It would never make sense for Steam to support Linux at the expense of Windows. The thing is, they are trying to support Linux *as well as* Windows and Mac. That means that the 20 million Linux desktops out there might be incremental profit for already-developed games (assuming the support costs of the Linux port are not too high - but Valve has a lot of cash so that is not really a concern. So they can use this opportunity to create their own space in the market, inexpensive Linux-based gaming consoles).
The other thing (which I've mentioned several other times on this thread, but will repeat it here for your convenience) is that once Steam runs on Linux it will also be easy to make it run on Android (which I understand has around two million new activations per day) - since Android is basically a marketing term for Google's customized Java on Linux. Now, wouldn't it be worth it for Steam to get a cut of game sales on the hundreds of millions of Android devices out there? That would make the economics very worthwhile I think.
Also, the Mac steam client often crashes when Steam itself is updated. Then it won't die and you have to try and Force Quit it (I sound like a Jedi. don't I?). Would be better if the Steam client itself was more reliable and never got the pesky "Steam failed to load: *SteamStartEngine(0xbfffdf54) failed with error 1: A Steam Engine Instance already exists” error that often happens with Steam updates.
Not only consoles. A port to Linux also means that Steam could run on Android. That's huge market for games and Steam has great expertise in delivering, licensing, and more importantly, (mostly) smooth of updating of games.
Incidentally, many of the dedicated servers have Linux versions, even if the game client is currently Windows-only. Linux game servers often seem to be more stable and better performing than their Windows equivalents - understandable since Linux gets a lot of work to make it perform well for server tasks.
They don't need to make a software renderer themselves. As long as they use OpenGL then it can switch between software rendering (an implementation done by the 'Mesa' project) or use hardware-accelerated rendering of the graphics card (if the correct driver is installed, which it nearly always is).
More specifically on OpenGL 2+ using GLSL (the shading language). For the graphics parts of games once you are using shaders the platform and development language you are using becomes less relevant (since you are trying to get as much done on the GPU as you can). Obviously basic stuff like networking, input and file access depends on the operating system, but is easily abstracted away. The bulk of game code is not operating system specific if you do it right (I know, I'm working on a jet combat flight simulator using Java + JoGL + GLSL and the operating-system specific pieces of code are small compared to the rest of the game logic).
Yeah, with the colossal disk spaces available these days people forget how good statically compiling software is. Saving space by dynamically linking a few tiny DLLs is a poor justification in many cases these days, especially when weighed against the vastly better reliability of statically linked programs. The theoretical benefit of upgrading a DLL and having all dependent software gain improvements/bug fixes doesn't seem to have panned out either, more often the DLL 'upgrade' breaks far more programs than it they are supposed to fix. For reliable software (that is, software to be used by ordinary non-technical users) reliability is critical. Static link for the win!
No, not the last. Once Steam has been ported to Ubuntu the next logical Linux to develop for is Android. With around two million new installs of Android each day I'm sure Steam would love to be able to clip the ticket for games on that platform. Clever crafty Valve, eh?
The nice thing about Steam running on Linux means it will be straightforward to also port to the Linux that is getting *two million new installs per day*, namely Android. If Valve become gaming kings on Linux and then ooze over to Android they will have the ability to generate revenue off a substantial fraction of the games on Windows, Mac, Linux and Android - since they make it easy for to get games installed, verified and updated on those platforms (for for both developers and gamers). That will result in Gabe having more money than both a non-existent man in the sky and the number of noodly appendages on the immortal Flying Spaghetti Monster! => Party at Gabe's house, and he's buying the drinks:)
Actually, as someone who plays Counter Strike Source and Half-Life 2 Deathmatch on the Mac almost daily (it's nice being in an office of Java-on-Mac 30-40 year old devs that like to 'down tools' over lunch each day and get some serious carnage going). I think it is fair to say that Steam is fairly beta-quality on the Mac. A Linux version wouldn't be any different (and Steam can be flakey on Windows too - Valve don't write ultra-reliable software, unlike paranoid ol' me:) ).
Great. Just a few months later than the rumored release of the iPhone 5. Which means, even if the iPhone rumors are off by a few months then Windows phones will be drowned in the buzz over Apple's product. This is harsh but Microsoft are moving way too slowly - just like the big lumbering giant that they are. Apple and Google have much faster OODA loops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) than Microsoft and are using it too good advantage.
Conclusion: putting money down on a Windows 8 phone and expecting developers will build heaps of applications for that platform is a very risky gamble. I would expect that most developers will also draw the same conclusion too (the so called 'chicken and egg' problem). If Microsoft market Windows Phone with a code name of "Stillborn" then they will at least get something right:)
> If they would have sold the N950 without restrictions I'd be buying them up too.
Bingo! As soon as products and services serve the manufacturer/carrier more than the customer the customer responds with: DO NOT WANT. The customer will put up with a little irritation but the big corps that are floundering badly (Nokia + Microsoft in this market space) are still too slow to grok this (the 'reality distortion field' around themselves blinds them to the market's actual desires).
>I suspect they'll have to tie in deeper with the upcoming Windows 8 infrastructure to get Windows Phone to sell. Or maybe XBox games. But right now it doesn't have that absolutely exclusive must-have killer app or selling point.
Aaaaarrrggg! it is the tie-ins that people *loath*. The fact that you are restricted to a straightjacket that suits Microsoft's purposes rather than yours is infuriating (and part of the poster's items that listed numerous times that you were forced to use Microsoft's junk, eg. Bing, Zune). I found this to also be a problem with Microsoft Flight, where every integration point was trying to tie you into signing up for some Microsoft service somewhere (it would be ok if Microsoft was the default service but you could use other options too, ya know, like how web search defaults to a certain provider but you still have the option to change from Bing to Google). Having these tie ins to Microsoft's bad product line shows bad taste, judgement and a lack of understanding of how people want their phones to serve *them*, not Microsoft. Yeah sure, Apple does this too but it is not so onerous (although I hate it too). So, IMHO, the tie-ins you are suggestion would make the product much worse, not better. Smooth integration is good, a straight-jacket is not.
It is good you like your phone. However, almost no-one else does. It is like Linux users trying to point out to Windows users the advantages of their platform - people simply disagree with you (although the funny thing is that Android is Linux with a better-designed interface, and people are accepting Android in droves).
> As for no Flash and no Java, these problems exist with the iPhone as well.
True, but it is Android that is starting to move the most phones. Android is more open. Flash won't be supported on Android 4.1 and later because Adobe can't be bothered. Android is Google's Java (on Linux, with slightly different libraries), but no, Java ME apps won't run as is - but who cares? Android's Java is close enough for many developers to make ports easy. I'm an iPhone user but I can certainly see the attraction and openness of Android as an advantage (since I *hate* having to use iTunes to move stuff to my phone).
"Tabloid Journalism" has been around for a long time in print. Even online there have long been sites like The Register that have a 'tongue-in-cheek' (cheeky) take on news, and use sensationalist headlines in the manner of tabloids as part of their playful style.
That may be so. Projects in flight won't move away from Java and projects about to start now have more certainty that Oracle can't push their patent hoard around to disrupt Java (or Android) so easily. I don't think that the.NET patents have ever been tested - but no one really worries about that as users (and the Mono implementers seem happy enough, since they'll never get enough compatibility to threaten Microsoft's leadership in.NET anyway). So perhaps you are making a theoretical argument about people being hesitant to adopt Java - in practice there are enough alternatives (eg. IBM, OpenJDK, GCJ) that it was never much of an issue (one of the beauties of having multiple vendors with almost-perfectly compatible implementations [there can be wrinkles, but these are relatively small]).
No, I think Java usage has dropped for the reason I outlined in my original post, the business sector where Java rules the roost are deferring projects. With economic growth I'd be surprised if Java's usage doesn't take an uptick (in the same way you can see a stampede to try out Python half a decade ago, followed by a drop in Python and corresponding resurgence in Java as people moved back).
As much as many Slashdotters love to 'dis' Java for not being cool enough, or not having their pet language feature, is it the 'C' of the object oriented world - ubiquitous and effective. It's not always the best solution in any domain but it is always a viable solution in any domain (meaning you get to re-use your existing code, tools and techniques no matter what problem you have or what target platform you are going for). That makes it a good choice for many developers and teams of developers.
Java's apparent decline seems to be because of the financial slump. Where the number of new enterprise projects using Java has reduced. Most of this work was deferred and is starting to pick up again (at least as far as I can see). Some of the apparent 'decline' in languages is due to the introduction of new languages. The absolute number of projects using any language may be increasing but with new languages being introduced the proportion for any one language becomes diluted.
That said, C deserves to be right up there because it is still completely relevant as a 'lingua franca' (common language) for talking to hardware or operating systems. It also has the same benefits of Java in that the language is small and the convention is to place complexity in the libraries rather than as arbitrarily added keywords. This is not very exciting for many Slashdotters but for regular joes it allows them to get things done while working on huge, long-term projects (where the set of staff that start the project aren't necessarily those that finish it) where being able to follow other people's code is critical. This doesn't make for good press or excitement in the blogosphere or conference circuit but these two stalwarts pretty much let you solve any problem in any computing environment (portability matters!).
> So, no, China won't be a threat to those who don't share a border or a sea lane with it.
Again, just because China may not win does not mean they are not a threat. Your example of the Chinese invasion of Korea is an example. While they may only have restored the status quo by propping up the North Korean dictatorship they killed a lot of UN soldiers in the process. I feel this was something completely unnecessary and the World would be a better place if they had not done this. Similarly, their incursion into Vietnam to 'punish' the Vietnamese was waged not only for stupid reasons it achieved nothing except the enmity of the Vietnamese (who have recently decided that the US is possibly the lesser of the two evils). While the China Vietnam border war was strategically ineffectual it was very destructive - a lot of soldiers on both sides were killed. So, I restate my point again, just because China is ineffective does not mean it is not a threat - it has the power (and appears to be willing to use it) to cause a lot of destruction and loss of life - even if they are usually ultimately defeated.
The title of the article is, "Linux Played a Vital Role In Discovery of Higgs Boson". While the algorithms etc are interesting I believe this thread was about how Linux (or Unix, as you point out and I completely agree still plays a major role in scientific computing) was a significant factor. Yes, this article is fly paper for fanbois. I also think it is also a valuable chance for those stuck on the corporate or gamer desktop to see where Linux is successfully operating in a completely different environment where they are used to. This may help such folks to grok why there are Linux fanbois when Linux seems to unsuitable for their purposes. It turns out Linux is excellent for scientific work (and networking, device control etc etc but the article isn't about that) and perhaps if the cubicle dwellers heard about the scientific suitability of Linux/Unix they might get a glimmer of understanding of why some prefer Linux/Unix over Windows - it is because the scientific types have a different set of problems to solve, and thus arrive at a different optimised solution.
The GNU/Unix-esque tool design philosophy lends itself naturally to solving the engineering problems in tasks such as the (successful) hunt for the Higgs Boson - lots of little problems/scripts cobbled together to process the flow of data. So you are right, while it was not Linux per-se that helped the hunt, it was the Free Software/Unix environment's whole toolchain (of which Linux was the basis they chose) that helped. Yes, they could have used Solaris, but it turns out most of their systems were Linux - which is what the article and this thread discussed for a scientific context.
Many thanks for taking the time to write such and erudite post. I'll confess that the closing of my original post was unnecessarily dismissive. It was not intended for you but to shut down frostilicious2, who has subsequently been adjudged as Flamebait by our fellow Slashdotters. However, I would ask you to reconsider the points I made in my first and second posts. I use Windows (gaming at home), Linux (work servers) and Mac OS X (my home and work development desktop, thanks to Java) on a daily basis - so I feel I have some understanding of the limitations of each of them. As I continue to point out I have done scientific computing in a manner similar to CERN (although in a different field).
So I don't feel 'religious' about any particular O/S. It is not hard to recognize the O/S-affinity of others (such as frostilicious2), so tried to achieve two things: a) point out why people doing scientific computing vastly prefer Linux to Windows, and b) prevent a potential inane flamewar with frostilicious2. I was also writing from work, so tried to write with the most brevity I could.
With regard to, "I wouldn't try to tell someone their choice in computing was wrong.". I think if you re-read my first post you will find that I point out that "techie people prefer Linux over Windows" and provide reasons why. This is not telling anyone that their choice is wrong, it is pointing out that tech folk prefer Linux for scientific work (which I stress in my second post). It looks like a fair few Slashdotters followed this nuance (or perhaps, it is just the notorious 'group-think'), modding it up to +5. Operating system is indeed a delicate topic. Since I use three commonly, even more on an irregular basis, so I tend to weigh down the effect with which people defend them, so fair point. However, I didn't think it it would be too 'on the nose' to try to explain why CERN chose Linux, given my direct and relevant experience. Pax.
Nice sig! All I did is point out the experience of myself and my fellow scientists and why we chose to use Linux over Windows, and the reasons why we considered it a better choice for our purposes. However, it was you who chose to interpret this defensively and in a particular way. I cannot help you with that I'm afraid. My goal was not to offend anyone - it was to help the open-minded understand why scientists choose Linux, since I have direct personal experience with this. Doing a PhD on the computational aspects of gravitational microlensing taught me and awful lot about scientific large-scale computing; I started out on Windows and later switched to Linux since the former really sucked for *scientific purposes*. I believe this is on-topic and pertinent to the thread, moreso than the comments of users who have little concept of computing beyond their desktop or their corporate mail server. So, my apologies if you feel aggrieved about my pointing out the deficiencies in Windows for computing similar to CERN. I would welcome the cessation of sarcastic and irrelevant ad hominem and be very pleased if you could enlighten us as to why Windows is a better solution for scientific computing (I genuinely wish to know why you think it is - as a trained scientist I'm always prepared to listen so I can invalidate my own observations and assumptions).
Just because China is inept in waging war is not the same as it lacking in imperial ambition. Clearly its history of serial belligerence since 1949 puts paid to the notion that it wishes for a peaceful rise. Once it is strong it will throw its weight around far more than the US does. nb. I also forgot to mention the (expansionist!) infiltration war against India in the 1960's (where China won against India, and got a taste for acquiring more territory by taking small bites). Now don't confuse me with someone reflexively anti-Sino. There is much to be admired about some of Chinese methods. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the danger of their rise and how their increasingly aggressive deeds don't actually match their peaceful public pronouncements (I suppose that is to be expected from a system so thoroughly pervaded by propaganda that basically anything the CCP says can't be trusted; but there is a trend of this and I can provide many examples on request [eg. lying about the use of the Varyag carrier, copying Russian equipment all the time, refusal to sign a no-reverse engineer agreement for the current Su-35 purchase, trying to buy only two Rookvalk helos from South Africa for reverse engineering/IP theft], lying about melamine in milk that killed babies and then blaming it on New Zealand etc etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the crackers would more likely be serving borscht at Donaldovich's
It would never make sense for Steam to support Linux at the expense of Windows. The thing is, they are trying to support Linux *as well as* Windows and Mac. That means that the 20 million Linux desktops out there might be incremental profit for already-developed games (assuming the support costs of the Linux port are not too high - but Valve has a lot of cash so that is not really a concern. So they can use this opportunity to create their own space in the market, inexpensive Linux-based gaming consoles).
The other thing (which I've mentioned several other times on this thread, but will repeat it here for your convenience) is that once Steam runs on Linux it will also be easy to make it run on Android (which I understand has around two million new activations per day) - since Android is basically a marketing term for Google's customized Java on Linux. Now, wouldn't it be worth it for Steam to get a cut of game sales on the hundreds of millions of Android devices out there? That would make the economics very worthwhile I think.
Also, the Mac steam client often crashes when Steam itself is updated. Then it won't die and you have to try and Force Quit it (I sound like a Jedi. don't I?). Would be better if the Steam client itself was more reliable and never got the pesky "Steam failed to load: *SteamStartEngine(0xbfffdf54) failed with error 1: A Steam Engine Instance already exists” error that often happens with Steam updates.
Not only consoles. A port to Linux also means that Steam could run on Android. That's huge market for games and Steam has great expertise in delivering, licensing, and more importantly, (mostly) smooth of updating of games.
Incidentally, many of the dedicated servers have Linux versions, even if the game client is currently Windows-only. Linux game servers often seem to be more stable and better performing than their Windows equivalents - understandable since Linux gets a lot of work to make it perform well for server tasks.
They don't need to make a software renderer themselves. As long as they use OpenGL then it can switch between software rendering (an implementation done by the 'Mesa' project) or use hardware-accelerated rendering of the graphics card (if the correct driver is installed, which it nearly always is).
More specifically on OpenGL 2+ using GLSL (the shading language). For the graphics parts of games once you are using shaders the platform and development language you are using becomes less relevant (since you are trying to get as much done on the GPU as you can). Obviously basic stuff like networking, input and file access depends on the operating system, but is easily abstracted away. The bulk of game code is not operating system specific if you do it right (I know, I'm working on a jet combat flight simulator using Java + JoGL + GLSL and the operating-system specific pieces of code are small compared to the rest of the game logic).
Yeah, with the colossal disk spaces available these days people forget how good statically compiling software is. Saving space by dynamically linking a few tiny DLLs is a poor justification in many cases these days, especially when weighed against the vastly better reliability of statically linked programs. The theoretical benefit of upgrading a DLL and having all dependent software gain improvements/bug fixes doesn't seem to have panned out either, more often the DLL 'upgrade' breaks far more programs than it they are supposed to fix. For reliable software (that is, software to be used by ordinary non-technical users) reliability is critical. Static link for the win!
No, not the last. Once Steam has been ported to Ubuntu the next logical Linux to develop for is Android. With around two million new installs of Android each day I'm sure Steam would love to be able to clip the ticket for games on that platform. Clever crafty Valve, eh?
The nice thing about Steam running on Linux means it will be straightforward to also port to the Linux that is getting *two million new installs per day*, namely Android. If Valve become gaming kings on Linux and then ooze over to Android they will have the ability to generate revenue off a substantial fraction of the games on Windows, Mac, Linux and Android - since they make it easy for to get games installed, verified and updated on those platforms (for for both developers and gamers). That will result in Gabe having more money than both a non-existent man in the sky and the number of noodly appendages on the immortal Flying Spaghetti Monster! => Party at Gabe's house, and he's buying the drinks :)
Actually, as someone who plays Counter Strike Source and Half-Life 2 Deathmatch on the Mac almost daily (it's nice being in an office of Java-on-Mac 30-40 year old devs that like to 'down tools' over lunch each day and get some serious carnage going). I think it is fair to say that Steam is fairly beta-quality on the Mac. A Linux version wouldn't be any different (and Steam can be flakey on Windows too - Valve don't write ultra-reliable software, unlike paranoid ol' me :) ).
Great. Just a few months later than the rumored release of the iPhone 5. Which means, even if the iPhone rumors are off by a few months then Windows phones will be drowned in the buzz over Apple's product. This is harsh but Microsoft are moving way too slowly - just like the big lumbering giant that they are. Apple and Google have much faster OODA loops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop) than Microsoft and are using it too good advantage.
Conclusion: putting money down on a Windows 8 phone and expecting developers will build heaps of applications for that platform is a very risky gamble. I would expect that most developers will also draw the same conclusion too (the so called 'chicken and egg' problem). If Microsoft market Windows Phone with a code name of "Stillborn" then they will at least get something right :)
> If they would have sold the N950 without restrictions I'd be buying them up too.
Bingo! As soon as products and services serve the manufacturer/carrier more than the customer the customer responds with: DO NOT WANT. The customer will put up with a little irritation but the big corps that are floundering badly (Nokia + Microsoft in this market space) are still too slow to grok this (the 'reality distortion field' around themselves blinds them to the market's actual desires).
>I suspect they'll have to tie in deeper with the upcoming Windows 8 infrastructure to get Windows Phone to sell. Or maybe XBox games. But right now it doesn't have that absolutely exclusive must-have killer app or selling point.
Aaaaarrrggg! it is the tie-ins that people *loath*. The fact that you are restricted to a straightjacket that suits Microsoft's purposes rather than yours is infuriating (and part of the poster's items that listed numerous times that you were forced to use Microsoft's junk, eg. Bing, Zune). I found this to also be a problem with Microsoft Flight, where every integration point was trying to tie you into signing up for some Microsoft service somewhere (it would be ok if Microsoft was the default service but you could use other options too, ya know, like how web search defaults to a certain provider but you still have the option to change from Bing to Google). Having these tie ins to Microsoft's bad product line shows bad taste, judgement and a lack of understanding of how people want their phones to serve *them*, not Microsoft. Yeah sure, Apple does this too but it is not so onerous (although I hate it too). So, IMHO, the tie-ins you are suggestion would make the product much worse, not better. Smooth integration is good, a straight-jacket is not.
It is good you like your phone. However, almost no-one else does. It is like Linux users trying to point out to Windows users the advantages of their platform - people simply disagree with you (although the funny thing is that Android is Linux with a better-designed interface, and people are accepting Android in droves).
> As for no Flash and no Java, these problems exist with the iPhone as well.
True, but it is Android that is starting to move the most phones. Android is more open. Flash won't be supported on Android 4.1 and later because Adobe can't be bothered. Android is Google's Java (on Linux, with slightly different libraries), but no, Java ME apps won't run as is - but who cares? Android's Java is close enough for many developers to make ports easy. I'm an iPhone user but I can certainly see the attraction and openness of Android as an advantage (since I *hate* having to use iTunes to move stuff to my phone).
"Tabloid Journalism" has been around for a long time in print. Even online there have long been sites like The Register that have a 'tongue-in-cheek' (cheeky) take on news, and use sensationalist headlines in the manner of tabloids as part of their playful style.
That may be so. Projects in flight won't move away from Java and projects about to start now have more certainty that Oracle can't push their patent hoard around to disrupt Java (or Android) so easily. I don't think that the .NET patents have ever been tested - but no one really worries about that as users (and the Mono implementers seem happy enough, since they'll never get enough compatibility to threaten Microsoft's leadership in .NET anyway). So perhaps you are making a theoretical argument about people being hesitant to adopt Java - in practice there are enough alternatives (eg. IBM, OpenJDK, GCJ) that it was never much of an issue (one of the beauties of having multiple vendors with almost-perfectly compatible implementations [there can be wrinkles, but these are relatively small]).
No, I think Java usage has dropped for the reason I outlined in my original post, the business sector where Java rules the roost are deferring projects. With economic growth I'd be surprised if Java's usage doesn't take an uptick (in the same way you can see a stampede to try out Python half a decade ago, followed by a drop in Python and corresponding resurgence in Java as people moved back).
As much as many Slashdotters love to 'dis' Java for not being cool enough, or not having their pet language feature, is it the 'C' of the object oriented world - ubiquitous and effective. It's not always the best solution in any domain but it is always a viable solution in any domain (meaning you get to re-use your existing code, tools and techniques no matter what problem you have or what target platform you are going for). That makes it a good choice for many developers and teams of developers.
Java's apparent decline seems to be because of the financial slump. Where the number of new enterprise projects using Java has reduced. Most of this work was deferred and is starting to pick up again (at least as far as I can see). Some of the apparent 'decline' in languages is due to the introduction of new languages. The absolute number of projects using any language may be increasing but with new languages being introduced the proportion for any one language becomes diluted.
That said, C deserves to be right up there because it is still completely relevant as a 'lingua franca' (common language) for talking to hardware or operating systems. It also has the same benefits of Java in that the language is small and the convention is to place complexity in the libraries rather than as arbitrarily added keywords. This is not very exciting for many Slashdotters but for regular joes it allows them to get things done while working on huge, long-term projects (where the set of staff that start the project aren't necessarily those that finish it) where being able to follow other people's code is critical. This doesn't make for good press or excitement in the blogosphere or conference circuit but these two stalwarts pretty much let you solve any problem in any computing environment (portability matters!).
> So, no, China won't be a threat to those who don't share a border or a sea lane with it.
Again, just because China may not win does not mean they are not a threat. Your example of the Chinese invasion of Korea is an example. While they may only have restored the status quo by propping up the North Korean dictatorship they killed a lot of UN soldiers in the process. I feel this was something completely unnecessary and the World would be a better place if they had not done this. Similarly, their incursion into Vietnam to 'punish' the Vietnamese was waged not only for stupid reasons it achieved nothing except the enmity of the Vietnamese (who have recently decided that the US is possibly the lesser of the two evils). While the China Vietnam border war was strategically ineffectual it was very destructive - a lot of soldiers on both sides were killed. So, I restate my point again, just because China is ineffective does not mean it is not a threat - it has the power (and appears to be willing to use it) to cause a lot of destruction and loss of life - even if they are usually ultimately defeated.
The title of the article is, "Linux Played a Vital Role In Discovery of Higgs Boson". While the algorithms etc are interesting I believe this thread was about how Linux (or Unix, as you point out and I completely agree still plays a major role in scientific computing) was a significant factor. Yes, this article is fly paper for fanbois. I also think it is also a valuable chance for those stuck on the corporate or gamer desktop to see where Linux is successfully operating in a completely different environment where they are used to. This may help such folks to grok why there are Linux fanbois when Linux seems to unsuitable for their purposes. It turns out Linux is excellent for scientific work (and networking, device control etc etc but the article isn't about that) and perhaps if the cubicle dwellers heard about the scientific suitability of Linux/Unix they might get a glimmer of understanding of why some prefer Linux/Unix over Windows - it is because the scientific types have a different set of problems to solve, and thus arrive at a different optimised solution.
The GNU/Unix-esque tool design philosophy lends itself naturally to solving the engineering problems in tasks such as the (successful) hunt for the Higgs Boson - lots of little problems/scripts cobbled together to process the flow of data. So you are right, while it was not Linux per-se that helped the hunt, it was the Free Software/Unix environment's whole toolchain (of which Linux was the basis they chose) that helped. Yes, they could have used Solaris, but it turns out most of their systems were Linux - which is what the article and this thread discussed for a scientific context.
> Hmm I interpreted "wrong" in terms of China's geopolitics
Yeah, your are correct from that point-of-view.
Many thanks for taking the time to write such and erudite post. I'll confess that the closing of my original post was unnecessarily dismissive. It was not intended for you but to shut down frostilicious2, who has subsequently been adjudged as Flamebait by our fellow Slashdotters. However, I would ask you to reconsider the points I made in my first and second posts. I use Windows (gaming at home), Linux (work servers) and Mac OS X (my home and work development desktop, thanks to Java) on a daily basis - so I feel I have some understanding of the limitations of each of them. As I continue to point out I have done scientific computing in a manner similar to CERN (although in a different field).
So I don't feel 'religious' about any particular O/S. It is not hard to recognize the O/S-affinity of others (such as frostilicious2), so tried to achieve two things: a) point out why people doing scientific computing vastly prefer Linux to Windows, and b) prevent a potential inane flamewar with frostilicious2. I was also writing from work, so tried to write with the most brevity I could.
With regard to, "I wouldn't try to tell someone their choice in computing was wrong.". I think if you re-read my first post you will find that I point out that "techie people prefer Linux over Windows" and provide reasons why. This is not telling anyone that their choice is wrong, it is pointing out that tech folk prefer Linux for scientific work (which I stress in my second post). It looks like a fair few Slashdotters followed this nuance (or perhaps, it is just the notorious 'group-think'), modding it up to +5. Operating system is indeed a delicate topic. Since I use three commonly, even more on an irregular basis, so I tend to weigh down the effect with which people defend them, so fair point. However, I didn't think it it would be too 'on the nose' to try to explain why CERN chose Linux, given my direct and relevant experience. Pax.
Nice sig! All I did is point out the experience of myself and my fellow scientists and why we chose to use Linux over Windows, and the reasons why we considered it a better choice for our purposes. However, it was you who chose to interpret this defensively and in a particular way. I cannot help you with that I'm afraid. My goal was not to offend anyone - it was to help the open-minded understand why scientists choose Linux, since I have direct personal experience with this. Doing a PhD on the computational aspects of gravitational microlensing taught me and awful lot about scientific large-scale computing; I started out on Windows and later switched to Linux since the former really sucked for *scientific purposes*. I believe this is on-topic and pertinent to the thread, moreso than the comments of users who have little concept of computing beyond their desktop or their corporate mail server. So, my apologies if you feel aggrieved about my pointing out the deficiencies in Windows for computing similar to CERN. I would welcome the cessation of sarcastic and irrelevant ad hominem and be very pleased if you could enlighten us as to why Windows is a better solution for scientific computing (I genuinely wish to know why you think it is - as a trained scientist I'm always prepared to listen so I can invalidate my own observations and assumptions).
Just because China is inept in waging war is not the same as it lacking in imperial ambition. Clearly its history of serial belligerence since 1949 puts paid to the notion that it wishes for a peaceful rise. Once it is strong it will throw its weight around far more than the US does. nb. I also forgot to mention the (expansionist!) infiltration war against India in the 1960's (where China won against India, and got a taste for acquiring more territory by taking small bites). Now don't confuse me with someone reflexively anti-Sino. There is much to be admired about some of Chinese methods. That doesn't mean I don't recognize the danger of their rise and how their increasingly aggressive deeds don't actually match their peaceful public pronouncements (I suppose that is to be expected from a system so thoroughly pervaded by propaganda that basically anything the CCP says can't be trusted; but there is a trend of this and I can provide many examples on request [eg. lying about the use of the Varyag carrier, copying Russian equipment all the time, refusal to sign a no-reverse engineer agreement for the current Su-35 purchase, trying to buy only two Rookvalk helos from South Africa for reverse engineering/IP theft], lying about melamine in milk that killed babies and then blaming it on New Zealand etc etc).