If this is to be GNU licensed software, a business must see a return on its investment while retaining no asset value in the IP itself. Try and understand that business value, put yourself in their shoes, and negotiate a price on that basis.
For instance, if you can offer training, documentation, support, bug-fixing - all can be charged at rates competitive with them having to hire staff. You can offer it all, as the world's #1 expert on the product.
Avoid any exclusivity agreement in case another company wants to hire your expertise.
The web could be faster if web server admins used faster web servers. Zeus Web Server instead of Apache, for example. The Holy Grail of web serving seems to be "good enough is good enough, and performance is someone else's problem".
This page actually lists things that Microsoft does better, in a mostly factual, hype-limited way.
I agree. Its becoming clearer to many companies how to compete with open source. Open source products are built to serve many purposes and often tend to have a "toolkit" approach.
Microsoft focuses on selling its "bundled" approach - where many features are part of the delivered OS environment. What Microsoft does not say is how a lot of the features are a platform play; ie, they force buy-in to the Windows platform. Example: IIS with http engine sunk into the kernel - is bad for the customer who wants to retain platform choice.
Customers need to understand the costs of buy-in to any platform.
Grand ethereal visions"?? What a crock of shit. He modified SGML to create HTML...
Sour grapes? The idea behind a "World Wide Web" did come from Berners-Lee, "hypertext" at that time was theory - we were all "using hypertext" in 1990? I don't think so. Existing tools & protocols were not easy to use - gopher did not hit the spot. He made simple, scalable advance with http/html and encouraged the development of servers and browsers. What he started as a result was something we needed, if not "visionary". The fact that he did it for some unrelated purpose is no surprise - that's how most great inventions happen. Read his book, then comment.
Linus Torvalds also created something for his personal interest, but what it started was also something we needed, or "visionary".
Human systems of thought and morals have changed with the centuries. Always language and culture express them. Are we moving toward global definitions of existence and meaning dictated by computer vendors (re: ontologies) ?
Instead of trying to get adobe to sell us expensive software, we should try to get them to open the pdf specs, so that it
becomes a true standard.
In fact, pdf as used by MacOSX sounds very very interesting...
I'm not disagreeing with you. The fact is, PDF is becoming a "defacto standard" for web sites to publish technical documentation. Of course its not a "true standard", neither is MS Word, but that is the lingua franca of business word processing.
Most if not all computers startups, fast growing companies; ie, the future generation of people who write technical documentation, are using linux. Most if not all web sites with technical info are
moving away from publishing.doc and.ppt files and moving towards publishing.pdf instead.
Its vital for these startups that they can edit their chosen standard for technical documentation.
This decision, IMHO, is neither "good" nor "brave". Frankly, it looks entirely political.
but at least those require the used to actively search, download, and install. It looks like GNOME will be "updated" behind your back
You're a bit out of touch aren't you. Debian has been doing this with dselect and now apt-get for some time. The last time I did any searching downloading and installing was the last RH system I switched to Debian.
Sun may have done some things that have helped promote Linux in some quarters, but as Scott McNealy said: Linux is "a great way to get to the wrong answer". Remember when people were getting excited about the Linux Java port? - as soon as it got onto a Linux CD, Sun's attorneys became "alarmed" and the distribution was put on hold until that was sorted Sun's way. Sun is a platform vendor and they're not interested in free software except how it helps squish Microsoft.
Bungee-Ware: Free Software with elasticated strings attached.
Good luck to Storm! Its good to see a Debian based commercial distribution. I don't see any reason why new distributions cannot be useful and successful if they can differentiate their product. But if the ability to differentiate is eroded we'll start seeing more mergers, I guess.
Given that linux has been available commercially since 1993, and a lot of people still download linux from the net or copy it from friends, I think 10 million+ users sounds like a typical Linus understatement.
Also why does Bob Metcalfe think that anyone would be in the slightest bit interested that he's on some board? That sounds far more like self-promotion to me.
RTFM = Report The First Messup
on
NOS Crossroads
·
· Score: 2
From one of the articles...
For example, when testing the performance of the Apache Web server, which comes bundled with most Linux distributions, we noticed a speed degradation while ramping up clients. After careful examination of the code, we found that the problem related to the number of processes that were immediately spawned by Apache. We edited a parameter in Apache's configuration file to compensate.
Right, "after careful examination of the code" but we forgot to read about the StartServers directive in the manual. Benchmarking people are not going to spend time reading manuals to help linux look good, especially if the commercial products running on the other platforms have nice GUI interfaces for setting these things. How about a "Ready for Benchmark" flag that can only be set if the operator has modified certain things and have a script that can quickly compile a report of all settings that can be published along with the findings?
I've seen very little comment that Linux might actually really be slower on a 4-way. I would be disappointed, but not amazed if Linux were slightly slower on a 4-way given the maturity of NT SMP compared to Linux.
I would like to know if Linux does scale as well or better than NT with 4 and 8 processors -- both systems properly tuned and using the same webserver. When that question is answered, I'd like to know what to expect in the future. Is Linux going to leave NT in the dust, or will this be the key niche ground for NT servers that Microsoft will defend to the end, and Linux will never conclusively defeat?
What's the memory footprint of an Apache server? You need one for each simultaneous connection, don't you? Does that give a clue why it peaks at 1000 requests/s?
If this is supposed to be a comparison between IIS and Apache, then fine. But if its trying to offer a comparison between Linux and NT, its useless.
I suggest Mindcraft re-run the tests using a common webserver. Most web benchmarks I've seen use the Zeus webserver.
This article from the BBC as I read it says he's not challenging the ISPs status as just the carrier (not responsible for content). His lawyers are saying they want that defence to be refused in this case because Demon were requested to remove the article.
So, he's actually requiring ISPs to act in a new role as censors overriding the existing responsibilities of usenet group owners, moderators, and contributors. Was the offending article even posted by another Demon user?
Did Dr Godfrey ask the usenet group moderator to remove the article? If there really is a case to be answered here, its whether usenet group owners/moderators are legally responsible for content. At the end of the day, responsibility for the actions of an individual rest with that individual.
Suppose the moderator of the soc.thai group, or whatever, is supported by their ISP and their govt, in not removing the offending article. What's to stop their ISP putting the article right back?
Seems to me he's only suing Demon because he thinks he's got a better chance than suing the person who is responsible for removing the forgery; ie, the perpetrator. It is not up to an ISP to censor the internet, and I hope Demon fight this vigorously.
Slashdot Mirror
For instance, if you can offer training, documentation, support, bug-fixing - all can be charged at rates competitive with them having to hire staff. You can offer it all, as the world's #1 expert on the product.
Avoid any exclusivity agreement in case another company wants to hire your expertise.
The web could be faster if web server admins used faster web servers. Zeus Web Server instead of Apache, for example. The Holy Grail of web serving seems to be "good enough is good enough, and performance is someone else's problem".
I agree. Its becoming clearer to many companies how to compete with open source. Open source products are built to serve many purposes and often tend to have a "toolkit" approach.
Microsoft focuses on selling its "bundled" approach - where many features are part of the delivered OS environment. What Microsoft does not say is how a lot of the features are a platform play; ie, they force buy-in to the Windows platform. Example: IIS with http engine sunk into the kernel - is bad for the customer who wants to retain platform choice.
Customers need to understand the costs of buy-in to any platform.
I'm just installing the HP secure linux product now. Here.
Sour grapes? The idea behind a "World Wide Web" did come from Berners-Lee, "hypertext" at that time was theory - we were all "using hypertext" in 1990? I don't think so. Existing tools & protocols were not easy to use - gopher did not hit the spot. He made simple, scalable advance with http/html and encouraged the development of servers and browsers. What he started as a result was something we needed, if not "visionary". The fact that he did it for some unrelated purpose is no surprise - that's how most great inventions happen. Read his book, then comment.
Linus Torvalds also created something for his personal interest, but what it started was also something we needed, or "visionary".
Human systems of thought and morals have changed with the centuries. Always language and culture express them. Are we moving toward global definitions of existence and meaning dictated by computer vendors (re: ontologies) ?
:-)
How will the hackers respond?
I'm not disagreeing with you. The fact is, PDF is becoming a "defacto standard" for web sites to publish technical documentation. Of course its not a "true standard", neither is MS Word, but that is the lingua franca of business word processing.
I don't know about MacOSX pdf. Tell us more ...
Most if not all computers startups, fast growing companies; ie, the future generation of people who write technical documentation, are using linux. Most if not all web sites with technical info are .doc and .ppt files and moving towards publishing .pdf instead.
moving away from publishing
Its vital for these startups that they can edit their chosen standard for technical documentation.
This decision, IMHO, is neither "good" nor "brave". Frankly, it looks entirely political.
You're a bit out of touch aren't you. Debian has been doing this with dselect and now apt-get for some time. The last time I did any searching downloading and installing was the last RH system I switched to Debian.
Why the negativity about Corel? They're based on
Debian, and they're bringing excellent stuff to
Linux.
Bungee-Ware: Free Software with elasticated strings attached.
Good luck to Storm! Its good to see a Debian
based commercial distribution. I don't see any
reason why new distributions cannot be useful and
successful if they can differentiate their
product. But if the ability to differentiate
is eroded we'll start seeing more mergers, I
guess.
Given that linux has been available commercially since 1993, and a lot of people still download linux from the net or copy it from friends, I think 10 million+ users sounds like a typical Linus understatement.
Also why does Bob Metcalfe think that anyone would be in the slightest bit interested that he's on some board? That sounds far more like self-promotion to me.
For example, when testing the performance of the Apache Web server, which comes bundled with most Linux distributions, we noticed a speed degradation while ramping up clients. After careful examination of the code, we found that the problem related to the number of processes that were immediately spawned by Apache. We edited a parameter in Apache's configuration file to compensate.
Right, "after careful examination of the code" but we forgot to read about the StartServers directive in the manual. Benchmarking people are not going to spend time reading manuals to help linux look good, especially if the commercial products running on the other platforms have nice GUI interfaces for setting these things. How about a "Ready for Benchmark" flag that can only be set if the operator has modified certain things and have a script that can quickly compile a report of all settings that can be published along with the findings?
I've seen very little comment that Linux might actually really be slower on a 4-way. I would be disappointed, but not amazed if Linux were slightly slower on a 4-way given the maturity of NT SMP compared to Linux.
I would like to know if Linux does scale as well or better than NT with 4 and 8 processors -- both systems properly tuned and using the same webserver. When that question is answered, I'd like to know what to expect in the future. Is Linux going to leave NT in the dust, or will this be the key niche ground for NT servers that Microsoft will defend to the end, and Linux will never conclusively defeat?
www.mindcraft.com
www.netcraft.co.uk
If this is supposed to be a comparison between IIS and Apache, then fine. But if its trying to offer a comparison between Linux and NT, its useless.
I suggest Mindcraft re-run the tests using a common webserver. Most web benchmarks I've seen use the Zeus webserver.
just because it says "eval" - it doesn't expire or break after a certain time frame Damn, I chucked mine when I saw that.
long words. I feel sleepy.
This article from the BBC as I read it says he's not challenging the ISPs status as just the carrier (not responsible for content). His lawyers are saying they want that defence to be refused in this case because Demon were requested to remove the article.
So, he's actually requiring ISPs to act in a new role as censors overriding the existing responsibilities of usenet group owners, moderators, and contributors. Was the offending article even posted by another Demon user?
Did Dr Godfrey ask the usenet group moderator to remove the article? If there really is a case to be answered here, its whether usenet group owners/moderators are legally responsible for content. At the end of the day, responsibility for the actions of an individual rest with that individual.
Suppose the moderator of the soc.thai group, or whatever, is supported by their ISP and their govt, in not removing the offending article. What's to stop their ISP putting the article right back?
Seems to me he's only suing Demon because he thinks he's got a better chance than suing the person who is responsible for removing the forgery; ie, the perpetrator. It is not up to an ISP to censor the internet, and I hope Demon fight this vigorously.