I think you may have a misconception about what 'Linux' really is. It's just a kernel. That's it. The entire CD full of stuff is applications galor, many of which people will *NEVER* use. Linux is just as suited for the embedded market as any other operating system. With limited device support, a kernel could easily fit in under 300k. Add a few applications for manipulating a screen, and it's done. The primary limitation I can see here is that the GUI is most likely provided by NanoGUI or one of the other projects that target a low profile replacement for X. Unless they come up with compatible libraries for NanoGUI, then existing applications cannot simply be 'Run', but require a porting effort.
Something else that needs to be taken into consideration is that none of the Win32 applications technically use the GUI as part of the operating system. It's just a library that ends up working the display. That's it. Moving a peice of code in and out of system versus user space is VERY simple. Just becouse we choose to keep our GUI's in userspace for stability doesn't make it any less OR MORE integrated that any of the GUIs presented by other companies..
The ease of use argument I think is a matter of perspective. Get your grandma. Give her two computers, one running Windows, one running something like Corel Linux. *USABILITY* in this environment will not be any different. Grow up in a Microsoft world, and anything different is, well, strange..;-P
Linux is a VERY viable platform for a PDA, in short..
As a point, it should be noted that SkyLab went up a *LONG* time ago, and *LONG* before Mir ever hit the launch pad. Many experts, US and international alike, agree that Mir, WHILE SUCCESFULL, is *NOT* built with human habitation in mind. Your statment that they learned a great deal in the living quarters area is a really, REALLY bad example. Mir is a small cramped trashcan in the sky.
And on another note, everyone makes a mistake eventually. The US made theirs early on with SkyLab. I'd say you learn more from your mistakes then your accomplishments..
The best example I can say is take these steps, and you can quite literally *WATCH* the software begin to fail simply becouse of CPU resources..
1) Install a 56k Winmodem in a Celeron 300 Machine running Windows NT. (Windows NT is simply becouse of those lovely beeps it'll make to tell you bad things are happening.. Adds affect)
2) Connect to the net, download RealVideo
3) Play *ANY* RealVideo designed to run on a 56k connection (Usually encoded for 42 or 44 something)
4) Listen top the beeps FLY! CRC errors off the chart. That's what happens with the software based drivers.. No resources, buffer overflows about, and CRC errors (Beeps) start playing a fast beat dance song for you..
Re:The reason why it *IS* relevent to slashdot..
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
Yet, you sold your stock, didn't you? You didn't HAVE to. You wouldn't have lost any money as long as it remained higher then what you paid for it.
And the Packers did indeed sell shares, so that they could make money locally without having to move. Stock is about buying a peice of a company. Some buy simply to own a peice of a company they believe in, but it's *BECOUSE THEY BELIEVED IN THE COMPANY*, and their ability to make money. I'd love to see what kind of trading GreenPeace would have if they sold shares. A flash at first, as everyone grammy wants to get a peice of a company that provides a service they believe in. After that, the value plummets, and trading of the stock goes to a trickle..
Hrm.. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Re:The reason why it *IS* relevent to slashdot..
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
Usage by a target audience and mainstream viability of an operating system are to seperate and distinct things. I will continue to use Linux myself, no matter what happens. But the current spotlight ON linux in a commercial environment MAY be what is the flash in the pan. It was only recently in Linux's short history that many good, quality applications became available for it. I'm not saying that others didn't come out or where there before hand, such as X Windows, but they where the exception, *NOT* the rule. You don't see any other 'Unix' flavor operating system listed on as many 'Compatible' pages as Linux is. This is becouse of the commercial base, and *NOT* becouse of the dedicated following here at Slashdot.
Re:The reason why it *IS* relevent to slashdot..
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
That's the nature of the beast. But I also know that people still invest their time in VMS, Ultrix, Windows 3.1, etc... That's not my point.
I'm talking about the idea of Linux as a mainstream operating system. And people *WILL NOT* use and support an operating system in the mainstream without a company to fall back on. Linux is only gaining the marketshare it is BECOUSE there are companies like RedHat out there 'SELLING' it.
Linux will not go away. Neither will MSDOS, the Vic-20, or PPD-11's. That's not my point..
Re:Stock markets crashing only hurts corps.
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 2
You are truely living in a sheltered world. Tell me, who provides you with your food, you internet access, your gas? I'm willing to bet it's a company. I bet you even WORK for a company, don't you? Did some non profit orginization make your computer and it's components? I doubt it.
Money that leaves the stock market goes into other things, don't fool yourself. Rarely is money liquidated from the market. It's simply moved over to bonds, and lower risk factor investments, such as gold, silver, etc. Heck, much of it will also go into overseas bank acounts to sit and earn interest.
Companies getting hurt directly affects everyone. I'd like to point out that nearly every major recession woldwide has been preceeded by a dramatic loss in the stock market.
The reason why it *IS* relevent to slashdot..
on
Tech Stocks Tumble
·
· Score: 5
This will determine if the commercial interests in Linux are really just a flash in the pan, or here to stay.. What worries me is that it looks more and more to be a flash in the pan..
A perfect example would be, sorry to say it, LNUX, Aka, VA Linux. Their stock will now end up having whole chapters devoted to it. It was the most spectacular rise AND fall of a stock ever.. From over 320$ opening day, to a little over 20. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's undervalued. I think, at the moment, it *IS* a 20$ stock.
This is where the pain is going to start to set in, and we shall all see if these companies will thrive, or start stabbing eachother in the back.. They have shareholders to answer to now. One could argue that releasing things publically instead of holding them as proprietary isn't in the best interest of the shareholders..
Stocks are about greed. No one ever bought a stock becouse of morals, or to better the community. They buy it becouse they believe that it will make them money..
I disagree with this. Not all companies want to throw millions around using a closed, little used system, and develop their own inhouse software to solve every little problem.
Sure, there are many out there, but if given a choice between two things, one with applications already available, and one without, they'd choose the OS with availability..
They did this as a stress test demonstration. They didn't actually *RUN* a production system with 41,000 copies of an OS.
And it's not just the web server. Look at how many applciations you can run under Linux. Now look at how many under Os/390. Go ahead, I dare you to look for something for the OS/390 without paying big moola for it..
Now, instead of paying the cost for 41,000 users, along with data connections for 41,000 servers, and the physical cost of locating even 200 servers, buy 3 of these mainframes..
Set them up in 3 corners of the globe.. Throw high speed lines, allowing the machines to take over when another fails..
And best of all, I bet ever in Alaska you can get an IBM specialist at your door within an hour.
Anyway, sorry for the wiseass remark, but it was just *TO* hard to resist..;-P
The wonders of the mainframe. You can swap out the bad parts *while the machine is running*, and bring the replaced part back into service.
While I haven't had the opertunity to work on something with 20 years uptime, I *HAVE*, and have a terminal open now, to a machine with 6 *YEARS* uptime..
For those who don't do the math, that's an average of a 5 minutes of down time *PER YEAR*
If the problems that you forsee *DO* happen, and it goes down for, oh, and hour, that would statistically speaking mean that 12 other sites had 0% down time for the year.
The cumulative down times of 41,000 servers would be *MUCH* more then 5 minutes.
Nope, it's not the fact that thousands of 'processes' flooding the machines as it is thousands of places to flood the network. 41,000 behind 1 T1 line won't do all that much, compared with 1,000 hooked up to 1,000 T1's..;-P
True indeed, but I suspect this is do to the OS/390 kernel itself, and it's fairly deficient IP stack. I suspect with a little tweaking, the system could be tuned to provide some sort of direct lines out for IP as well.
The issue of running applications that take advantage of 'divvying' the work between different machines would be a moot point, really.
You see, if I wanted an applicaiton to do that, instead of running 64 copies of an OS, talking via MPI or the such, I'd run one that could divvy out the work to 64 to 128 threads, running one machine.
Granted, though, more distributed applications are available for Linux and the such then OS/390. That along could make it worth it. It wouldn;t be a 'performance' boost over running one that can thread properly in an OS/390 environment.
Doesn't work that way. Having one copy, would run much slower then running several copies of OS's in virtual machines. Multiplexing the data across all of the architecture requires more time then the horsepower boost. Hence, running 10 copies is literally 10 times faster then running one.
It's a different world in the land of the mainframe..
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may have a misconception about what 'Linux' really is. It's just a kernel. That's it. The entire CD full of stuff is applications galor, many of which people will *NEVER* use. Linux is just as suited for the embedded market as any other operating system. With limited device support, a kernel could easily fit in under 300k. Add a few applications for manipulating a screen, and it's done. The primary limitation I can see here is that the GUI is most likely provided by NanoGUI or one of the other projects that target a low profile replacement for X. Unless they come up with compatible libraries for NanoGUI, then existing applications cannot simply be 'Run', but require a porting effort.
;-P
Something else that needs to be taken into consideration is that none of the Win32 applications technically use the GUI as part of the operating system. It's just a library that ends up working the display. That's it. Moving a peice of code in and out of system versus user space is VERY simple. Just becouse we choose to keep our GUI's in userspace for stability doesn't make it any less OR MORE integrated that any of the GUIs presented by other companies..
The ease of use argument I think is a matter of perspective. Get your grandma. Give her two computers, one running Windows, one running something like Corel Linux. *USABILITY* in this environment will not be any different. Grow up in a Microsoft world, and anything different is, well, strange..
Linux is a VERY viable platform for a PDA, in short..
AT&T hasn't owned that trademark for *YEARS*..
Heck, Novell has even owned it since then..
Thanks, I'll have to dig up those articles at the library, sounds VERY interesting, with alot of background I wasn't aware of.. Thanks for the data..
As a point, it should be noted that SkyLab went up a *LONG* time ago, and *LONG* before Mir ever hit the launch pad. Many experts, US and international alike, agree that Mir, WHILE SUCCESFULL, is *NOT* built with human habitation in mind. Your statment that they learned a great deal in the living quarters area is a really, REALLY bad example. Mir is a small cramped trashcan in the sky.
And on another note, everyone makes a mistake eventually. The US made theirs early on with SkyLab. I'd say you learn more from your mistakes then your accomplishments..
At first I thought it was a stupid idea, but I just *HAVE* to SEE that!!!! ;-P
Actually, they where lent money to complete a completely *DIFFERENT* module, the command module.. ;-P
As far as them borrowing money to make improvments on Mir, I'd like to read and URL's you might have, hadn't heard about it..
The best example I can say is take these steps, and you can quite literally *WATCH* the software begin to fail simply becouse of CPU resources..
1) Install a 56k Winmodem in a Celeron 300 Machine running Windows NT. (Windows NT is simply becouse of those lovely beeps it'll make to tell you bad things are happening.. Adds affect)
2) Connect to the net, download RealVideo
3) Play *ANY* RealVideo designed to run on a 56k connection (Usually encoded for 42 or 44 something)
4) Listen top the beeps FLY! CRC errors off the chart. That's what happens with the software based drivers.. No resources, buffer overflows about, and CRC errors (Beeps) start playing a fast beat dance song for you..
Yet, you sold your stock, didn't you? You didn't HAVE to. You wouldn't have lost any money as long as it remained higher then what you paid for it.
And the Packers did indeed sell shares, so that they could make money locally without having to move. Stock is about buying a peice of a company. Some buy simply to own a peice of a company they believe in, but it's *BECOUSE THEY BELIEVED IN THE COMPANY*, and their ability to make money. I'd love to see what kind of trading GreenPeace would have if they sold shares. A flash at first, as everyone grammy wants to get a peice of a company that provides a service they believe in. After that, the value plummets, and trading of the stock goes to a trickle..
Hrm.. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
Usage by a target audience and mainstream viability of an operating system are to seperate and distinct things. I will continue to use Linux myself, no matter what happens. But the current spotlight ON linux in a commercial environment MAY be what is the flash in the pan. It was only recently in Linux's short history that many good, quality applications became available for it. I'm not saying that others didn't come out or where there before hand, such as X Windows, but they where the exception, *NOT* the rule. You don't see any other 'Unix' flavor operating system listed on as many 'Compatible' pages as Linux is. This is becouse of the commercial base, and *NOT* becouse of the dedicated following here at Slashdot.
That's the nature of the beast. But I also know that people still invest their time in VMS, Ultrix, Windows 3.1, etc... That's not my point.
I'm talking about the idea of Linux as a mainstream operating system. And people *WILL NOT* use and support an operating system in the mainstream without a company to fall back on. Linux is only gaining the marketshare it is BECOUSE there are companies like RedHat out there 'SELLING' it.
Linux will not go away. Neither will MSDOS, the Vic-20, or PPD-11's. That's not my point..
You are truely living in a sheltered world. Tell me, who provides you with your food, you internet access, your gas? I'm willing to bet it's a company. I bet you even WORK for a company, don't you? Did some non profit orginization make your computer and it's components? I doubt it.
Money that leaves the stock market goes into other things, don't fool yourself. Rarely is money liquidated from the market. It's simply moved over to bonds, and lower risk factor investments, such as gold, silver, etc. Heck, much of it will also go into overseas bank acounts to sit and earn interest.
Companies getting hurt directly affects everyone. I'd like to point out that nearly every major recession woldwide has been preceeded by a dramatic loss in the stock market.
This will determine if the commercial interests in Linux are really just a flash in the pan, or here to stay.. What worries me is that it looks more and more to be a flash in the pan..
A perfect example would be, sorry to say it, LNUX, Aka, VA Linux. Their stock will now end up having whole chapters devoted to it. It was the most spectacular rise AND fall of a stock ever.. From over 320$ opening day, to a little over 20. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's undervalued. I think, at the moment, it *IS* a 20$ stock.
This is where the pain is going to start to set in, and we shall all see if these companies will thrive, or start stabbing eachother in the back.. They have shareholders to answer to now. One could argue that releasing things publically instead of holding them as proprietary isn't in the best interest of the shareholders..
Stocks are about greed. No one ever bought a stock becouse of morals, or to better the community. They buy it becouse they believe that it will make them money..
While I think that they have to be *really* carefull about new series, I have to say, I'm looking forward to it..
The *ONLY* series I simply couldn't stand was Voyager, and I still watched the darned thing, just becouse it was on..
What *I* hated to see was 'Angel' get spun off from Buffy.. Neat in the begining, but quite annoying now..
Guess when his baby died, he decided to move on..
Makes perfect sense, really. I wish him the best of luck..
I disagree with this. Not all companies want to throw millions around using a closed, little used system, and develop their own inhouse software to solve every little problem.
Sure, there are many out there, but if given a choice between two things, one with applications already available, and one without, they'd choose the OS with availability..
I'm pretty sure they've managed to port Apache natively to OS/390 itself.
They did this as a stress test demonstration. They didn't actually *RUN* a production system with 41,000 copies of an OS.
And it's not just the web server. Look at how many applciations you can run under Linux. Now look at how many under Os/390. Go ahead, I dare you to look for something for the OS/390 without paying big moola for it..
Now, instead of paying the cost for 41,000 users, along with data connections for 41,000 servers, and the physical cost of locating even 200 servers, buy 3 of these mainframes..
;-P
Set them up in 3 corners of the globe.. Throw high speed lines, allowing the machines to take over when another fails..
And best of all, I bet ever in Alaska you can get an IBM specialist at your door within an hour.
Anyway, sorry for the wiseass remark, but it was just *TO* hard to resist..
The wonders of the mainframe. You can swap out the bad parts *while the machine is running*, and bring the replaced part back into service.
While I haven't had the opertunity to work on something with 20 years uptime, I *HAVE*, and have a terminal open now, to a machine with 6 *YEARS* uptime..
99.999 % track record.
For those who don't do the math, that's an average of a 5 minutes of down time *PER YEAR*
If the problems that you forsee *DO* happen, and it goes down for, oh, and hour, that would statistically speaking mean that 12 other sites had 0% down time for the year.
The cumulative down times of 41,000 servers would be *MUCH* more then 5 minutes.
Now, 41,000 is a *GROSS* exageration.
Oh, sorry. I forgot about the natural disaster survivalability of the Compaq and Dell servers. How silly of me.. ;-P
;-P
Of *COURSE* they'd have problems with those extreme situations, but the point is, *anything* would.
At least IBM will *LOAN* you a new machine while you rebuild.
Nope, it's not the fact that thousands of 'processes' flooding the machines as it is thousands of places to flood the network. 41,000 behind 1 T1 line won't do all that much, compared with 1,000 hooked up to 1,000 T1's.. ;-P
True indeed, but I suspect this is do to the OS/390 kernel itself, and it's fairly deficient IP stack. I suspect with a little tweaking, the system could be tuned to provide some sort of direct lines out for IP as well.
I do know what you're talking about though..
The issue of running applications that take advantage of 'divvying' the work between different machines would be a moot point, really.
You see, if I wanted an applicaiton to do that, instead of running 64 copies of an OS, talking via MPI or the such, I'd run one that could divvy out the work to 64 to 128 threads, running one machine.
Granted, though, more distributed applications are available for Linux and the such then OS/390. That along could make it worth it. It wouldn;t be a 'performance' boost over running one that can thread properly in an OS/390 environment.
Doesn't work that way. Having one copy, would run much slower then running several copies of OS's in virtual machines. Multiplexing the data across all of the architecture requires more time then the horsepower boost. Hence, running 10 copies is literally 10 times faster then running one.
It's a different world in the land of the mainframe..