pay* them to add their site. Woo-hoo!
Or if they allow telnet you can just logon to your shell account and use Pine :-)
My understanding is that they will only have a client for http. Therefore, no e-mail, no telnet, no IRC. What they mean be no e-mail, I would assume, is that they will have no POP3 or SMTP client, therefore no e-mail. Probably if you had web-based e-mail, that would not be restricted by the proxy. But then again they may block things like SSL and user authentication.
They already said that they would be censoring access. However, it is not said whether they were filtering bad sites out, or good sites in. If they were filtering good sites in, meaning that the proxy server has a list of the sites you can view, instead of a list of sites that you can't view, it makes it more probable that they wouldn't let you get any sort of e-mail.
You are right, it won't be free. It'll cost $20 an hour, but comes with a free meal :-)
Humor aside, you will be right. Advertising is everything. Portal sites are popular these days and Burger King wouldn't miss a chance to get a few extra dollars by advertising to all those people that buy a value-meal. I know that if I got 15 few minutes, I'd use it. OK, not in the way that Burger King expected, but that's beside the point. Most people will use the internet terminals and that means guarenteed viewing for advertisers.Actually, they are making their pages readable by browsers that the intended audience is using. The intended audience is not the Linux market, as it may seem. They know that posted a web page telling about how much better NT is and how it costs different and is supported differently isn't going to cause Linux supporters to change their mind.
I perceive from that page that they consider Linux a threat. Otherwise they would have ignored the whole thing and just been content with the results that they paid for. But now it has backfired on them by creating lot's of good publicity for Linux and bad publicity for NT. So now they create a web page targeted for those how are considering Linux full of tables and tables of useless figures promoting NT, with a little blurb at the top fingering Linux developers.
Did reading the piles of figures change you mind? It didn't do much too mine. Especially where they talks about paper MCSE's and how much more it cost to run a Unix server. Unfortunately, it failed to talk about actual software costs. NT probably isn't cheaper then Linux after you add the costs of extra hardware and licensing fees to the amount you saved by using paper MCSE's who you can afford to pay minimum wage. It makes my glad that I got out of the Microsoft market, to a market where employer's can afford to pay *me* what I'm worth, because they don't have to pay Microsoft.