I have to agree to a lot of what Zack have written, but stilhave some comments:
Zack write:
"Linux installation is not that much harder than Windows installation -- it's just that 99.44% of computer users get Windows pre-installed"
To be true, I simply can't see any difference in easiness/difficultiness in Windows or Linux. I have not tried to install ALL windows and ALL Linux'es. But I have tried many - and the average get to the same - or is in Linux faviour.
Zack:
"Also, in my experience, after initial familiarity is gained, many people start to graduate into the "power user" category. At which point, they end up delving into topics such as the Windows Registry, DLL incompatibilities, and the various "power user" tips and tricks of Windows. All of which constitute a formidible body of arcana, which is not made magically easier by the fact that it comes from Redmond, WA. Yet normal end-users tackle it anyway."
I will agree that the power user will eventually look into the depths of the OS. Ad here I find Linux to have plusses.
Zack:
"Funny, I just point, click, and the application runs, once it's been installed, under Linux as well. Just like in Windows. Except without the BSOD.:^) Surely you're familiar with the existance of GNOME, KDE, AfterStep, Window Maker, CDE, etc.?"
Yes, they run. What frontend is best... is individual. And of course Windows is know by many millions - why you are cometing on "home-front".
Still.....
What make Linux (Unix) (in my oppion) far much better and potentional winner - is that Liux have a true OS - not integrated with the graphics. It is modular and easy to work with (develop, enchance, etc).
It make it possible for people like Linus to work on the OS for performance, multi processer, etc, while others make graphics/X-window, etc - and more that can do applicaion, etc (to both OS and/or graphics).
Windows.....: I don't know to laugh or cry... I have been studying for MCSE.. read the fine words about the OS, etc - and still.... - I can't see ANY reason to do what they do. I simply find it a bad design in general - and solely done for business (and historic reasons ?).
One is tempted to ask: "Why did MicroSoft make Windows loaded with graphics when Bill had told that noone would need more than 640 KB in a PC" ?
Intesting about "how much it cost". My lie of questions would be:
1: How much space do it take 2: How much power do it comsume 3: How much noise do it make 4: How much do it cost (take 1, 2 and 3) into that.
As I have experience with how much a storage system from IBM can fill in space, then I would not buy 11 TB right now to my Linux box (and I don't think it would run there - but problary on an IBM mainframe).
But as a comment, I can tell that last year I planed to get to to have 1 TB online this year in my Linux server. But the plan have canceled.
I will await better, smaller (nonmechanical ?) disks - and file systems that can perform on those (SGI's open source file system might be one of them).
I know you're right will Oracle 8i. Oracle corp try to keep things simpel and efficient - avoiding the limits of the OS.
But I was talking about what a Database is and Oracle, not Oracle 8i.
And MicroSoft do! use SQL server in their products to look up information - and they do plan to work SQL-Server into their OS (part of the OS).
It is fine that Oracle want to have a super efficient Database (who they claim is at least 100x more efficient that SQL Server on > 1TB data), that use only little OS.
But the OS'es could benefit from a buildin database, to keep track of the OS itself. I would prefer to have a shink down version of Oracle/SQL_server in my OS, that to have a OS+Oracle 8i (or SQL Server) and do the merging myself.
>Yes, I like that it "enables current Linux users >to deploy enterprise-class applications", but >I'd also like to know what the heck it is. >Someone? Or is Oracle like toilet paper and >everyone knows what you use it for?
I guess that not everyone knows what Oracle stand for. But when you do what to make enterprice solutions (for many users/big networks) - the use of a powerfull database (like Oracle) for storing and manipulating huge amount of data is a BIG help.
I guess that in the future, OS'es will have a build in database for the most nessesary stuff. MicroSoft have already plans to integrate their SQL Server into their OS [Some of their products rely heavy on it already].
>Well, now that 8.1.5 is officially available to >the Linux crowd, maybe Oracle will get around to >sending me that complimentary copy of 8i that I >requested three months ago. > >Did anyone get theirs? I know that my NT version >arrived in a couple of weeks, but I've not seen >hide nor hair of the Linux offering. > >I certainly hope that this is not indicative of >Oracle's support for Linux. All talk? Since the >update is up for D/L, I guess not, but it would >be nice to run the two side by side to see how >they stack up... > >Still waiting for my CD Oracle
I'm awaiting my CD for Linux too - and also IBM's DB2 for Linux.
But... now I have moved to another country and not left any address. So I wonder if they can find me:)
Anyway - in the meantime I try to do a little Oracle on the 15 Unix servers (with 2 Gb ram each/2 CPU'es) just for warming up:)
I hope for MicroSoft that it will get cleaned up and awake from it's own self-delution. Likewice I hope those IT-boesses who still believe in MicroSoft's words and marketing - to listen to their technicians and ask: "do MS products work or not ?" and let the technicians give a full and honest answer.
In my professional career I have only found a few MS products I like. MS natural keyboard. It help me unstress while typing - and so far I know it have still not made my computer crash - ok... I have not installed the software that the keyboard package included....
Another thing I like is the Internet Explorer. Ok - there have been tons of problems and so on - and my coworker have used 1/2 making SMS install IE, without 100% luck - but still I like IE.
SQL server - both 6.5 and 7.0. 7.0 have rich functionality for administration. To bad SQL Server don't run on a proper OS, but have to run on MS.
In fact I think to many people want Linux to be the thing to bring MicroSoft to it knees.
I want Linux to be able to stand for itself. In fact, I hope that MicroSoft jump on the Linux wagon and start to port their products to Linux. If they don't have NT server as a base, their products have to stand for themselves and compete on equal terms to others.
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree to a lot of what Zack have written, but stilhave some comments:
:^) Surely you're familiar with the existance of GNOME, KDE, AfterStep, Window Maker, CDE, etc.?"
... is individual. And of course Windows is know by many millions - why you are cometing on "home-front".
.....: I don't know to laugh or cry... .. read the fine words about the OS, etc - and still.... - I can't see ANY reason to do what they do. I simply find it a bad design in general - and solely done for business (and historic reasons ?).
Zack write:
"Linux installation is not that much harder than Windows installation -- it's just that 99.44% of computer users get Windows pre-installed"
To be true, I simply can't see any difference in easiness/difficultiness in Windows or Linux. I have not tried to install ALL windows and ALL Linux'es. But I have tried many - and the average get to the same - or is in Linux faviour.
Zack:
"Also, in my experience, after initial familiarity is gained, many people start to graduate into the "power user" category. At which point, they end up delving into topics such as the Windows Registry, DLL incompatibilities, and the various "power user" tips and tricks of Windows. All of which constitute a formidible body of arcana, which is not made magically easier by the fact that it comes from Redmond, WA. Yet normal end-users tackle it anyway."
I will agree that the power user will eventually look into the depths of the OS. Ad here I find Linux to have plusses.
Zack:
"Funny, I just point, click, and the application runs, once it's been installed, under Linux as well. Just like in Windows. Except without the BSOD.
Yes, they run. What frontend is best
Still.....
What make Linux (Unix) (in my oppion) far much better and potentional winner - is that Liux have a true OS - not integrated with the graphics. It is modular and easy to work with (develop, enchance, etc).
It make it possible for people like Linus to work on the OS for performance, multi processer, etc, while others make graphics/X-window, etc - and more that can do applicaion, etc (to both OS and/or graphics).
Windows
I have been studying for MCSE
One is tempted to ask: "Why did MicroSoft make Windows loaded with graphics when Bill had told that noone would need more than 640 KB in a PC" ?
Intesting about "how much it cost". My lie of questions would be:
1: How much space do it take
2: How much power do it comsume
3: How much noise do it make
4: How much do it cost (take 1, 2 and 3) into that.
As I have experience with how much a storage system from IBM can fill in space, then I would not buy 11 TB right now to my Linux box (and I don't think it would run there - but problary on an IBM mainframe).
But as a comment, I can tell that last year I planed to get to to have 1 TB online this year in my Linux server. But the plan have canceled.
I will await better, smaller (nonmechanical ?) disks - and file systems that can perform on those (SGI's open source file system might be one of them).
Sincerely
Bent
I do agree to that a general pupose database IN the OS would not be good. That is why I wrote: "I would prefer to have a shink down version".
I know you're right will Oracle 8i.
Oracle corp try to keep things simpel and efficient - avoiding the limits of the OS.
But I was talking about what a Database is and Oracle, not Oracle 8i.
And MicroSoft do! use SQL server in their products to look up information - and they do plan to work SQL-Server into their OS (part of the OS).
It is fine that Oracle want to have a super efficient Database (who they claim is at least 100x more efficient that SQL Server on > 1TB data), that use only little OS.
But the OS'es could benefit from a buildin database, to keep track of the OS itself. I would prefer to have a shink down version of Oracle/SQL_server in my OS, that to have a OS+Oracle 8i (or SQL Server) and do the merging myself.
Sincerely
Bent
Someone wrote:
>Yes, I like that it "enables current Linux users >to deploy enterprise-class applications", but >I'd also like to know what the heck it is. >Someone? Or is Oracle like toilet paper and >everyone knows what you use it for?
I guess that not everyone knows what Oracle stand for. But when you do what to make enterprice solutions (for many users/big networks) - the use of a powerfull database (like Oracle) for storing and manipulating huge amount of data is a BIG help.
I guess that in the future, OS'es will have a build in database for the most nessesary stuff. MicroSoft have already plans to integrate their SQL Server into their OS [Some of their products rely heavy on it already].
Sincerely
Bent
mailto:bm@tli.de
Jabber wrote:
:)
:)
>Well, now that 8.1.5 is officially available to >the Linux crowd, maybe Oracle will get around to >sending me that complimentary copy of 8i that I >requested three months ago.
>
>Did anyone get theirs? I know that my NT version >arrived in a couple of weeks, but I've not seen >hide nor hair of the Linux offering.
>
>I certainly hope that this is not indicative of >Oracle's support for Linux. All talk? Since the >update is up for D/L, I guess not, but it would >be nice to run the two side by side to see how >they stack up...
>
>Still waiting for my CD Oracle
I'm awaiting my CD for Linux too - and also IBM's DB2 for Linux.
But... now I have moved to another country and not left any address. So I wonder if they can find me
Anyway - in the meantime I try to do a little Oracle on the 15 Unix servers (with 2 Gb ram each/2 CPU'es) just for warming up
/Bent
mailto:bm@tli.de
I hope for MicroSoft that it will get cleaned up and awake from it's own self-delution. Likewice I hope those IT-boesses who still believe in MicroSoft's words and marketing - to listen to their technicians and ask: "do MS products work or not ?" and let the technicians give a full and honest answer.
In my professional career I have only found a few MS products I like. MS natural keyboard. It help me unstress while typing - and so far I know it have still not made my computer crash - ok... I have not installed the software that the keyboard package included....
Another thing I like is the Internet Explorer. Ok - there have been tons of problems and so on - and my coworker have used 1/2 making SMS install IE, without 100% luck - but still I like IE.
SQL server - both 6.5 and 7.0. 7.0 have rich functionality for administration. To bad SQL Server don't run on a proper OS, but have to run on MS.
Thats all folks.
Sincerely
Bent Mathiesen
I agree to Acropos.
In fact I think to many people want Linux to be the thing to bring MicroSoft to it knees.
I want Linux to be able to stand for itself. In fact, I hope that MicroSoft jump on the Linux wagon and start to port their products to Linux. If they don't have NT server as a base, their products have to stand for themselves and compete on equal terms to others.
Sincerely
DearHeart