Personally, I'd prefer to use the tool that does the job the best. If that tool is "open-source", so be it. But if it's not, I'd still rather use that than use something of lesser quality just so that I can know I'km using "open-source" software.
Software may be proprietary, but standards do exist that allow for the movement of your data from one system to another. So long as I never lose access to that, I stand by my point.
Look at the ads MS runs for SQL Server in the mags that SQL Server admins presumably won't read, such as Business Week.
It states that you'll need fewer admins because the software is that much easier.
Good thing I'm in no way involved with SQL Server, but this seems to be happening across the board in the MS world... "Smatter" apps that require fewer admins... where are they all supposed to go?
PERL, TCL/TK, BIND, and SENDMAIL, I'll give you those... I'll even throw in X (and the ability to add more to that list as we deem fit)
Apache was derived from what? NCSA?
Linux (NOT bashing Linux here, afterall, I do use it for my file servers) is really just another variant of Unix.
X, I would say is innovative.
Motif was as well. But LessTif?
KDE and GNOME don't really bring much to the table that doesn't already exist. They're just free.
Then there's PGP/B - it's free already, source codes available... but then GNU goes and makes GNUGP presumably to evade RSA's patents. Why shouldn't RSA get money. They expended the real $$$ and effort in the first place.
So long as NAS remains available for other platforms, I'd doubt this is anything like the conspiracy that (some of)/. is making it out to be...
Doesn't NAS still run on Solaris, NT Server, HP-UX, and Digital Unix, at least? If Sun were really conspiring, I'd assume that they'd pull support for NT and announce a port for Linux. That way, people would use NAS on Linux on x86 at the low-end, and eventually, migrate up to NAS on Solaris on SPARC.
Just because they're unixes, doesn't mean they're competeing... they have completely different markets, I think...
What you just said mirrors what MS said in those halloween documents to a T. You'd be doing exactly what MS does, find a product that works, make a blatant copy of it, and then sell it for a lower price. But because it is now "open-source" that's supposed to make it all better for the company who made the initial investment to get product to market in the first place.
In a few instances, I've been impressed, but overall it seems that the open source doesn't really contribute anything back to the world, aside from source code. Where's the innovation? At least MS was first on the block with a unified-browser interface (though it sucks!!!)... Then KDE appears and lo and behold, it's got an integrated browser! Where's the originality?
That's exactly what was implied. It takes a much larger GIF or MP3 to cloak insert a text file into rather than just encrypting the text and sending that. Say you want to send a 10KB document. You'd need to mask it within 90KB of other info. Therefore, you need higher sustained bandwidth if you do this regularly.
Ooooooh! Poor programmers don't get to make encryption products to sell overseas! I feel for them. Not like they can find a job doing anything else, like maybe making that multithreaded TCP stack that linux seems to need. Last time i looked there was a huge need for C, C++, PERL, Python, you name it developers in the Boston area.
So, please don't say it hamstrings our programmers! :)
Well, let Saddam shell out the $$ for the book, programmer and Visual Basic. Everythings doable, but just because you can do it doesn't mean it should be legal.
I'm all for privacy - I encourage everyone i know to use PGP, but I just because the internet has created this global community, i don't feel its appropriate that we just give up on our sense of law and order.
I'm all for privacy. I can send PGP'ed email back and forth with my friends, Saddam can develop his own, I don't think that we should say that its fine that since he can we'll just give it to him is all
You can bear arms. Youn can arm bears. What you can't do is take that gun onto a plane. Try entering Britain with that gun. Nor can you buy a gun and give it to a felon.
Well, just like handguns require a 7 day wait in massachusetts. If one wanted, they could do like that guy in new york did and spring $300 for roundtrip airfare to FL, buy a gun and come back to Massachusetts with it. But just because I can do that doesn't mean its legal or right.
We don't export nuclear missiles to other nations. Oracle isn't allowed to sell their database software to enemy countries. SGI IBM and Sun can't export their computers to enemy countries. They all manage to get this technology anyways. Does this make it right? No. But should we make it easier and say its okay? I don't think so.
I haven't gotten my 8.1 for linux yet... I did get my 8.0.5... but then again i've recieved DB2 for NT from IBM, but not yet for Linux... is it a conspiracy?
Rather than breaking up MS, which doesn't really help us consumers at all, why not simply require MS to publish a price list to OEMs. Allow no discounts (or "co-oped advertising") beyond volume discounts. Require them to sell Windows to all OEMs at these prices. Let OEMs add whatever value they'ed like to their package.
Lastly, I like McNealy's idea of barring them from making an aquisitions for the next 5 years
A few months ago, Linux was "relegated" to being useful only as a non-critical webserver - now it's usable for: "file and print servers, Web servers, low-cost number crunchers for scientific computing, and inexpensive, limited-function "thin" client computers."
And so far as the other criticisms... Enterprise computing is still uncharted territory for Linux. It's going to take time before people start accepting it as being as stable as the other Unixes... But at least it's now being considered in the same league.
SMP - I forgot where I read it - maybe on the FreeBSD site - but FreeBSD outperforms linux SMP by 17% - so obviously there's room for improvement, no?
The other limitations may only be a hardware issue (memory support, etc...) but they're still an issue. Just because Linux is hampered by the hardware it runs on, it doesn't mean that it's not an issue affecting the adoption of Linux in the enterprise workspace.
Overall, the article, in my eyes, more pointed the way towards where Linux needs to go in the future. Too bad it's on CNET where if it's not good, it's gotta be bad...
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'd prefer to use the tool that does the job the best. If that tool is "open-source", so be it. But if it's not, I'd still rather use that than use something of lesser quality just so that I can know I'km using "open-source" software.
Software may be proprietary, but standards do exist that allow for the movement of your data from one system to another. So long as I never lose access to that, I stand by my point.
Look at the ads MS runs for SQL Server in the mags that SQL Server admins presumably won't read, such as Business Week.
It states that you'll need fewer admins because the software is that much easier.
Good thing I'm in no way involved with SQL Server, but this seems to be happening across the board in the MS world... "Smatter" apps that require fewer admins... where are they all supposed to go?
If the software becomes commoditized, so will we.
Then there's PGP/B - it's free already, source codes available... but then GNU goes and makes GNUGP presumably to evade RSA's patents. Why shouldn't RSA get money. They expended the real $$$ and effort in the first place.
That's incredibly short-sighted. The real big question should be "Does it work?"
Open source is nice. Fully funtional is better.
So long as NAS remains available for other platforms, I'd doubt this is anything like the conspiracy that (some of) /. is making it out to be...
Doesn't NAS still run on Solaris, NT Server, HP-UX, and Digital Unix, at least? If Sun were really conspiring, I'd assume that they'd pull support for NT and announce a port for Linux. That way, people would use NAS on Linux on x86 at the low-end, and eventually, migrate up to NAS on Solaris on SPARC.
Just because they're unixes, doesn't mean they're competeing... they have completely different markets, I think...
What you just said mirrors what MS said in those halloween documents to a T. You'd be doing exactly what MS does, find a product that works, make a blatant copy of it, and then sell it for a lower price. But because it is now "open-source" that's supposed to make it all better for the company who made the initial investment to get product to market in the first place.
In a few instances, I've been impressed, but overall it seems that the open source doesn't really contribute anything back to the world, aside from source code. Where's the innovation? At least MS was first on the block with a unified-browser interface (though it sucks!!!)... Then KDE appears and lo and behold, it's got an integrated browser!
Where's the originality?
Lucas----preparing to be flamed!
That's exactly what was implied. It takes a much larger GIF or MP3 to cloak insert a text file into rather than just encrypting the text and sending that. Say you want to send a 10KB document. You'd need to mask it within 90KB of other info. Therefore, you need higher sustained bandwidth if you do this regularly.
Ooooooh! Poor programmers don't get to make encryption products to sell overseas! I feel for them. Not like they can find a job doing anything else, like maybe making that multithreaded TCP stack that linux seems to need. Last time i looked there was a huge need for C, C++, PERL, Python, you name it developers in the Boston area.
So, please don't say it hamstrings our programmers!
:)
Well, let Saddam shell out the $$ for the book, programmer and Visual Basic. Everythings doable, but just because you can do it doesn't mean it should be legal.
I'm all for privacy - I encourage everyone i know to use PGP, but I just because the internet has created this global community, i don't feel its appropriate that we just give up on our sense of law and order.
I'm all for privacy. I can send PGP'ed email back and forth with my friends, Saddam can develop his own, I don't think that we should say that its fine that since he can we'll just give it to him is all
Well, would you want to use MS Crypto if they did??? ;)
You can bear arms. Youn can arm bears. What you can't do is take that gun onto a plane. Try entering Britain with that gun. Nor can you buy a gun and give it to a felon.
Well, just like handguns require a 7 day wait in massachusetts. If one wanted, they could do like that guy in new york did and spring $300 for roundtrip airfare to FL, buy a gun and come back to Massachusetts with it. But just because I can do that doesn't mean its legal or right.
We don't export nuclear missiles to other nations. Oracle isn't allowed to sell their database software to enemy countries. SGI IBM and Sun can't export their computers to enemy countries. They all manage to get this technology anyways. Does this make it right? No. But should we make it easier and say its okay? I don't think so.
I haven't gotten my 8.1 for linux yet... I did get my 8.0.5... but then again i've recieved DB2 for NT from IBM, but not yet for Linux... is it a conspiracy?
Oracle itself is a software company. The second largest (last time i heard) with only Microsoft being larger.
:)
Oracle8i is a really powerful database. It's the thing that powers sites like ebay and amazon - though i guess ebay wouldn't be a good example!
Rather than breaking up MS, which doesn't really help us consumers at all, why not simply require MS to publish a price list to OEMs. Allow no discounts (or "co-oped advertising") beyond volume discounts. Require them to sell Windows to all OEMs at these prices. Let OEMs add whatever value they'ed like to their package.
Lastly, I like McNealy's idea of barring them from making an aquisitions for the next 5 years
Who here doesn't think that the NSA wouldn't be the coolest place in the world to work???
I, for one, would love it...
Who here doesn't think that the NSA wouldn't be the coolest place in the world to work???
A few months ago, Linux was "relegated" to being useful only as a non-critical webserver - now it's usable for: "file and print servers, Web servers, low-cost number crunchers for scientific computing, and inexpensive, limited-function "thin" client computers."
And so far as the other criticisms... Enterprise computing is still uncharted territory for Linux. It's going to take time before people start accepting it as being as stable as the other Unixes... But at least it's now being considered in the same league.
SMP - I forgot where I read it - maybe on the FreeBSD site - but FreeBSD outperforms linux SMP by 17% - so obviously there's room for improvement, no?
The other limitations may only be a hardware issue (memory support, etc...) but they're still an issue. Just because Linux is hampered by the hardware it runs on, it doesn't mean that it's not an issue affecting the adoption of Linux in the enterprise workspace.
Overall, the article, in my eyes, more pointed the way towards where Linux needs to go in the future. Too bad it's on CNET where if it's not good, it's gotta be bad...
-----------------