PC hardware is not consistent. Many distros of Linux are not consistent. (Save for maube Debian, with some real package management.)
I define consistency related to computers as "A supportable method of reproducability."
Case in point. A year ago, we bought a small cluster of 12 linux machines. They were all iedentical, and managing all of them was easy. Now, a year later, the cheap commodity hardware is failing, and I cannot find the "old" hardware anymore. I now have a cluster of 12 machines that are of different configurations with hardware from different vendors. Every machine has something different, and different software configurations are producing different results, either by performance , or reliability, or both.
On our 10 year old cluster of SGI IRIX machines, all the hardware has been consistently the same. When something does break, SGI replaces it with the same part! it works the same way, nothing changes , and my life is much easier. I manage hundreds of machines. I don't need 12 linux machines taking up all my time because the commodity parts, and the OS can't be coordinated, or worse yet, dependency trees, and OS packages don't get managed well at all.
As with the SGI machines, Apple has done a good job of product consistency. In the PC arena, you have to go to the high end IBM, Dell, or HP servers to get any semblance of consistency,and then the price you pay for that "pc server hardware" completely negates any savings you might realize from going with a PC platform. You might as well buy something cheaper that is still consistent, like Apple, or go for the gusto, and get SGI, or Sun machines, while you are spending the money, and at least enjot some consistency,and supportability.
The end result will be that the company suddenly switches entirely to Microsoft products,a nd outsources the entire IT organization, not just your department, and that's the end of it. Then they make a big public announcement that they restructured, and cut a lot of jobs, stock goes up briefly, and they disavow all knowledge of your existance.
What people don't seem to realize is that No matter WHO you register with, NSI STILL gets paid! To become a registrar, all you do is pay over $100,000 USD, and buy access to NSI's interface. All of these other registrars register through NSI! It's all a big fat ass scam, and NSI could care less if they have to handle domains. They get paid regardless. If people leave NSI, it's less work for them, and more work for their customer registrars! No matter how oyu slice it, NSI has all the domains.
Bob, I'm a systems administrator in Siliicon Valley. I agree that we shouldn't punish someone because they are too successful. But success always comes at a price. The average end user consumer gets a great deal! They get a one- stop shop for everything "software" on their computer. Heck, Microsoft even innovates some hardware for PC's too! Yes, the prevalance, and pervasiveness of comuters is overtaking our society at a mind boggling rate. I would even go so far as to say the growth has accelerated beyond anyone's control! The problem is not really about how succesful Microsoft has been. It's more of an issue of who they had to hurt to get there. I am a 10 year veteran of the computer industry. I've watched Microsoft completely crush every competing technology out there, through whatever means necessary. As a compuuter industry professional, I am sorely disappointed at where we are at today. I honestly feel that Microsoft's dominance, if left to it's own devices, is driving us into a "technological dark ages" There are a great many innovative technologies that would have vastly benefitted the computer industryindustry. ALL of them have been sacrificed for the sake of backwards compatibility with old hardware and software. And it's entirely because Microsoft has painted us into this virtual corner with their totally proprietary operating system, and applications that ONLY work on their all too shortsighted proprietary operating system. I happen to LIKE Microsoft office. Microsoft just won't make it for my platform (UNIX). But they probably cannot ever port it to UNIX because it relies on facets of their closed source proprietarty OS that it requires to operate. They use this "integrated" approach to lock people into using an OS that they control, rather than something that the community controls through standards, and concensus. Imagine how boring it would be if GM were the ONLY company who could make the roads you drive, and you could only use a GM car. You could buy a Chrysler, but it wouldn't fit on the road, or the tires wouldn't grip the pavement. So, you could only drive it in the confines of your home or business. I genuinely fear the outcome! Microsoft's sales, and marketing over the past decade has been nothing short of a social engineering masterpiece! Therere are better products, and there always have been. If Microsoft can't buy them, they aggressively crush them with legalities and/or marketing dollars. The trend is disturbing! As en employee of one of Microsoft's competitors, I've watched our corporate family be infiltrated by people loyal to Microsoft products, and have successfully gotten them installed. The social, and political ramifications are very heartbreaking. I'm growing tired of watching my workplacebe torn apart by political battles between corporate IT people who buy what they see on TV the night before, and the engineers I support, who all know there is a better way, but have this Microsoft crap rammed down their throat unvoluntarily. Eventually, the engineers quit, eroding the viability of our once thriving Microsoft competitor. (Divide and conquor works!) The trend is not unlike the inquisition, in a way... the digital dark ages are upon us, and Microsoft's brainwashed everyone into thinking they are the OS/application/internet religion of choice. I, for one, believe wholeheartedly in the division of church and state. Long live Open Source Software! Bryan S. Manternach UNIX Systems Administrator Silicon Valley, CA, USA.
Slashdot Mirror
PC hardware is not consistent. Many distros of Linux are not consistent. (Save for maube Debian,
with some real package management.)
I define consistency related to computers as "A supportable method of reproducability."
Case in point. A year ago, we bought a small cluster of 12 linux machines. They were all iedentical, and managing all of them was easy. Now, a year later, the cheap commodity hardware is failing, and I cannot find the "old" hardware anymore. I now have a cluster of 12 machines that are of different configurations with hardware from different vendors. Every machine has something different, and different software configurations are producing different results, either by performance , or reliability, or both.
On our 10 year old cluster of SGI IRIX machines, all the hardware has been consistently the same. When something does break, SGI replaces it with the same part! it works the same way, nothing changes , and my life is much easier. I manage hundreds of machines. I don't need 12 linux machines taking up all my time because the commodity parts, and the OS can't be coordinated, or worse yet, dependency trees, and OS packages don't get managed well at all.
As with the SGI machines, Apple has done a good job of product consistency. In the PC arena, you have to go to the high end IBM, Dell, or HP servers to get any semblance of consistency,and then the price you pay for that "pc server hardware" completely negates any savings you might realize from going with a PC platform. You might as well buy something cheaper that is still consistent, like Apple, or go for the gusto, and get SGI, or Sun machines, while you are spending the money, and at least enjot some consistency,and supportability.
The end result will be that the company suddenly switches entirely to Microsoft products,a nd outsources the entire IT organization, not just your department, and that's the end of it. Then they make a big public announcement that they restructured, and cut a lot of jobs, stock goes up briefly, and they disavow all knowledge of your existance.
What people don't seem to realize is that No matter WHO you register with, NSI STILL gets paid! To become a registrar, all you do is pay over $100,000 USD, and buy access to NSI's interface. All of these other registrars register through NSI! It's all a big fat ass scam, and NSI could care less if they have to handle domains. They get paid regardless. If people leave NSI, it's less work for them, and more work for their customer registrars! No matter how oyu slice it, NSI has all the domains.
Bob, I'm a systems administrator in Siliicon Valley. I agree that we shouldn't punish someone because they are too successful. But success always comes at a price. The average end user consumer gets a great deal! They get a one- stop shop for everything "software" on their computer. Heck, Microsoft even innovates some hardware for PC's too! Yes, the prevalance, and pervasiveness of comuters is overtaking our society at a mind boggling rate. I would even go so far as to say the growth has accelerated beyond anyone's control! The problem is not really about how succesful Microsoft has been. It's more of an issue of who they had to hurt to get there. I am a 10 year veteran of the computer industry. I've watched Microsoft completely crush every competing technology out there, through whatever means necessary. As a compuuter industry professional, I am sorely disappointed at where we are at today. I honestly feel that Microsoft's dominance, if left to it's own devices, is driving us into a "technological dark ages" There are a great many innovative technologies that would have vastly benefitted the computer industryindustry. ALL of them have been sacrificed for the sake of backwards compatibility with old hardware and software. And it's entirely because Microsoft has painted us into this virtual corner with their totally proprietary operating system, and applications that ONLY work on their all too shortsighted proprietary operating system. I happen to LIKE Microsoft office. Microsoft just won't make it for my platform (UNIX). But they probably cannot ever port it to UNIX because it relies on facets of their closed source proprietarty OS that it requires to operate. They use this "integrated" approach to lock people into using an OS that they control, rather than something that the community controls through standards, and concensus. Imagine how boring it would be if GM were the ONLY company who could make the roads you drive, and you could only use a GM car. You could buy a Chrysler, but it wouldn't fit on the road, or the tires wouldn't grip the pavement. So, you could only drive it in the confines of your home or business. I genuinely fear the outcome! Microsoft's sales, and marketing over the past decade has been nothing short of a social engineering masterpiece! Therere are better products, and there always have been. If Microsoft can't buy them, they aggressively crush them with legalities and/or marketing dollars. The trend is disturbing! As en employee of one of Microsoft's competitors, I've watched our corporate family be infiltrated by people loyal to Microsoft products, and have successfully gotten them installed. The social, and political ramifications are very heartbreaking. I'm growing tired of watching my workplacebe torn apart by political battles between corporate IT people who buy what they see on TV the night before, and the engineers I support, who all know there is a better way, but have this Microsoft crap rammed down their throat unvoluntarily. Eventually, the engineers quit, eroding the viability of our once thriving Microsoft competitor. (Divide and conquor works!) The trend is not unlike the inquisition, in a way... the digital dark ages are upon us, and Microsoft's brainwashed everyone into thinking they are the OS/application/internet religion of choice. I, for one, believe wholeheartedly in the division of church and state. Long live Open Source Software! Bryan S. Manternach UNIX Systems Administrator Silicon Valley, CA, USA.