... nd then parcel the work out into manageable bits. Let the implementation details be documented by the individual coders as comments within the actual code!
The only thing I would add to this is that, at the design level, I find way too many people get WAY too into the details of a project. As the post to which I am responding said, algorithms first, details later. You never know exactly how you're going to need to fit parts X, Y, and Z together once part AA rears its ugly head. It's much more efficient to expect and plan for an evolution of model ahead of time than to expect to be able to plan for every contingency.
My main problem with *BSD personally is that you still have to install most of the GNU tools by hand due to *BSD licensing/NIH/minimalism issues. I prefer to have a reasonably featureful command set out of the box.
This hits on something that the article, and most bsd'ers, fail to mention. I hear a lot of people citing the stability and security of *BSD compared to linux, but it's not an even comparison. If you compare kernel-to-kernel, they're probably about equal. Most linuces ship with a far greater spread of applications than the *BSDs, and are therefore mathematically more likely to contain a set of exploitable code.
So, until someone comes up and says, "codewise, thise, this, and this methodology are employed in SomeBSD and are proven more stable/secure/sexy," I don't buy it. the BSD's I've played with are, at heart, just like linux, without the toys. I like toys.
And, of course, as soon as you prove a linuxism wrong, someone will fix it. IF BSD really _was_ better, someone would have adopted the code long ago.
Long rant short, it's all the same crap. Shut up and code.
The K7^H^H Athlon (reminds me of "athlete" BTW) uses the same Slot connector as the PII's and PIII's for economies sake but it uses a different motherboard chipset. Erm. No, it does not. It uses the 'slot B' designed by alpha and mentioned in another/. article today. It also uses the much-sexy Alpha bus, and should be able to cream Intel boxen in system-to-system benchmarks once the engineers bring the full weight of the technology to bear.
1) Someone find the Taco an editor. We love you, Rob, but your grammar sucks.
2) Ahahahaha! If these were the worst repsonses they got, I need to warm up my flame-o-matic. Most of those were tame and ultra-typical net-trash flames. Of course MC aren't going to publish the well thought-out responses. As someone else pointed out, they don't understand how open discussions of linux with netizens work. Welcome, friends, to the modern internet.
-- Ensuring that 2.0.X users don't get forced to upgrade. (What? You want to run Gnome 2.0? That requires gtk1.4 which only support glibc 2.2.3 which requires Linux 2.6)
Argh.. no. Glibc compiles on AIX, IRIX, etc, etc, etc.. Things like that have nothing to do with the kernel. (- generalization for sake of clarity.)
The things that DO matter as far as 'upgrading' a kernel are exactly what the previous person mentioned, support for hardware and features. If you want really GOOD NFS support, you're 'forced' to upgrade. Some programs might use, for instance, features of a newer kernel, (the new procfs comes to mind) but that is hardly a forced upgrade.
So, you make a choice. Live with your old kernel, or learn to use methods other than rpm to install software. No one's forcing you to do anything.
Do what I did.. (On the South AIX desk) Find every single unused PC in sight and install linux on it. People will get used to it, fast. Then they will covet it. It grows.
Interesting point, and driven home today when the formerly-clueless-but-now-my-favorite-human-being- on-the-planet Justice Thomas Jackson today brought up that self-same point in the courtroom. Read it here.
Actually, it seems like a really easy way to check for faked responses is to occaionally send data from which a known response can be expected. If they send back a fake response, send a second set of data for verification. If that is also falsified, use the client to upload a pirate copy of Office (TM/R/) 2000 and then send an anonymous email to piracy@deathbyfacistsoftware.com.
Again, I think you are wrong here. The future of computers insn't power or flexibility. It's simplicity. And let's face it, the simplest solution is an all in one box.
I pray to god that I'm not around for THAT future. Anyone who trades power and flexibility for simplicty ends up with exactly what they deserve, a useless lump of shite taking up space on their desk until it's time to replace it.
Hahaaha.. *shrug* If it runs linux, I'll put it to some trivial task and shove it under my desk with the rest of em.. Think about it.. "This is my DNS bunny. This is my SETI@HOME fish. And, of course, my showpiece, the Squid flower."
Comments from a reseller by dbryson on Monday June 07, @12:06AM EDT (User Info) http://www.techass.com As a reseller, I would like you to note that the best price I can get on an Official Redhat Linux is $70 plus shipping. From their (Redhat's) official distributor, the best I can get is $74.
How am I as a reseller, supposed to resell Redhat Linux 6.0 at $79.99?
Derry, kudos for trying to Do The Right Thing, but.. You can download, or buy, a single copy of RH linux, burn all the cds, photocopy the manuals, and sell it for whatever profit you want.
I've been on/. a while, and this is the first post I've ever felt a need to move above '0' to read. AC's (in general, of course), please, get some sort of random clue.
1) No one said anything about open sourcing Code Warrior../configure;make;make install doesn't generally get you real far without source to compile. (Yes, i know, you could do all of those things to discover libs and set up an.rc paths)
2) For everyone complaining about the 'instability' of 'red hat' in whatever way you mean it.. Post details. I think you're either lying, or you don't have a clue as to what you're doing.
3) They did say 'support' RH Linux. That probably does mean call in and get help, not 'it won't run on any other distro.' Hell, download redhat, get a cd burner, and make your own distro. Whammo, it instantly works on another, non-supported platform. And you're in control! Feel better?
Red Hat is not evil. They are not microsoft. Saying things like that only instantly makes you glow with the 'I'm a clueless contrarian' aura.
Jesus H _CHRIST_ I'm sick of articles like this. Here's my fave quotes:
fulfilling the predictions of open-source skeptics by beginning to fragment into incompatibility, just as Unix did before it?
That's right, folks, this whole thing of having to recompile a @$%@!#$%#$ binary means that most unices are incompatable with one another. Also, I'm totally imagining that I have a workstation in front of me displaying programs running on _3_ "incompatable" unices.
no more cumbersome "mount" commands necessary to access files stored there. I could get Netscape or WordPerfect running with a minimum of labor. On my machine at work, I connected via ethernet to the office network on my first attempt. At home, to my enduring astonishment, I was even able to configure PPP and connect to the Net -- on my first try.
_whatever_. If you can't use a command as simple as mount, you just plain don't need linux. As for binary applications.. erm.. like most other applications, ya, *gasp* type the command and it *gasp* works.
Linus is a popular figure and is admired, nay, revered by the community. How could this be an undesirable thing?
Argh! Enough of this crap about 'the community!' While the collective actions of its more vocal users are important to the continuing growth and outreach potential of linux, they are not more important than the functionality of the OS to a single user.
I think that might be what Linus was getting at. If not, well, there's my opinion. Community is a buzzword, and is becoming as damning as it is encouraging. We've got the mass-media dolts saying things like "well, the linux community is pushing for linux in the enterprise!" Total crap. Let's not be a community. Let's be an autonomous collective of motivated individuals who happen to share an affinity for a certain unix-like operating system.
IMHO, the diversity of linux users and developers is far, far more important than our similiarites. Viva la differenace! Down with the followers.:)
to me, the most telling thing is that NS's stock _rose_ a buck fifty on the announcement that they're divesting themselves of that nightmare processor division.
I hope that the backlash from the more forward of my Linux-loving brethren doesn't just put you into auto-delete-my-mail-mode.. A lot of people see what they want to see, and read what they want to read, no matter what is meant..
In any case, I agree with your article, but one part of it is a little sticky for me, and it's something that I've just plain heard too much of lately.
Linux is not ready for the enterprise. Correct. Now, explain to me again, who is saying that Linux _is_ ready for the enterprise? Linus? Alan Cox?
No. For the most part, it's members of the various trade presses, people who don't understand the rigors of high-transaction computing. It's easy to tell where someone's coming from; if they mention NT, they don't really MEAN enterprise computing.
On the other hand, when most people talk about Linux, they're referring to i386 Linux. From what I understand, other ports do a much better job of scaling. But, still, I don't think any of the people who actually design and implement the kernel are fooling themselves. Saying in a press article that Linux isn't ready for the enterprise is little more than preaching to the choir.:)
Regards,
-- Blue Lang AIX Systems Administrator IBM Global Services Division
Everything you've said probly typifies the life , current or prior, of an average slashdotter. Maybe I'm a little heavy on darwinism, in whatever context, but there are precious few people with golden lives.
Yes, many people are afraid of difference. Yes, it is terrible to spend a youth oppressed. But, there's more to it than just 'I'm being abused!'
Life is not rosey. The market is not rosey. When these kids move on to jobs, they will be competition with their peers and betters. No one will make fun of them for what they wear, but pressure of some sort will always exist.
I guess, to nutshell it, yes, it sucks to different and laughed at. It also sucks to be shot in the chest.
Take life's lessons, and grow from them. Don't abuse others, but don't expect to be treated well or fairly. I'm a complete introvert; I could never just jump in someone's face when I was younger. But, we grow and we learn. Those kids being oppressed and picked on will either get stronger, or they'll snap and shoot everyone. Some people will react to it the right way, and some the wrong. Glorifying or glamorizing _either_ viewpoint is equally wrong.
People interested in getting things done are just doing them and not whining. Hopkins FBI is sitting in my cubicle and CivCTP is sitting on my machine at home because it's the can-do's and not the cant-be-done's that drive Linux. This person, anonymous and cowardly tho they may be, has hit on exactly the point of my comment. To hell with the corporations and their vaporous standards. Look around, see if anyone else is doing what you want to do, and, if there IS a standard, code to it. If not, hack, hack, hack, and fix it later. And, what the hell is this about lack of gui standards? Do any of the people who say things like this actually program? Do they know any 'developers?' Enough of the buzzwords! Shut up and code, or shut up and use, or shut up and write a damned RFC for your magical missing standards.
I just don't comprehend where these people come up with some of this stuff. Applications developers are shying away from linux because of a lack of standards? Does this statement not fly directly in the face of recent history? Which developers are these? MS's office quite development team?
One thing that always gets to me when people talk about linux, or, really, anything, is the artificial generation of limitations. If there's one thing both the GNU tools and the linux kernel are based on, it's standards.
Maybe what they meant to say is, "My company has an agenda. Part of that agenda is the adoption of certain methodologies and naming conventions. Unless I make you all afraid that not adopting these conventions will hurt linux, my company is less likely to post large profits, and I may not be able to afford my new boat. Please post lots of comments about how linux needs to conform to my standards, in order that my 5 year old child might be more assured the joy of killing numerous large fish this summer. Thanks."
Here's a clue, pal, and folks. Linux does not 'need' anything but to keep doing what it does. Linux does not 'need' adoption by anyone. Whether the media trumpets its every google and spittle or not, it will continue to rise, and continue to rule.
-- MS has 22 billion dollars in cash, and none of it is mine.
I just don't comprehend where these people come up with some of this stuff. Applications developers are shying away from linux because of a lack of standards? Does this statement not fly directly in the face of recent history? Which developers are these? MS's office development team?
One thing that always gets to me when people talk about linux, or, really, anything, is the artificial generation of limitations. If there's one thing both the GNU tools and the linux kernel are based on, it's standards.
Maybe what they meant to say is, "My company has an agenda. Part of that agenda is the adoption of certain methodologies and naming conventions. Unless I make you all afraid that not adopting these conventions will hurt linux, my company is less likely to post large profits, and I may not be able to afford my new boat. Please post lots of comments about how linux needs to conform to my standards, in order that my 5 year old child might be more assured the joy of killing numerous large fish this summer. Thanks."
Here's a clue, pal, and folks. Linux does not 'need' anything but to keep doing what it does. Linux does not 'need' adoption by anyone. Whether the media trumpets its every google and spittle or not, it will continue to rise, and continue to rule.
-- MS has 22 billion dollars in cash, and none of it is mine.
Interesting article, in that it almost glorifies drug use. Other than the opening paragraph, all it talks about are a bunch of wealthy Gen X'ers out having a great time and getting wasted on the weekends. This is bad, how?
I personally don't do drugs, but I also don't give a damn whether anyone else does either, as long as they keep their drunken/stoned/whatever nonsense at a reasonable distance.. I think that if this article wanted to have any sort of impact on anyone, it maybe should have told the story of someone in the IT industry who, altho brilliant, is now manning some crap win95 phone desk somewhere because of a felony possession charge. Said person now gets to spend one day a month for the next, oh, 10 years peeing in a cup and telling her PO how much she likes her job.
And, never, ever, will she get a nice, comfy corporate desk job.
Ok, so, this article possibly referenced the 'study' done a while ago that placed AIX first place. So, with my trusty rs/6000 to my left and my linux box to the right, let's compare logging:
AIX: Logging Sucks. Linux: Logging Rules. NT: NT does logging?
well, there we have it, a fairly comprehensive examination of the logging capabilites of each.
Of course, there's no arguing about SMP on rs/6k's.. it's awesome. But, with the way things are going around here, we can expect to see IBM SMP techonology go to linux loooong before it goes to NT.
Slashdot Mirror
... nd then parcel the work out into manageable bits. Let the
implementation details be documented by the individual coders as comments within the actual code!
The only thing I would add to this is that, at the design level, I find way too many people get WAY too into the details of a project. As the post to which I am responding said, algorithms first, details later. You never know exactly how you're going to need to fit parts X, Y, and Z together once part AA rears its ugly head. It's much more efficient to expect and plan for an evolution of model ahead of time than to expect to be able to plan for every contingency.
--
blue
My main problem with *BSD personally is that you still have to install most of the GNU tools by hand due to *BSD licensing/NIH/minimalism issues. I prefer to have a reasonably featureful command set out of the box.
This hits on something that the article, and most bsd'ers, fail to mention. I hear a lot of people citing the stability and security of *BSD compared to linux, but it's not an even comparison. If you compare kernel-to-kernel, they're probably about equal. Most linuces ship with a far greater spread of applications than the *BSDs, and are therefore mathematically more likely to contain a set of exploitable code.
So, until someone comes up and says, "codewise, thise, this, and this methodology are employed in SomeBSD and are proven more stable/secure/sexy," I don't buy it. the BSD's I've played with are, at heart, just like linux, without the toys. I like toys.
And, of course, as soon as you prove a linuxism wrong, someone will fix it. IF BSD really _was_ better, someone would have adopted the code long ago.
Long rant short, it's all the same crap. Shut up and code.
The K7^H^H Athlon (reminds me of "athlete" BTW) uses the same Slot connector as the PII's and PIII's for economies sake but it uses a different motherboard chipset. /. article today. It also uses the much-sexy Alpha bus, and should be able to cream Intel boxen in system-to-system benchmarks once the engineers bring the full weight of the technology to bear.
Erm. No, it does not. It uses the 'slot B' designed by alpha and mentioned in another
1) Someone find the Taco an editor. We love you, Rob, but your grammar sucks.
2) Ahahahaha! If these were the worst repsonses they got, I need to warm up my flame-o-matic. Most of those were tame and ultra-typical net-trash flames. Of course MC aren't going to publish the well thought-out responses. As someone else pointed out, they don't understand how open discussions of linux with netizens work. Welcome, friends, to the modern internet.
--
blue
-- Ensuring that 2.0.X users don't get forced to upgrade. (What? You want to run Gnome 2.0? That requires gtk1.4 which only support glibc 2.2.3 which requires Linux 2.6)
Argh.. no. Glibc compiles on AIX, IRIX, etc, etc, etc.. Things like that have nothing to do with the kernel. (- generalization for sake of clarity.)
The things that DO matter as far as 'upgrading' a kernel are exactly what the previous person mentioned, support for hardware and features. If you want really GOOD NFS support, you're 'forced' to upgrade. Some programs might use, for instance, features of a newer kernel, (the new procfs comes to mind) but that is hardly a forced upgrade.
So, you make a choice. Live with your old kernel, or learn to use methods other than rpm to install software. No one's forcing you to do anything.
And, hell, if you don't like it, learn C.
--
blue
If I were David Brinn, nine digits worth of sour grapes might make me wanna slam TPM and Lucas too.
--
blue
Do what I did.. (On the South AIX desk) Find every single unused PC in sight and install linux on it. People will get used to it, fast. Then they will covet it. It grows.
--
blue
Interesting point, and driven home today when the formerly-clueless-but-now-my-favorite-human-being- on-the-planet Justice Thomas Jackson today brought up that self-same point in the courtroom.
Read it here.
WE HAVE YOUR PROCESSER. GIVE US YOUR FILE SYSTEM.
Seriously, this is great news. The more big unices we absorb, the more kick-ass hardware we support, the more money I get paid to play with linux.
Thanks Linus, RMS, and crew!
Actually, it seems like a really easy way to check for faked responses is to occaionally send data from which a known response can be expected. If they send back a fake response, send a second set of data for verification. If that is also falsified, use the client to upload a pirate copy of Office (TM/R/) 2000 and then send an anonymous email to piracy@deathbyfacistsoftware.com.
Again, I think you are wrong here. The future of computers insn't power or flexibility. It's simplicity. And let's face it, the simplest solution is an all in one box.
I pray to god that I'm not around for THAT future. Anyone who trades power and flexibility for simplicty ends up with exactly what they deserve, a useless lump of shite taking up space on their desk until it's time to replace it.
--
blue
Hahaaha.. *shrug* If it runs linux, I'll put it to some trivial task and shove it under my desk with the rest of em.. Think about it.. "This is my DNS bunny. This is my SETI@HOME fish. And, of course, my showpiece, the Squid flower."
--
blue
Comments from a reseller
by dbryson on Monday June 07, @12:06AM EDT
(User Info) http://www.techass.com
As a reseller, I would like you to note that
the best price I can get on an Official Redhat
Linux is $70 plus shipping. From their (Redhat's)
official distributor, the best I can get is $74.
How am I as a reseller, supposed to resell Redhat
Linux 6.0 at $79.99?
Derry, kudos for trying to Do The Right Thing, but.. You can download, or buy, a single copy of RH linux, burn all the cds, photocopy the manuals, and sell it for whatever profit you want.
Welcome to free software.
--
blue
I've been on /. a while, and this is the first post I've ever felt a need to move above '0' to read. AC's (in general, of course), please, get some sort of random clue.
./configure;make;make install doesn't generally get you real far without source to compile. (Yes, i know, you could do all of those things to discover libs and set up an .rc paths)
1) No one said anything about open sourcing Code Warrior.
2) For everyone complaining about the 'instability' of 'red hat' in whatever way you mean it.. Post details. I think you're either lying, or you don't have a clue as to what you're doing.
3) They did say 'support' RH Linux. That probably does mean call in and get help, not 'it won't run on any other distro.' Hell, download redhat, get a cd burner, and make your own distro. Whammo, it instantly works on another, non-supported platform. And you're in control! Feel better?
Red Hat is not evil. They are not microsoft. Saying things like that only instantly makes you glow with the 'I'm a clueless contrarian' aura.
Have a nice life,
--
blue - Only runs the bluenix distro.
Jesus H _CHRIST_ I'm sick of articles like this. Here's my fave quotes:
fulfilling the predictions of open-source skeptics by beginning to
fragment into incompatibility, just as Unix did before it?
That's right, folks, this whole thing of having to recompile a @$%@!#$%#$ binary means that most unices are incompatable with one another. Also, I'm totally imagining that I have a workstation in front of me displaying programs running on _3_ "incompatable" unices.
no more cumbersome "mount" commands necessary to
access files stored there. I could get Netscape or WordPerfect
running with a minimum of labor. On my machine at work, I
connected via ethernet to the office network on my first attempt. At
home, to my enduring astonishment, I was even able to configure
PPP and connect to the Net -- on my first try.
_whatever_. If you can't use a command as simple as mount, you just plain don't need linux. As for binary applications.. erm.. like most other applications, ya, *gasp* type the command and it *gasp* works.
Ugh. Morons.
Linus is a popular figure and is admired, nay, revered by the community. How could this be an
:)
undesirable thing?
Argh! Enough of this crap about 'the community!' While the collective actions of its more vocal users are important to the continuing growth and outreach potential of linux, they are not more important than the functionality of the OS to a single user.
I think that might be what Linus was getting at. If not, well, there's my opinion. Community is a buzzword, and is becoming as damning as it is encouraging. We've got the mass-media dolts saying things like "well, the linux community is pushing for linux in the enterprise!" Total crap. Let's not be a community. Let's be an autonomous collective of motivated individuals who happen to share an affinity for a certain unix-like operating system.
IMHO, the diversity of linux users and developers is far, far more important than our similiarites. Viva la differenace! Down with the followers.
to me, the most telling thing is that NS's stock _rose_ a buck fifty on the announcement that they're divesting themselves of that nightmare processor division.
Hi John,
:)
I hope that the backlash from the more forward of my Linux-loving brethren
doesn't just put you into auto-delete-my-mail-mode.. A lot of people see
what they want to see, and read what they want to read, no matter what is
meant..
In any case, I agree with your article, but one part of it is a little
sticky for me, and it's something that I've just plain heard too much of
lately.
Linux is not ready for the enterprise. Correct. Now, explain to me again,
who is saying that Linux _is_ ready for the enterprise? Linus? Alan Cox?
No. For the most part, it's members of the various trade presses, people
who don't understand the rigors of high-transaction computing. It's easy
to tell where someone's coming from; if they mention NT, they don't really
MEAN enterprise computing.
On the other hand, when most people talk about Linux, they're referring to
i386 Linux. From what I understand, other ports do a much better job of
scaling. But, still, I don't think any of the people who actually design
and implement the kernel are fooling themselves. Saying in a press article
that Linux isn't ready for the enterprise is little more than preaching to
the choir.
Regards,
--
Blue Lang
AIX Systems Administrator
IBM Global Services Division
Everything you've said probly typifies the life , current or prior, of an average slashdotter. Maybe I'm a little heavy on darwinism, in whatever context, but there are precious few people with golden lives.
Yes, many people are afraid of difference. Yes, it is terrible to spend a youth oppressed. But, there's more to it than just 'I'm being abused!'
Life is not rosey. The market is not rosey. When these kids move on to jobs, they will be competition with their peers and betters. No one will make fun of them for what they wear, but pressure of some sort will always exist.
I guess, to nutshell it, yes, it sucks to different and laughed at. It also sucks to be shot in the chest.
Take life's lessons, and grow from them. Don't abuse others, but don't expect to be treated well or fairly. I'm a complete introvert; I could never just jump in someone's face when I was younger. But, we grow and we learn. Those kids being oppressed and picked on will either get stronger, or they'll snap and shoot everyone. Some people will react to it the right way, and some the wrong. Glorifying or glamorizing _either_ viewpoint is equally wrong.
People interested in getting things done are just doing them and not whining. Hopkins FBI is sitting in my cubicle and CivCTP is sitting on my machine at home because it's the can-do's and not the cant-be-done's that drive Linux.
This person, anonymous and cowardly tho they may be, has hit on exactly the point of my comment. To hell with the corporations and their vaporous standards. Look around, see if anyone else is doing what you want to do, and, if there IS a standard, code to it. If not, hack, hack, hack, and fix it later. And, what the hell is this about lack of gui standards? Do any of the people who say things like this actually program? Do they know any 'developers?' Enough of the buzzwords! Shut up and code, or shut up and use, or shut up and write a damned RFC for your magical missing standards.
I just don't comprehend where these people come up with some of this stuff. Applications developers are shying away from linux because of a lack of standards? Does this statement not fly directly in the face of recent history? Which developers are these? MS's office quite development team?
One thing that always gets to me when people talk about linux, or, really, anything, is the artificial generation of limitations. If there's one thing both the GNU tools and the linux kernel are based on, it's standards.
Maybe what they meant to say is, "My company has an agenda. Part of that agenda is the adoption of certain methodologies and naming conventions. Unless I make you all afraid that not adopting these conventions will hurt linux, my company is less likely to post large profits, and I may not be able to afford my new boat. Please post lots of comments about how linux needs to conform to my standards, in order that my 5 year old child might be more assured the joy of killing numerous large fish this summer. Thanks."
Here's a clue, pal, and folks. Linux does not 'need' anything but to keep doing what it does. Linux does not 'need' adoption by anyone. Whether the media trumpets its every google and spittle or not, it will continue to rise, and continue to rule.
--
MS has 22 billion dollars in cash, and none of it is mine.
I just don't comprehend where these people come up with some of this stuff. Applications developers are shying away from linux because of a lack of standards? Does this statement not fly directly in the face of recent history? Which developers are these? MS's office development team?
One thing that always gets to me when people talk about linux, or, really, anything, is the artificial generation of limitations. If there's one thing both the GNU tools and the linux kernel are based on, it's standards.
Maybe what they meant to say is, "My company has an agenda. Part of that agenda is the adoption of certain methodologies and naming conventions. Unless I make you all afraid that not adopting these conventions will hurt linux, my company is less likely to post large profits, and I may not be able to afford my new boat. Please post lots of comments about how linux needs to conform to my standards, in order that my 5 year old child might be more assured the joy of killing numerous large fish this summer. Thanks."
Here's a clue, pal, and folks. Linux does not 'need' anything but to keep doing what it does. Linux does not 'need' adoption by anyone. Whether the media trumpets its every google and spittle or not, it will continue to rise, and continue to rule.
--
MS has 22 billion dollars in cash, and none of it is mine.
Interesting article, in that it almost glorifies drug use. Other than the opening paragraph, all it talks about are a bunch of wealthy Gen X'ers out having a great time and getting wasted on the weekends. This is bad, how?
I personally don't do drugs, but I also don't give a damn whether anyone else does either, as long as they keep their drunken/stoned/whatever nonsense at a reasonable distance.. I think that if this article wanted to have any sort of impact on anyone, it maybe should have told the story of someone in the IT industry who, altho brilliant, is now manning some crap win95 phone desk somewhere because of a felony possession charge.
Said person now gets to spend one day a month for the next, oh, 10 years peeing in a cup and telling her PO how much she likes her job.
And, never, ever, will she get a nice, comfy corporate desk job.
Ok, so, this article possibly referenced the 'study' done a while ago that placed AIX first place. So, with my trusty rs/6000 to my left and my linux box to the right, let's compare logging:
:)
AIX: Logging Sucks.
Linux: Logging Rules.
NT: NT does logging?
well, there we have it, a fairly comprehensive examination of the logging capabilites of each.
Of course, there's no arguing about SMP on rs/6k's.. it's awesome. But, with the way things are going around here, we can expect to see IBM SMP techonology go to linux loooong before it goes to NT.
Go big Blue!