Who the hell moderated this down? Jesus, this post is funny, insightful, and even contains a smattering of pathos.
It's also on-topic, relevant, and every other thing a good post should be. His point is, in fact, the very first thing that went through my mind when I saw the article. Sendmail is a very non-user (and admin) friendly program. Get it? See? It's FUNNY, idiot.
If you don't understand a post, for the love of god, don't moderate it. Just go turn your little 'I want to moderate' button _off_ and leave those of us who post with some depth of understanding alone.
This bullshit just plain disgusts me. If they do in fact get a patent/trademark, can someone else still do their own genome database from scratch?
If not, then it is very, very important indeed that the HGP continue to work alone.. If we have two databases, and one is in the public domain, then we'll be ok.. People who want to pay for free data can do so, just like they do with sendmail pro.:P
I also love the first quote, from the doctor: "I don't work at a company, I work at a hospital."
I said this on monday (and got moderated down for it:P ), but, I don't think Nielson's opinions are valid outside of commerical web pages.
I think the his pages are must-reads for people writing e-commerce sites of any type, or any sort of corporate web page - anything to do with customers, but I think they fail completely when faced with productivity applications.
He even points out that there have been no real studies done on advanced users and their habits, and that things like vi/emacs are out of his realm.
What does interest me is that fact that he doesn't make that same admission about linux. Linux per se has no useability, it is a kernel without an interface (unless you count a buncha APIs and good ol'/proc + cat, which I personally think is the height of useability.:)
So, anyways, it's not fair to him or yourself to apply this stuff to your OS or your favorite editor. That is not where the core of his research lay.
-- Blue, who is himself very useable. (Only one button!)
an apathetic stance toward this. yeah, so you might not see it as all that important - but look at it this way: if they can fit the tens of billions on a single chip, think how small they could make a chip that only needed 27 million?
We're apathetic because, as someone said earlier, this is ancient news. Just being able to etch a leeeeeetle tiny impression doesn't solve any of the real problems of making useable high-speed computing circuits at the atomic level.
Yeah, maybe it's cool that they actually made a box and did it, but I don't think anyone was questioning that ability to do so. In fact, I don't wonder if they did it for reasons other than pure science (big DUH, here). I'm sure there's some other company coming out with competing technology, and they just wanted to show em up.
And things like this are never bad for the friday stock run.
hy should I have to pay more just so I don't get unpleasant surprises? I've been told it's economic reality - if something (privacy, f'rinstance) is valuable, I should be willing to pay for it.
Actually, I think it's the other way around. (Well, this is an excuse I've heard..)
Companies are theoretically able to subsidize sale of goods by gathering information - in other words, because they can make money from your info, they can (theoretically) charge you less for the product.
Of course this doesn't actually happen - they charge whatever the market will bear and still do whatever they want with your info.
The same reply, more or less, goes to the guy who mentioned a world without advertising. If there we no commercials, there would be no free television.. Of course, I don't own a Tv, but..
In the end, it really is all about greed, just like almost every-damn-other thing out there. They do it because they can, and fuck us if we don't like it.
Information about me, and what I do, is no one's business but my own. Every company that wishes to archive or sell information about you should be forced to have you _explicitly_ sigh an agreement to do so.
One thing that drives me nuts about so many of the companies that archive and sell personal info on customers is that they tag the 'doing it to improve service' bullshit onto it. Improve service, my ass. They just want more money out of you per sale.
I personally would be willing to pay more per transaction from a company that I knew would NEVER divuldge my personal information. How bout the rest of you?
Actually, that's not necessarily true. In many jurisdictions, for example, owning a crack pipe with intent to sell the crack pipe is a felony.
Hi.
I see that none of you caught the gentle sarcasm implicit in my post. I was trying to explain that, in cases like this, legality is determined by, well, your skin color, as well as what the cop thinks you're going to do with that screwdriver.
Same thing with crack(). See the article on SJ Games for a further exposition, and I promise to type in smaller words with less attempted humor, since it usually costs me karma.:P (Of course, what good is karma, if not to burn on moderators who aren't capable of understanding when someone is trying to make a point by some method other than misquoting obscure techonotrivia about which said moderator understands nothing?)
-- blue I support the trolls in favor of moderation abolition. I also think grits posts are usually funny. Lighten up, folks.
They were NOT busted just for possessing lophtcrack, they were busted for stealing usernames, passwords, and customer lists.
Just like there's nothing wrong with owning a crack pipe until you get caught with crack, there's nothing wrong with owning crack() until you get caught cracking.
No offense, but you call that winning? It lost to it's competitors categorically and across the board - hits, latency, cost/performance.. what's the good news? Anyone?
Hi.
If you'd kindly point your browser back to the top of the screen, you might take a moment to re-read the post. Squid+FBSD did well. The ICS-based solutions cost bazillions of bux0rs and brought along 100+GB disk array, and, pound for pound, were not that much better. The microbits entry did rock, and it's about the size of a personal pan pizza.
there's a reason i posted that it's important to READ the ARTICLE, not just grab the first table you see and start wallowing about.
Given.. there is a ton of really good info in there, especially the network configurations (each company brought their own network) and disk configurations, etc.
:P. So I'm thinking, damn,/. will post anything, won't they. Turns out I wasn't far off. I'm having an informal bof session in my living room tommorrow night. I think I'll call it 'XMMS.'
There is not a single recorded instance of Linux being successfully used anywhere.
YES!! This means that I get to be the first person EVER to go on record as saying:
Linux is currently being used successfully in all five of my home computers, both workstations and three servers at work, and powers my coffee machine with alacrity.
I am truely indebted to your trollfullness for this opportunity.
Thanks!
-- blue, who wants Amazon's piss out of his well-water, and who also wants Tim O for prez.
Frankly, the studies Nielsen cites are far less subjective than your post.
Sure, but my post starts with "i personally think," which, to most people, is in indicator of self-recognized subjective content to follow.:P
Are you really saying that when you visit a new site for the first time, you're willing to spend weeks learning to use it before deciding whether you like it or not? Personally, I just click back and move on if it isn't clear what the site's for and how to use it.
Actually, I was mainly referencing the 'experienced vs new users' article, and comparing it with use of applications - as the general thread of this (/.) article is 'how does linux stand up.' And, again, I stand by my statement - If the application, even if it is a web site - has deep functionality that is difficult to express in a quickly-learnable format, then it is acceptable for that application to require attentive use.
Most of Mr. Nielson's articles seem directed at managers, etc - they are based on 'marketing' style research aimed at the greatest common factor of 'users,' - which aren't really users in the software sense, but are actually customers. No software user is going to be allowed to look at an application for 10 seconds and then drop it, while, I suppose, that is every customer's right.
So, if you're trying to apply 'useability' in the software sense to commercial applications, (corporate web pages) which are really advertisements and methods for selling things, I disagree that useability is any sort of factor at all. What you really want is glitz, glam, naked petrified actresses with bouncy breasts.. you know.. television, brought to you via the web.
Do you really think the software examples you list wouldn't be better if they were easier to learn and use, if they could be made easier to learn without losing functionality?
Certainly the most simple interface with which the most work can be done is the most desireable, if you're trying to do work, but I don't really think that linux or vim have any place in comparison with Mr. Nielson's useability research.
I personally think Mr. Nielson's opinions are a crock o' pooh. While I'm sure that he's thought a great deal about 'useability,' it all seems to come from a very subjective viewpoint, and seems to be aimed more at making things simple, with advanced functionality layered on for the more 'advanced' user.
That's fine and all, but, in practice, it's often a waste of time. One of the major tenants of his viewpoint is that 'learning new interfaces is hard.' While that's true in some cases, some of the most deeply functional software I've ever used has had a bit of a curve. Take vim, or even linux, for instance. Yes, it can take you a week or so to get into using vim, but once you've got the hang of it, your productivity increases manyfold. It is, therefore, a very, very useable product.
So, what Mr. Nielson is really positing is not useability, but 'ease of learning,' to which I reply - In an ideal application, the learning curve should exactly match the the depth of functionality inherent within. If that means something is difficult to learn, but infintely rewarding once learned (vis: linux), then that product's useability is high.
This idea of 'learning is hard,' btw, was also brought up by that tit a few weeks ago, who trashed linux's useability.:P
Fuck them all. If you don't feel like learning, go the fuck back to bed, or watch some TV, or something.
Thank you, and I welcome my journey to -1.
-- blue
Re:Garbage Collection is for Incompetent Programme
on
The New Garbage Man
·
· Score: 1
I mean complicated, not the namby-pamby things you get in programs dealing with pure computer problems. If so then not having to do something that's as error prone as ensuring correct new/delete behaviour is a bonus that lets you solve your problems quicker.
I think this line of thinking is plain ol wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're giving up tons of performance, especially in cases of, as you said, REALLY complex data. For instance, if you're using something that takes care of all the memory management for you and allows you to concentrate solely on the problem, something like, say, java, you might be able to express your data conversion routine quickly, but oh-my-god is it ever going to suck to actually parse a few gigs of data.
At that point, having efficient memory management AND a tight loop could save you hours or even days of mining time.
Bottom line: anything that gets me the answers I want from my programs with less programming effort is a good thing.
Be sure to put that at the front of your user manual, I'm sure the people waiting on your code to do what THEY want will appreciate your insight.:) And, damn is it ever funny that that post got moderated up. -- blue
play softball, raquetball, do some pullups. i play drums, and, even tho i've been typing non-stop for the last 6 or so years, have never had any sort of problems or strain.
keeping yourself relaxed and limber, imho, is a much better (overall, as well) investment than silly split keyboards.
and, if it's mounted to your chair, you cant get horizontal and type from your lap - one of the true joys of computing.:)
I suggest running a 2.3 kernel.. It's fun. A lot of people don't seem to want to run devel kernels for fear of them crashing - but I've had very, very good luck w/the 2.3 series.
one: according to my cursory search, this is the ninth c|net story posted to/. in the month of february. clue to everyone reading/. - read www.news.com - it's good, and there are no grits.
clue to those of you who post this stuff: c|net has a daily email digest. you can just procmail it straight into HTML.
two: On top of the above, isn't it sort of ironic that Taco makes fun of articles about compilers, when/. is written in perl?
see the state of the JVM under Linux as being close to a toy.
I think the implication of your post is much more interesting than just 'java doesn't run well on linux.'
What this (teir-1 support for solaris, goat-blowing support for linux) mostly accomplishes is continued degradation of a core-value of java: write once, run anywhere. Not only does it not work, it hasn't ever worked, and even if it does work, it doesn't work well enough to be useable in the Real World.
So, as usual, instead of disparaging linux and the blackdown crew, I think it's important to keep the blame right where it belongs: on Sun. If they REALLY wanted Java to be a ubiquitous standard, they'd release it all and let the people who do the work have at it.
All in all, NOTHING works perfectly across all platforms, not/bin/sh scripts, not perl, hell, not even terminal emulation. But the projects which are most open seem to have the most luck with being truly portable.
Is the fact that a lot of code used in linux can also be used in other unices. Not so in Windows. Windows programs usually install pre-built binaries, *nix (free) programs don't.
There are a ton of package managers out there for binaries - and it's a fairly easy thing to manage. But before you go on and on and on about how much linux package managers suck, realize that you're talking about 2 different paradigms.
Also remember that you'll no longer give a damn about packages once you've actually learned to use your *nix of choice.:)
IBM is _really_ starting to bug me with this crap. Their support of linux has thus far been mostly just hype. I had linux running on one of these NCs _months_ ago - all you have to do is export your display back to it and run a window manager - there is no 'porting' required.
The NC runs X windows natively. It does not run linux. It will not run linux. It can DISPLAY linux, just like any other Unix box with X11>R5 running.
They're just supplying a steady stream of press releases to the public to make ppl think they actually give a shit.
What really happens is that one person in the company is bored and ports something over, then, after keeping it secret for a long time, getting into a fight with his/her manager, and pulling strings to keep the linux box around, someone in marketing hears about it and says, woah, wait, Linux is now a buzzword.
At least, that's what happened to me, and everyone else at IGS when I worked there.
I don't care what any of these benchmarks say, I've used Linux, BSD, NT, DYNIX, Solaris, AIX, and Novell in the Real World, and they ALL suck pretty much equally. Static performance benchmarks are the biggest load of shit ever to grace geek press - they simply have nothing at all to do with what happens when you put a server on a network and let users have at it.
I _still_ prefer linux, because, in the Real World, it is the easiest by FAR to use. If you're talking about REAL servers, then a GUI is _useless_, because the box itself is prolly a long ways away from you. What matters is TOOLS, and linux ships the tools. Perl, expect, tcl/tk, compilers, the friggin works, it's in there. Fuck a GUI, I want to automate my backups over the network, I want to do it for free, and I want it done in an hour or less. I cost my company an assload of money per hour, and I have better things to do with it than click widgets and reboot.
Slashdot Mirror
Who the hell moderated this down? Jesus, this post is funny, insightful, and even contains a smattering of pathos.
It's also on-topic, relevant, and every other thing a good post should be. His point is, in fact, the very first thing that went through my mind when I saw the article. Sendmail is a very non-user (and admin) friendly program. Get it? See? It's FUNNY, idiot.
If you don't understand a post, for the love of god, don't moderate it. Just go turn your little 'I want to moderate' button _off_ and leave those of us who post with some depth of understanding alone.
Danke,
--
blue
The human genome is NOT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!
:P
This bullshit just plain disgusts me. If they do in fact get a patent/trademark, can someone else still do their own genome database from scratch?
If not, then it is very, very important indeed that the HGP continue to work alone.. If we have two databases, and one is in the public domain, then we'll be ok.. People who want to pay for free data can do so, just like they do with sendmail pro.
I also love the first quote, from the doctor: "I don't work at a company, I work at a hospital."
Someone needs a little clue-stick action.
--
blue
I said this on monday (and got moderated down for it :P ), but, I don't think Nielson's opinions are valid outside of commerical web pages.
/proc + cat, which I personally think is the height of useability. :)
I think the his pages are must-reads for people writing e-commerce sites of any type, or any sort of corporate web page - anything to do with customers, but I think they fail completely when faced with productivity applications.
He even points out that there have been no real studies done on advanced users and their habits, and that things like vi/emacs are out of his realm.
What does interest me is that fact that he doesn't make that same admission about linux. Linux per se has no useability, it is a kernel without an interface (unless you count a buncha APIs and good ol'
So, anyways, it's not fair to him or yourself to apply this stuff to your OS or your favorite editor. That is not where the core of his research lay.
--
Blue, who is himself very useable. (Only one button!)
an apathetic stance toward this. yeah, so you
might not see it as all that important - but look at it this way: if they can fit the tens of
billions on a single chip, think how small they could make a chip that only needed 27
million?
We're apathetic because, as someone said earlier, this is ancient news. Just being able to etch a leeeeeetle tiny impression doesn't solve any of the real problems of making useable high-speed computing circuits at the atomic level.
Yeah, maybe it's cool that they actually made a box and did it, but I don't think anyone was questioning that ability to do so. In fact, I don't wonder if they did it for reasons other than pure science (big DUH, here). I'm sure there's some other company coming out with competing technology, and they just wanted to show em up.
And things like this are never bad for the friday stock run.
--
blue, corporate conspiracy theorist.
--
blue
hy should I have to pay more just
so I don't get unpleasant surprises? I've been told it's economic reality - if something
(privacy, f'rinstance) is valuable, I should be willing to pay for it.
Actually, I think it's the other way around. (Well, this is an excuse I've heard..)
Companies are theoretically able to subsidize sale of goods by gathering information - in other words, because they can make money from your info, they can (theoretically) charge you less for the product.
Of course this doesn't actually happen - they charge whatever the market will bear and still do whatever they want with your info.
The same reply, more or less, goes to the guy who mentioned a world without advertising. If there we no commercials, there would be no free television.. Of course, I don't own a Tv, but..
In the end, it really is all about greed, just like almost every-damn-other thing out there. They do it because they can, and fuck us if we don't like it.
Love it or lump it.
--
blue
Information about me, and what I do, is no one's business but my own. Every company that wishes to archive or sell information about you should be forced to have you _explicitly_ sigh an agreement to do so.
One thing that drives me nuts about so many of the companies that archive and sell personal info on customers is that they tag the 'doing it to improve service' bullshit onto it. Improve service, my ass. They just want more money out of you per sale.
I personally would be willing to pay more per transaction from a company that I knew would NEVER divuldge my personal information. How bout the rest of you?
--
blue
What's even more ironic is that he ended his comment with a reference to the minimum PID. :)
:)
You're right about the humor impaired, though.. Well, you may not be right, but I agree with you.
--
blue
Actually, that's not necessarily true. In many jurisdictions, for example, owning a crack
:P (Of course, what good is karma, if not to burn on moderators who aren't capable of understanding when someone is trying to make a point by some method other than misquoting obscure techonotrivia about which said moderator understands nothing?)
pipe with intent to sell the crack pipe is a felony.
Hi.
I see that none of you caught the gentle sarcasm implicit in my post. I was trying to explain that, in cases like this, legality is determined by, well, your skin color, as well as what the cop thinks you're going to do with that screwdriver.
Same thing with crack(). See the article on SJ Games for a further exposition, and I promise to type in smaller words with less attempted humor, since it usually costs me karma.
--
blue
I support the trolls in favor of moderation abolition. I also think grits posts are usually funny. Lighten up, folks.
They were NOT busted just for possessing lophtcrack, they were busted for stealing usernames, passwords, and customer lists.
Just like there's nothing wrong with owning a crack pipe until you get caught with crack, there's nothing wrong with owning crack() until you get caught cracking.
--
blue
No offense, but you call that winning? It lost to it's competitors categorically
and across the board - hits, latency, cost/performance.. what's the good
news? Anyone?
Hi.
If you'd kindly point your browser back to the top of the screen, you might take a moment to re-read the post. Squid+FBSD did well. The ICS-based solutions cost bazillions of bux0rs and brought along 100+GB disk array, and, pound for pound, were not that much better. The microbits entry did rock, and it's about the size of a personal pan pizza.
there's a reason i posted that it's important to READ the ARTICLE, not just grab the first table you see and start wallowing about.
:)
--
blue
Given.. there is a ton of really good info in there, especially the network configurations (each company brought their own network) and disk configurations, etc.
Cache the world!
--
blue
:P. So I'm thinking, damn, /. will post anything, won't they. Turns out I wasn't far off. I'm having an informal bof session in my living room tommorrow night. I think I'll call it 'XMMS.'
--
blue
There is not a single recorded instance of Linux being successfully used
anywhere.
YES!! This means that I get to be the first person EVER to go on record as saying:
Linux is currently being used successfully in all five of my home computers, both workstations and three servers at work, and powers my coffee machine with alacrity.
I am truely indebted to your trollfullness for this opportunity.
Thanks!
--
blue, who wants Amazon's piss out of his well-water, and who also wants Tim O for prez.
Frankly, the studies Nielsen cites are far less subjective than your post.
:P
Sure, but my post starts with "i personally think," which, to most people, is in indicator of self-recognized subjective content to follow.
Are you really saying that when you visit a new
site for the first time, you're willing
to spend weeks learning to use it before deciding whether you like it or not?
Personally, I just click back and move on if it isn't clear what the site's for and how
to use it.
Actually, I was mainly referencing the 'experienced vs new users' article, and comparing it with use of applications - as the general thread of this (/.) article is 'how does linux stand up.' And, again, I stand by my statement - If the application, even if it is a web site - has deep functionality that is difficult to express in a quickly-learnable format, then it is acceptable for that application to require attentive use.
Most of Mr. Nielson's articles seem directed at managers, etc - they are based on 'marketing' style research aimed at the greatest common factor of 'users,' - which aren't really users in the software sense, but are actually customers. No software user is going to be allowed to look at an application for 10 seconds and then drop it, while, I suppose, that is every customer's right.
So, if you're trying to apply 'useability' in the software sense to commercial applications, (corporate web pages) which are really advertisements and methods for selling things, I disagree that useability is any sort of factor at all. What you really want is glitz, glam, naked petrified actresses with bouncy breasts.. you know.. television, brought to you via the web.
Do you really think the software examples you list wouldn't be better if they were
easier to learn and use, if they could be made easier to learn without losing
functionality?
Certainly the most simple interface with which the most work can be done is the most desireable, if you're trying to do work, but I don't really think that linux or vim have any place in comparison with Mr. Nielson's useability research.
--
blue
Ok, I've got karma to burn, so here goes:
:P
I personally think Mr. Nielson's opinions are a crock o' pooh. While I'm sure that he's thought a great deal about 'useability,' it all seems to come from a very subjective viewpoint, and seems to be aimed more at making things simple, with advanced functionality layered on for the more 'advanced' user.
That's fine and all, but, in practice, it's often a waste of time. One of the major tenants of his viewpoint is that 'learning new interfaces is hard.' While that's true in some cases, some of the most deeply functional software I've ever used has had a bit of a curve. Take vim, or even linux, for instance. Yes, it can take you a week or so to get into using vim, but once you've got the hang of it, your productivity increases manyfold. It is, therefore, a very, very useable product.
So, what Mr. Nielson is really positing is not useability, but 'ease of learning,' to which I reply - In an ideal application, the learning curve should exactly match the the depth of functionality inherent within. If that means something is difficult to learn, but infintely rewarding once learned (vis: linux), then that product's useability is high.
This idea of 'learning is hard,' btw, was also brought up by that tit a few weeks ago, who trashed linux's useability.
Fuck them all. If you don't feel like learning, go the fuck back to bed, or watch some TV, or something.
Thank you, and I welcome my journey to -1.
--
blue
I mean complicated, not the namby-pamby things you get in programs dealing with pure computer problems. If so then not having to do something that's as error prone as ensuring correct new/delete behaviour is a bonus that lets you solve your problems quicker.
:)
I think this line of thinking is plain ol wrong. I understand what you're saying, but I think you're giving up tons of performance, especially in cases of, as you said, REALLY complex data. For instance, if you're using something that takes care of all the memory management for you and allows you to concentrate solely on the problem, something like, say, java, you might be able to express your data conversion routine quickly, but oh-my-god is it ever going to suck to actually parse a few gigs of data.
At that point, having efficient memory management AND a tight loop could save you hours or even days of mining time.
Bottom line: anything that gets me the answers I want from my programs with less programming effort is a good thing.
Be sure to put that at the front of your user manual, I'm sure the people waiting on your code to do what THEY want will appreciate your insight.
And, damn is it ever funny that that post got moderated up.
-- blue
play softball, raquetball, do some pullups. i play drums, and, even tho i've been typing non-stop for the last 6 or so years, have never had any sort of problems or strain.
:)
keeping yourself relaxed and limber, imho, is a much better (overall, as well) investment than silly split keyboards.
and, if it's mounted to your chair, you cant get horizontal and type from your lap - one of the true joys of computing.
--
blue
I suggest running a 2.3 kernel.. It's fun. A lot of people don't seem to want to run devel kernels for fear of them crashing - but I've had very, very good luck w/the 2.3 series.
--
blue
one: according to my cursory search, this is the ninth c|net story posted to /. in the month of february. clue to everyone reading /. - read www.news.com - it's good, and there are no grits.
/. is written in perl?
clue to those of you who post this stuff: c|net has a daily email digest. you can just procmail it straight into HTML.
two: On top of the above, isn't it sort of ironic that Taco makes fun of articles about compilers, when
Maybe not.
--
blue, burning karma because he can.
see the state of the JVM under Linux as being close to a toy.
/bin/sh scripts, not perl, hell, not even terminal emulation. But the projects which are most open seem to have the most luck with being truly portable.
I think the implication of your post is much more interesting than just 'java doesn't run well on linux.'
What this (teir-1 support for solaris, goat-blowing support for linux) mostly accomplishes is continued degradation of a core-value of java: write once, run anywhere. Not only does it not work, it hasn't ever worked, and even if it does work, it doesn't work well enough to be useable in the Real World.
So, as usual, instead of disparaging linux and the blackdown crew, I think it's important to keep the blame right where it belongs: on Sun. If they REALLY wanted Java to be a ubiquitous standard, they'd release it all and let the people who do the work have at it.
All in all, NOTHING works perfectly across all platforms, not
--
blue
Is the fact that a lot of code used in linux can also be used in other unices. Not so in Windows. Windows programs usually install pre-built binaries, *nix (free) programs don't.
:)
There are a ton of package managers out there for binaries - and it's a fairly easy thing to manage. But before you go on and on and on about how much linux package managers suck, realize that you're talking about 2 different paradigms.
Also remember that you'll no longer give a damn about packages once you've actually learned to use your *nix of choice.
--
blue
IBM is _really_ starting to bug me with this crap. Their support of linux has thus far been mostly just hype. I had linux running on one of these NCs _months_ ago - all you have to do is export your display back to it and run a window manager - there is no 'porting' required.
The NC runs X windows natively. It does not run linux. It will not run linux. It can DISPLAY linux, just like any other Unix box with X11>R5 running.
They're just supplying a steady stream of press releases to the public to make ppl think they actually give a shit.
What really happens is that one person in the company is bored and ports something over, then, after keeping it secret for a long time, getting into a fight with his/her manager, and pulling strings to keep the linux box around, someone in marketing hears about it and says, woah, wait, Linux is now a buzzword.
At least, that's what happened to me, and everyone else at IGS when I worked there.
--
blue
How did they get a press release out today in all this SNOW. The RTP is completely shut down.
Go E-TEAM!
--
Blue
I don't care what any of these benchmarks say, I've used Linux, BSD, NT, DYNIX, Solaris, AIX, and Novell in the Real World, and they ALL suck pretty much equally. Static performance benchmarks are the biggest load of shit ever to grace geek press - they simply have nothing at all to do with what happens when you put a server on a network and let users have at it.
I _still_ prefer linux, because, in the Real World, it is the easiest by FAR to use. If you're talking about REAL servers, then a GUI is _useless_, because the box itself is prolly a long ways away from you. What matters is TOOLS, and linux ships the tools. Perl, expect, tcl/tk, compilers, the friggin works, it's in there. Fuck a GUI, I want to automate my backups over the network, I want to do it for free, and I want it done in an hour or less. I cost my company an assload of money per hour, and I have better things to do with it than click widgets and reboot.
--
blue
http://squid.nlanr.net - search for squidguard.