The logic of the article seem to something like "it is no reason for a coder to do linux/OSS because the chances that he will be one of the few that makes big money on it is very slim".
Hmm.....
Let turn our attention to an other alternative. The coder do some really great/cool/inovative;) proprietary sw on a proprietary operating system (say Winblows). Then the coder future is all golden right? Lets just take some examples.
What about Netscape? some years ago they make this (for the time) incredible product, and what happens? some control freak at M$ goes scared and M$ release a free product to cut Netscape's "air supply". Result Netscape bearly survive with the help of AOL.
Hmm.....
Okay, Okay an other example: Citrix and their MetaFrame, a great idea or what (*nix has had better for years but anyway)! M$ take a look at the Citrix SW and announce that they are already working on, and are going to release a similar product. What happens is that the Citrix stock plunge and lo and behold M$ buy Citrix! And guess what! now they really do have the product. (Maybe the Citrix coders made some money on this anyway? a little.....)
Hmm.....
So I guess the choice is really up to you, take your chances were you know you will get screwed or where you at least have a chance not to. (As the OS is not controlled by a control-freak, or anyone else for that matter).
Take a bit of Generation-X negative mindset, sprinkle it with a bit of FUD and journalist ignorance and what do you have? A crapy www.suck.com linux article.
Great! raster and mandrake in the same company.
on
Rasterman Goes to VA
·
· Score: 1
Yes!
This is just great, raster and mandrake in the same company, I can't wait to see E in say six months.
I think E is one of the things that are gone make Linux/*BSD capture the desktop in the end. (sure M$ knows this to! Just see all the troll's posting here)
Unlike what some people like to claim it is not a slow/freaky/unstable, it is configurable to the point it can look like anything you want (almost), and take as little resources as any other windowmanager. With the Absolute E theme it is a lot faster than the Windows98 gui anyway.
I have been using the version that came with RH6.0 since it came and it has only crashed one or two times, and then probably because of some alpha gnome/kde/x-application.
offtopic: I think it is high time the Linux/OSS/*BSD and/. community realize that there probably is a lot of M$ dronez paid to impersonate Linux/*BSD and/. users here on/. and the other Linux OSS sites and newsgroups. The old OS2 guys say this is the same they did to derail OS2. The difference is that now we are orders of a magnitude more and aware of the M$ juggernaut.
"Words do not seem to play any role," he said, but there was "an associative play of more or less clear images of a visual and muscular type."
Now add to this words the fact that the parts of his brain that handle visual thinking was larger than average. Then read the books "Mind's Eye" and "The Gift of Dyslexia".
Well... of course Einstein really was dyslexic. It is a well know fact by most who have any interest in dyslexia. Newton was not I think, but Leonardo Da Vinci and Thomas Edison (to mention a few) was.
This is really starting to look good. The Mozilla team have made a lot of progress since the last release. I bet that by this get to beta it will be ready to replace 4.XX (and IE for those of you who use that). It renders pages faster than the 4.XX releases on my box (the text loads a lot faster and that is usually the important part 8).
I was not able to crash it at all.
I think the gui design is starting to look very interesting, I always preferred the netscape gui to IE anyway, but I think maybe Mozilla is going to make this even more so. I run linux as a workstation at home and at work, so IE is not an option for me anyway. Even if M$ was to port IE to linux and it performed any thing like it does under windows, It would probably be slower than Mozilla anyway. I did some testing with IE 4.and win98 vs Netscape 4.XX and linux, the last combination was clearly faster on my system, linux may be a big factor here but I bet the IE port to linux would be at least as bloated as the sun port. Anyway I really need IE for linux like I need cancer.
This is excellent work by the Mozilla team and I am really looking forward to the beta and the final release.
In this poll something like 67% of the NT-admins was already running linux!
And in the next 12 months they were one average planning to add more linux than NT-servers!
And this poll was not/.'ed.
This make it seem unlikely that most NT-admins will have any major problems learning linux.
My own experience is also that this is the case. Most of the NT-admins were I work have already tried linux and if they were put the same amount of work they put into learning NT, into learning linux they would hardly have any problems.
This poll also suggest that/. readers should be a lot more careful about bashing NT-admins as there is about a 67% chance that this NT-admin also run Linux!
1. M$ just want to look god to the US Department of justice, and plan to find some excuse to discard this idea later.
2. It is a typical M$ fud missile to of the type "no reason to look into porting your apps to linux because we will also go open source, and then what reason do anyone have to run linux/*BSD" or "no reason to chose linux/*BSD for your server, when we soon.....". And they may not have any real plans to do it is just to slow down linux until they get Win 2000 out.
3. They may actually release the code (or parts of it) in a license some were between NDA and APSL, but they still will want to charge for it just like before, and it would probably be almost impossible to use the code in other projects (like wine) even indirectly.
4. They may have become good guy's and release the code under GPL, or as has been pointed out by a fellow/.'er the OS is now a commodity and they have a better chance of selling their other applications on a windoz-platform than on linux/*BSD. So rather than lose the desktop and servers to linux/*BSD they release their own code in an attempt to stop linux/*BSD.
If the company continues to see Linux "popping up everywhere," Valentine said, it will move to keep its competitive edge.
I think there are some moves they could do, but not with out disappointing their shareholders a LOT!
"Among them are the ability to run simultaneously on many processors in a single computer and to keep a log of what the computer has done"
Fact:
The largest (talking processors) NT server you can get is a 8 processor system from NEC/Zenith/Bull, HP had a 8 processor NT server to, but gave it up. So there are linux boxes with two times as many processors as the largest NT box.
If "keep a log of what the computer has done" is a referring to a journal file system (I have been working with AIX and jfs for years) and it was not clear to me. Then it is true, linux don't have this now (I have heard it is worked on?). But NT don't have this either!
The article may not be intentional FUD but it certainly comes close. Don't expect to see a lot more of articles that bash linux all the way, instead we are in for a lot of "Linux is quite good, but note quite there" FUD. (the same they did to OS/2 I have heard)
There is a bunch of linux is hard to install comments made here. Having a recent experience in installing linux and win 95 on a machine I would like to share my experience with you. But first:
I think the reason winXX often is easier to install is that:
1 M$ assumes you don't have any other operating systems (all the winXX's overwrite the MBR I think).
2 You probably don't need partition you hard disk to install windows, as some form of winXX has probably been on it before.
3 M$ makes a lot of choices for you.
I am sure one could make a linux distro that did the same assumptions and therefore would be as easy to install.
To my own experience, I have a toshiba libretto 50ct on this I wanted both linux and win95. I have no CDROM for this.
To install linux I used a laplink-cable (plip and nfs) and a boot-floppy that's all.
To install windows I had two choices, floppies (all 22 of them, yeah right!), or install dos and the use fastlynx (via laplink again) to copy the contents of the win95 cd to my hard drive and install from there (I did this).
I other words the Win95 install was harder, needed additional sw (fastlynx), and a lot less elegant.
Living in a northern european country that has had mostly socialist governments after the war (not a east block country) I feel I know something about socialism in real life (not theoretical stuff, we don't listen to marketing people when we select our SW and HW, so we don't mind what socialism theoretically should/could have been)
1. Had linux/OSS been socialistic in its nature we would have _had_ to contribute a percentage of our coding/consulting/sysadmin/work to linux/OSS. We would have had no choice how much, and we would not have been able to decide what part of linux/OSS we would contribute to.
2. What path linux/OSS development should follow would have been decided by a small group of leaders. Quite possibly directly or indirecty chosen by democracy, but still a small group.
3. The leaders would have a large group of bureaucrats to control the coders/sysadmins/consultants. This group would be as big and probably bigger than the "coders/sysadmins/consultants" group. This group would have a complete pencil pushing fetish and be almost infinitely ineffective. This group would answer to now one except maybe parts of the leader group (particularly not to the user and "coders/sysadmins/consultants" group).
It is obvious that this is not how the linux/OSS community work. Instead we have complete freedom to decide how much we contribute, and to what projects.
If we don't like the way something is done we can fork the code and do it some new way. If we don't like how a project is handled we can crate a competing project or fork a new project.
Slashdot Mirror
what about the "joyfully, giggling lunatics?", the "merry murdering, child molesters?".
Like this government could make anything like a droide.
I fond his book "Unix Network Programming" more a revelation than just a book. It is truly sad that he is not among us anymore.
My condolences to his family.
The logic of the article seem to something like "it is no reason for a coder to do linux/OSS because the chances that he will be one of the few that makes big money on it is very slim".
;) proprietary sw on a proprietary operating system (say Winblows). Then the coder future is all golden right? Lets just take some examples.
Hmm.....
Let turn our attention to an other alternative. The coder do some really great/cool/inovative
What about Netscape? some years ago they make this (for the time) incredible product, and what happens? some control freak at M$ goes scared and M$ release a free product to cut Netscape's "air supply". Result Netscape bearly survive with the help of AOL.
Hmm.....
Okay, Okay an other example: Citrix and their MetaFrame, a great idea or what (*nix has had better for years but anyway)! M$ take a look at the Citrix SW and announce that they are already working on, and are going to release a similar product. What happens is that the Citrix stock plunge and lo and behold M$ buy Citrix! And guess what! now they really do have the product. (Maybe the Citrix coders made some money on this anyway? a little.....)
Hmm.....
So I guess the choice is really up to you, take your chances were you know you will get screwed or where you at least have a chance not to. (As the OS is not controlled by a control-freak, or anyone else for that matter).
Take a bit of Generation-X negative mindset, sprinkle it with a bit of FUD and journalist ignorance and what do you have? A crapy www.suck.com linux article.
Yes!
/. community realize that there probably is a lot of M$ dronez paid to impersonate Linux/*BSD and /. users here on /. and the other Linux OSS sites and newsgroups. The old OS2 guys say this is the same they did to derail OS2. The difference is that now we are orders of a magnitude more and aware of the M$ juggernaut.
This is just great, raster and mandrake in the same company, I can't wait to see E in say six months.
I think E is one of the things that are gone make Linux/*BSD capture the desktop in the end. (sure M$ knows this to! Just see all the troll's posting here)
Unlike what some people like to claim it is not a slow/freaky/unstable, it is configurable to the point it can look like anything you want (almost), and take as little resources as any other windowmanager. With the Absolute E theme it is a lot faster than the Windows98 gui anyway.
I have been using the version that came with RH6.0 since it came and it has only crashed one or two times, and then probably because of some alpha gnome/kde/x-application.
offtopic:
I think it is high time the Linux/OSS/*BSD and
read this:
Einstein's thought process described by himself:
"Words do not seem to play any role," he said, but there was "an associative play of more or less clear images of a visual and muscular type."
Now add to this words the fact that the parts of his brain that handle visual thinking was larger than average. Then read the books "Mind's Eye" and "The Gift of Dyslexia".
AHAHAHA
Well... of course Einstein really was dyslexic. It is a well know fact by most who have any interest in dyslexia. Newton was not I think, but Leonardo Da Vinci and Thomas Edison (to mention a few) was.
This is not true!
They only display the last two articles posted.
I checked this earlier today myself, the article was there.
This is really starting to look good. The Mozilla team have made a lot of progress since the last release. I bet that by this get to beta it will be ready to replace 4.XX (and IE for those of you who use that). It renders pages faster than the 4.XX releases on my box (the text loads a lot faster and that is usually the important part 8).
I was not able to crash it at all.
I think the gui design is starting to look very interesting, I always preferred the netscape gui to IE anyway, but I think maybe Mozilla is going to make this even more so. I run linux as a workstation at home and at work, so IE is
not an option for me anyway. Even if M$ was to port IE to linux and it performed any thing like it does under windows, It would probably be
slower than Mozilla anyway. I did some testing with IE 4.and win98 vs Netscape 4.XX and linux, the last combination was clearly faster on my
system, linux may be a big factor here but I bet the IE port to linux would be at least as bloated as the sun port. Anyway I really need IE for linux like I need cancer.
This is excellent work by the Mozilla team and I am really looking forward to the beta and the final release.
The article seem to make a lot of assumptions about how hard NT-admins would find it to run Linux.
/.'ed.
/. readers should be a lot more careful about bashing NT-admins as there is about a 67% chance that this NT-admin also run Linux!
A poll conducted by Sunbelt (that I think claims to be the largest online community for NT-users) suggest that this is not the case.
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/0399_ 2000.htm
In this poll something like 67% of the NT-admins was already running linux!
And in the next 12 months they were one average planning to add more linux than NT-servers!
And this poll was not
This make it seem unlikely that most NT-admins will have any major problems learning linux.
My own experience is also that this is the case. Most of the NT-admins were I work have already tried linux and if they were put the same amount of work they put into learning NT, into learning linux they would hardly have any problems.
This poll also suggest that
Now take a look at that link.....
Check the link on the M$ page to "Comparing Windows NT Server Security to UNIX Security ".
It points to "linux weekly news"!
I sure hope no one hacked their site.
He don't, if he did he would not feel he had a reason to say what he did.
This is the sick thing about M$ media relations. Half-truths and lies all the way.
I almost feel sorry for the paranoid BillG. (almost)
I see a some possible reasons for this:
/.'er the OS is now a commodity and they have a better chance of selling their other applications on a windoz-platform than on linux/*BSD. So rather than lose the desktop and servers to linux/*BSD they release their own code in an attempt to stop linux/*BSD.
1. M$ just want to look god to the US Department of justice, and plan to find some excuse to discard this idea later.
2. It is a typical M$ fud missile to of the type "no reason to look into porting your apps to linux because we will also go open source, and then what reason do anyone have to run linux/*BSD" or "no reason to chose linux/*BSD for your server, when we soon.....". And they may not have any real plans to do it is just to slow down linux until they get Win 2000 out.
3. They may actually release the code (or parts of it) in a license some were between NDA and APSL, but they still will want to charge for it just like before, and it would probably be almost impossible to use the code in other projects (like wine) even indirectly.
4. They may have become good guy's and release the code under GPL, or as has been pointed out by a fellow
If the company continues to see Linux "popping up everywhere," Valentine said, it will move to keep its competitive edge.
I think there are some moves they could do, but not with out disappointing their shareholders a LOT!
Don't the windoz dronez ever get a feeling of being cheated?
Now running linux don't just make me feel god, smart, attractive and all of that.
Now running linux make me feel almost rich to.
Just another arrogant linux user.
"Among them are the ability to run simultaneously on many processors in a single computer and to keep a log of what the computer has done"
Fact:
The largest (talking processors) NT server you can get is a 8 processor system from NEC/Zenith/Bull, HP had a 8 processor NT server to, but gave it up. So there are linux boxes with two times as many processors as the largest NT box.
If "keep a log of what the computer has done" is a referring to a journal file system (I have been working with AIX and jfs for years) and it was not clear to me. Then it is true, linux don't have this now (I have heard it is worked on?). But NT don't have this either!
The article may not be intentional FUD but it certainly comes close. Don't expect to see a lot more of articles that bash linux all the way, instead we are in for a lot of "Linux is quite good, but note quite there" FUD. (the same they did to OS/2 I have heard)
There is a bunch of linux is hard to install comments made here. Having a recent experience in installing linux and win 95 on a machine I would like to share my experience with you. But first:
I think the reason winXX often is easier to install is that:
1 M$ assumes you don't have any other operating systems (all the winXX's overwrite the MBR I think).
2 You probably don't need partition you hard disk to install windows, as some form of winXX has probably been on it before.
3 M$ makes a lot of choices for you.
I am sure one could make a linux distro that did the same assumptions and therefore would be as easy to install.
To my own experience, I have a toshiba libretto 50ct on this I wanted both linux and win95. I have no CDROM for this.
To install linux I used a laplink-cable (plip and nfs) and a boot-floppy that's all.
To install windows I had two choices, floppies (all 22 of them, yeah right!), or install dos and the use fastlynx (via laplink again) to copy the contents of the win95 cd to my hard drive and install from there (I did this).
I other words the Win95 install was harder, needed additional sw (fastlynx), and a lot less elegant.
There already exists a desktop chooser XwmMenu, I use it every day.
So after you discover that evolution sort of has left you behind, do you think you have a chance of making a comeback? Maybe marketing?
I would not use a linux box without the GNU stuff for very long. (If it is even possible to make a linux distro without the GNU tools).
Seem to me that a lot of the anti-RMS people don't really get how important a lot of these tool are.
Living in a northern european country that has had mostly socialist governments after the war (not a
east block country) I feel I know something about socialism in real life (not theoretical stuff, we don't
listen to marketing people when we select our SW and HW, so we don't mind what socialism
theoretically should/could have been)
1. Had linux/OSS been socialistic in its nature we would have _had_ to contribute a percentage of
our coding/consulting/sysadmin/work to linux/OSS. We would have had no choice how much, and
we would not have been able to decide what part of linux/OSS we would contribute to.
2. What path linux/OSS development should follow would have been decided by a small group of
leaders. Quite possibly directly or indirecty chosen by democracy, but still a small group.
3. The leaders would have a large group of bureaucrats to control the
coders/sysadmins/consultants. This group would be as big and probably bigger than the
"coders/sysadmins/consultants" group. This group would have a complete pencil pushing fetish
and be almost infinitely ineffective. This group would answer to now one except maybe parts of the
leader group (particularly not to the user and "coders/sysadmins/consultants" group).
It is obvious that this is not how the linux/OSS community work. Instead we have complete freedom
to decide how much we contribute, and to what projects.
If we don't like the way something is done we can fork the code and do it some new way. If we don't
like how a project is handled we can crate a competing project or fork a new project.
Linux/OSS is freedom, socialism is not.