I read this article earlier and while the author has some good points I really don't see his scenario coming to take place. The faults in his argument are:
1) That MS would give up it's windows source base and move to Linux. For this to happen there would have to be some serious changes in the market in the next 5 - 10 years. MS has a strong windows install base, it has a code base that's at least decent in terms of stability/security in win2k (not to the level of linux/bsd but it has good potential I think if MS would put more effort into it). In short, there's just no reason right now for MS to make such a drastic move.
2) That MS Linux would be able to differentiate itself enough in the market as to become more popular than Redhat, Caldera, etc. MS has no experience with Linux dev. Look at what happened when Corel, a company with no Linux OS experience tried to market a distro. Microsoft's only hope in making MS Linux more popular would be in porting the Win32 API to the Linux kernel and making that proprietary along with Office.
In short I just don't see how any of this could happen. It's going to be Linux vs. Windows for years to come. MS can't use it's normal business strategies against Linux, they just won't work. They're only hope is to make Windows a better (or at least good enough that SysAdmins won't weigh the benefits of switching greater than the difficulty in switching to Linux).
About 5 years ago me and a friend built a device that scans through the channels attached to garage door openers. It wasn't to big of a deal, just a brute force method, sending out radio signals on a range of channels as quick as possible. We hoped in the car and drove around the neighborhood with it, I haven't laughed that hard since, watching everybody's garage doors open. But seriously, if Net Admins think the "broadcast" nature of Ethernet Hubs causes security problems, wait until wireless takes hold. Hackers don't even have to plug into the network they just have to pull up a van next to the building. And what about DoS attacks? It's not difficult to build devices that can send out strong levels of noise on select channels, bringing a wireless network to it's knees. All issues that Network Admins will face in the future, just in case you thought your job was getting easy:)
Jay
My Asus A7V motherboard has a BIOS Update feature in the BIOS, I'm not sure if this is just a carry over from their Intel based boards but it would not surprise me if AMD added a similar feature to the Athlon line. Assuming the update method and changes are secure (and it appears they are, no one other than intel even understands what the code means or how it works) this is an excellent feature. I believe it's saved Intel from a huge recall like the early Pentium days a few times since the PPro came out. I haven't taken to much of a look at AMD's Athlon Docs (just subscribed to their CDs yesterday). But does anyone know if there is a similar feature, and if not, why Asus is leaving the option in their BIOS?
Jay
Am I the first to notice this blatant attempt by RedHat to win the favor of Linus? The 7.0 release just happens to be called Guinness and Guinness just happens to be Linus' favorite beer. I'd bet money that there's an email sitting in Linus' box right now saying "Come on Linus, just endorse the RedHat and you'll never have to buy yourself another beer forever. The level these companies will stoop to!
The biggest problem companies are facing in supporting linux is that it's just to much for their support crew to handle. Imagine a phone tech support guy trying to explain to a linux newbie how to edit their startup files. He'd have to know that Redhat uses a much different/etc/rc.d than Debian does. And that there are also some differences in Slackware's setup, and that Corel is also very different. Already I can hear the cries starting...LSB!! LSB!! But where is the LSB? I haven't heard a word from them in months. We've got to get Linux Standardized on it's libraries and file locations. The only other possible outcome I can see is fragmentation and/or the winning out of one distribution such as Redhat (not that the others would dissapear, only that they would be forced to comply with the winning company's standards in order to remain compatible with apps. I really can't blame HP here. I'm guessing they've just got to many dumb MCSE tech support guys that can't support the numerous other OSs that are out there. Hello...LSB anybody home????
ftp.us.kernel.org and getting ready for 2.4 final.
on
Linux 2.2.15 Released
·
· Score: 1
I remember when 2.2 came out I couldn't ever get on ftp.kernel.org, it was way overbogged, and ftp.us.kernel.org was always late in getting the latest patches and pre releases. I ended up using ftp.ca.kernel.org since it was plenty fast and synced up with the original kernel.org within an hour or so of posting patches. I'd be really great if the maintainers of all the us.kernel.org sites could speed up the sync some. Right now I just use ftp.kernel.org to get all the latest 2.3.99pre patches (and the pre-pre patches:) But I know one we get into the last week or two before 2.4.0 kernel.org will be impossible to get on. I think they may even limit kernel.org to developers only during that time. So let's speed up those us mirrors!!
It's just like the old Geometry statement: All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. So all Redhats are Linuxes but not all Linuxes are Redhat. Simple Logic fellas, get it right...
This is interesting. We often hear about how new technology is going to completely and totally change everything overnight. Yet it seems to me that this rarely if ever happens. Even the internet has taken a few years to become mainstream and change the way we live. Granted, some technological advances change the playing field immediately, for example, quantum computing will wreak havoc on the Cryptography world. But it seems that often no matter how advanced the new technology may be, it takes time for it to fully impact society.
Redhat 6.0 and greater are compiled with 486 class instruction optimizations (uses x86 instructions only found on 486 and above processors) and 586 instruction ordering (compiler builds binaries that are compatible with 486 but will gain speed from Pentium class Out of Order Execution, Branch Threading, etc). In general, Recompiling the kernel for your exact (Pentium, PPro, K6, etc) arch. will help some, as well as the specific binaries you want optimized (try bzip2 on the kernel source with and without pentium optimizations for a nice test)
It's nice to see another company releasing their stuff for linux. Course this isn't something particulary useful to me. NetBEUI for those of you who don't know is the low level stack used by Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and Win9x. The protocol is on the same level as TCP/IP. NetBIOS is the higher level SMB file transport protocol (on the same level as FTP). NetBIOS can run on NetBEUI, TCP/IP and even IPX. Samba is a linux program that provides linux support for NetBIOS over TCP/IP. NetBEUI has never been supported by linux. My guess is that the company wanted to use linux for the CDROM servers and other products, but needed to provide NetBEUI file protocol support also, so they coded it themselves and now, figure it'll be good Public Relations to release it (and it is). NetBEUI is actually FASTER than TCP/IP because it has a much lower overhead. But it is not routable so it can only reside on individual LANs. NetBEUI makes a good solution for small workgroups where TCP/IP is not needed, however, it can cause problems when mixed with other protocols and isn't as managable as TCP/IP. So there's my 2 cents.
Re:But there's an important choice we don't have
on
Gnome 1.1.4 Released
·
· Score: 1
I submit to you that we do have a choice of compilers. Yes, you are correct, GCC is all that is out there, however, why reinvent the wheel? The reason there is only one compiler is because no one wants to waste their time and energy rewriting all the core stuff gcc does. Plus the fact that gcc is such a great product in terms of reliabilty, portability and speed that I doubt a new, completly from scratch compiler could do any better. Instead what has happened with gcc is that it has branched and forked somewhat. You've got good ol' gcc 2.7.x churnin out reliable code albeit not to well optimized. Then you have gcc 2.9.x (formerly known as egcs, soon to be gcc 3.0). It's getting there in terms of reliabilty and makes a lot more optimized binaries (most of the problem right now is bad code, not the compiler). You've also got pgcc for those times you want to squeeze every ounce of speed out of your Pentium, Pentium Pro, or K6 processor. No one has bothered to start a new compiler because its just not worth the effort, where as Window Managers and Environments (yes, I know the difference) are a dime a dozen because everyone likes there desktop a little (or a lot) different. You still have choice.
I was quite surprised to read this article and see absolutely no mention of gcc whatsoever...So what's the deal currently? I know Linus just started putting the ia64 arch directory in the 2.3 kernel. Will it compile with GCC for IA32? Or does it need one of these. Frankly I'm not sure why I'm even concerened with this. I estimate that it will be at least another 3 years before I can get my paws on IA64...First they have to come out, then they have to get cheap, that'll take a while. Williamette is a possiblity though. Or maybe just a souped up Athlon in a few months. That'll be nice:)
Honestly, MS is not the only one that uses this technique. It's simple business marketing ploy. Didn't anyone notice that Caldera went from version 1.3 to 2.2 (How convenient that it was right about the time the 2.2 kernel came out and was in the press...). Or Mandrake one uping RedHat? Or Slackware going from 4.0 to 7.0? Again, one upping RedHat? I Personally have always found Product versioning unreliable and stupid. What constitutes 3.0 over 2.1? or 2.1 over 2.01? It's all up to the company. I'd like it if everyone just did a 02122000 (Date format for their products.
I personally find them to be excellent laptops, and in general quality hardware. They're latest laptops use the Rage Mobility which is the best 3D Accelerator you can have on a laptop right now. A Voodoo3 would be nicer but that would cut the battery life down to oh, say 10 minutes (or just before you fire off the Rocket Launcher, whichever comes first). Dell laptops are also certified by RedHat for Linux compatability, although you still have to watch out for WinModems. The latest Inspiron can take up to 512mb RAM, now I don't know how the heck I could ever use 512mb RAM on the road, but hey, it's nice to know you've got the option. Gateway makes good stuff too, my Room mate just got a Celeron 433 with a Rage Mobility chip, haven't tried it but I'm guessing it could do 20-30 fps. In general, if you want to play games on it. Know what the video chip is and check it out! Or else you'll end up with some cheappo Trident or Cirrus Logic piece of junk that has no OpenGL ICD.
Hmmm...Maybe they are based on the old NE2000 design, that would make the architecture what? 25 years old now and still in use? Ugghh...Now who would do something like that, I mean to reuse the same architecture over that long of a period. Good thing Intel doesn't do this. Oh, wait, they do... But seriously, Gigabit on the cheap will be nice.
Well doesn't it just make sense though? 95% of the code in linux is written at 4am on a weekend, after drinking a 12 pack of Mountain Dews and 30 minutes before the coder just passes out. NT of course was written by guys who go to Starbucks, go to bed at 10 o'clock and code at noon time. OK, well maybe there are other reasons to that argument but I'm sure this is what lies behind them all.:)
Slashdot Mirror
And I thought my modem was slow. Can't imagine waiting to download a web page on that link :)
I read this article earlier and while the author has some good points I really don't see his scenario coming to take place. The faults in his argument are: 1) That MS would give up it's windows source base and move to Linux. For this to happen there would have to be some serious changes in the market in the next 5 - 10 years. MS has a strong windows install base, it has a code base that's at least decent in terms of stability/security in win2k (not to the level of linux/bsd but it has good potential I think if MS would put more effort into it). In short, there's just no reason right now for MS to make such a drastic move. 2) That MS Linux would be able to differentiate itself enough in the market as to become more popular than Redhat, Caldera, etc. MS has no experience with Linux dev. Look at what happened when Corel, a company with no Linux OS experience tried to market a distro. Microsoft's only hope in making MS Linux more popular would be in porting the Win32 API to the Linux kernel and making that proprietary along with Office. In short I just don't see how any of this could happen. It's going to be Linux vs. Windows for years to come. MS can't use it's normal business strategies against Linux, they just won't work. They're only hope is to make Windows a better (or at least good enough that SysAdmins won't weigh the benefits of switching greater than the difficulty in switching to Linux).
About 5 years ago me and a friend built a device that scans through the channels attached to garage door openers. It wasn't to big of a deal, just a brute force method, sending out radio signals on a range of channels as quick as possible. We hoped in the car and drove around the neighborhood with it, I haven't laughed that hard since, watching everybody's garage doors open. But seriously, if Net Admins think the "broadcast" nature of Ethernet Hubs causes security problems, wait until wireless takes hold. Hackers don't even have to plug into the network they just have to pull up a van next to the building. And what about DoS attacks? It's not difficult to build devices that can send out strong levels of noise on select channels, bringing a wireless network to it's knees. All issues that Network Admins will face in the future, just in case you thought your job was getting easy :)
Jay
My Asus A7V motherboard has a BIOS Update feature in the BIOS, I'm not sure if this is just a carry over from their Intel based boards but it would not surprise me if AMD added a similar feature to the Athlon line. Assuming the update method and changes are secure (and it appears they are, no one other than intel even understands what the code means or how it works) this is an excellent feature. I believe it's saved Intel from a huge recall like the early Pentium days a few times since the PPro came out. I haven't taken to much of a look at AMD's Athlon Docs (just subscribed to their CDs yesterday). But does anyone know if there is a similar feature, and if not, why Asus is leaving the option in their BIOS? Jay
Am I the first to notice this blatant attempt by RedHat to win the favor of Linus? The 7.0 release just happens to be called Guinness and Guinness just happens to be Linus' favorite beer. I'd bet money that there's an email sitting in Linus' box right now saying "Come on Linus, just endorse the RedHat and you'll never have to buy yourself another beer forever. The level these companies will stoop to!
The biggest problem companies are facing in supporting linux is that it's just to much for their support crew to handle. Imagine a phone tech support guy trying to explain to a linux newbie how to edit their startup files. He'd have to know that Redhat uses a much different /etc/rc.d than Debian does. And that there are also some differences in Slackware's setup, and that Corel is also very different. Already I can hear the cries starting...LSB!! LSB!! But where is the LSB? I haven't heard a word from them in months. We've got to get Linux Standardized on it's libraries and file locations. The only other possible outcome I can see is fragmentation and/or the winning out of one distribution such as Redhat (not that the others would dissapear, only that they would be forced to comply with the winning company's standards in order to remain compatible with apps. I really can't blame HP here. I'm guessing they've just got to many dumb MCSE tech support guys that can't support the numerous other OSs that are out there. Hello...LSB anybody home????
I remember when 2.2 came out I couldn't ever get on ftp.kernel.org, it was way overbogged, and ftp.us.kernel.org was always late in getting the latest patches and pre releases. I ended up using ftp.ca.kernel.org since it was plenty fast and synced up with the original kernel.org within an hour or so of posting patches. I'd be really great if the maintainers of all the us.kernel.org sites could speed up the sync some. Right now I just use ftp.kernel.org to get all the latest 2.3.99pre patches (and the pre-pre patches :) But I know one we get into the last week or two before 2.4.0 kernel.org will be impossible to get on. I think they may even limit kernel.org to developers only during that time. So let's speed up those us mirrors!!
It's just like the old Geometry statement: All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. So all Redhats are Linuxes but not all Linuxes are Redhat. Simple Logic fellas, get it right...
This is interesting. We often hear about how new technology is going to completely and totally change everything overnight. Yet it seems to me that this rarely if ever happens. Even the internet has taken a few years to become mainstream and change the way we live. Granted, some technological advances change the playing field immediately, for example, quantum computing will wreak havoc on the Cryptography world. But it seems that often no matter how advanced the new technology may be, it takes time for it to fully impact society.
Redhat 6.0 and greater are compiled with 486 class instruction optimizations (uses x86 instructions only found on 486 and above processors) and 586 instruction ordering (compiler builds binaries that are compatible with 486 but will gain speed from Pentium class Out of Order Execution, Branch Threading, etc). In general, Recompiling the kernel for your exact (Pentium, PPro, K6, etc) arch. will help some, as well as the specific binaries you want optimized (try bzip2 on the kernel source with and without pentium optimizations for a nice test)
It's nice to see another company releasing their stuff for linux. Course this isn't something particulary useful to me. NetBEUI for those of you who don't know is the low level stack used by Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and Win9x. The protocol is on the same level as TCP/IP. NetBIOS is the higher level SMB file transport protocol (on the same level as FTP). NetBIOS can run on NetBEUI, TCP/IP and even IPX. Samba is a linux program that provides linux support for NetBIOS over TCP/IP. NetBEUI has never been supported by linux. My guess is that the company wanted to use linux for the CDROM servers and other products, but needed to provide NetBEUI file protocol support also, so they coded it themselves and now, figure it'll be good Public Relations to release it (and it is). NetBEUI is actually FASTER than TCP/IP because it has a much lower overhead. But it is not routable so it can only reside on individual LANs. NetBEUI makes a good solution for small workgroups where TCP/IP is not needed, however, it can cause problems when mixed with other protocols and isn't as managable as TCP/IP. So there's my 2 cents.
I submit to you that we do have a choice of compilers. Yes, you are correct, GCC is all that is out there, however, why reinvent the wheel? The reason there is only one compiler is because no one wants to waste their time and energy rewriting all the core stuff gcc does. Plus the fact that gcc is such a great product in terms of reliabilty, portability and speed that I doubt a new, completly from scratch compiler could do any better. Instead what has happened with gcc is that it has branched and forked somewhat. You've got good ol' gcc 2.7.x churnin out reliable code albeit not to well optimized. Then you have gcc 2.9.x (formerly known as egcs, soon to be gcc 3.0). It's getting there in terms of reliabilty and makes a lot more optimized binaries (most of the problem right now is bad code, not the compiler). You've also got pgcc for those times you want to squeeze every ounce of speed out of your Pentium, Pentium Pro, or K6 processor. No one has bothered to start a new compiler because its just not worth the effort, where as Window Managers and Environments (yes, I know the difference) are a dime a dozen because everyone likes there desktop a little (or a lot) different. You still have choice.
I was quite surprised to read this article and see absolutely no mention of gcc whatsoever...So what's the deal currently? I know Linus just started putting the ia64 arch directory in the 2.3 kernel. Will it compile with GCC for IA32? Or does it need one of these. Frankly I'm not sure why I'm even concerened with this. I estimate that it will be at least another 3 years before I can get my paws on IA64...First they have to come out, then they have to get cheap, that'll take a while. Williamette is a possiblity though. Or maybe just a souped up Athlon in a few months. That'll be nice :)
Honestly, MS is not the only one that uses this technique. It's simple business marketing ploy. Didn't anyone notice that Caldera went from version 1.3 to 2.2 (How convenient that it was right about the time the 2.2 kernel came out and was in the press...). Or Mandrake one uping RedHat? Or Slackware going from 4.0 to 7.0? Again, one upping RedHat? I Personally have always found Product versioning unreliable and stupid. What constitutes 3.0 over 2.1? or 2.1 over 2.01? It's all up to the company. I'd like it if everyone just did a 02122000 (Date format for their products.
I personally find them to be excellent laptops, and in general quality hardware. They're latest laptops use the Rage Mobility which is the best 3D Accelerator you can have on a laptop right now. A Voodoo3 would be nicer but that would cut the battery life down to oh, say 10 minutes (or just before you fire off the Rocket Launcher, whichever comes first). Dell laptops are also certified by RedHat for Linux compatability, although you still have to watch out for WinModems. The latest Inspiron can take up to 512mb RAM, now I don't know how the heck I could ever use 512mb RAM on the road, but hey, it's nice to know you've got the option. Gateway makes good stuff too, my Room mate just got a Celeron 433 with a Rage Mobility chip, haven't tried it but I'm guessing it could do 20-30 fps. In general, if you want to play games on it. Know what the video chip is and check it out! Or else you'll end up with some cheappo Trident or Cirrus Logic piece of junk that has no OpenGL ICD.
Hmmm...Maybe they are based on the old NE2000 design, that would make the architecture what? 25 years old now and still in use? Ugghh...Now who would do something like that, I mean to reuse the same architecture over that long of a period. Good thing Intel doesn't do this. Oh, wait, they do... But seriously, Gigabit on the cheap will be nice.
Well doesn't it just make sense though? 95% of the code in linux is written at 4am on a weekend, after drinking a 12 pack of Mountain Dews and 30 minutes before the coder just passes out. NT of course was written by guys who go to Starbucks, go to bed at 10 o'clock and code at noon time. OK, well maybe there are other reasons to that argument but I'm sure this is what lies behind them all. :)