Because I know you're waiting with bated breath for updates, here's more info, this time from someone directly involved, with more information.
Blog posting from a Sun employee
I hate how people write off ATI and Nvidia as Open Source scrooges since their drivers are closed.
Scrooge or not, their implementations (at least on Linux) fail the Just Works test. It's why I chose Intel video (despite its poorer performance) for a desktop I just built, and it's the reason I hope to buy an Intel video laptop in the next refresh. Particularly on notebooks, since I've had a heck of a time convincing fglrx to let me suspend to ram/disk. And I know I'm not alone on this problem, and I have heard that Intel suspend to disk/ram Just Works. Given my experience with this last PC, I don't doubt it at all.
To me, it depends entirely on the use. For my wife's PC (no real 3D required), I went with Intel since I knew 3d would go straight out of the box, no fussing with un-user-friendly driver installs and X configs. For my own desktop usage, it'd be ATI or nVidia, leaning slightly toward ATI for their prior Linux Free driver support. For notebooks, however, 3d is much less important to me than reliable suspend/resume, which I'm unable to get with ATI and which I get in spades from Intel.
There's something to be said for a single, standard API (the Win32 API is generally pretty consistent), IDE (MS Visual Studio), Desktop Manager (Windows Explorer), Filesystem (NTFS), etc.
There certainly is. That would be "one size doesn't fit all". If you don't want the complexity, just go with what the distro defaults are. What you're saying is "choices are hard and so I won't use it (even though I don't have to choose)".
know, it's hard to believe, but most people want something that they can get their work done on, surf the web with, and look at their digital photos with.
They don't give a shit about having a choice between 4 different window managers every time they login. They don't care about the hundreds of different widgets, toolkits, IDEs and APIs that are available. They don't care what filesystem they are using, if they even know what a filesystem is. They don't care that that can use 10 different bundled text editors to look at their documents. The list goes on.
So people like that would just go with the distro defaults. Heck, Ubuntu doesn't even present you with the options (you have to install them via the package manager). What's the problem?
Every Linux distribution is different.
Their differences are oversold, really. I use several different mainstream distros, and I can tell you that they're not that different. The basics are all the same, and the differences are easy to get your head around.
But for an individual user or business differences between distros are irrelevant. Use the one you're familar with, and it's the same distro!
Perhaps by then Linux will be in better shape as a whole.
Vendor lockin aside (i.e. exising proprietary-formatted files, Windows-only apps and hardware), Linux is there now. You're looking at it and just giving up. As a desktop, I ind that it's already surpassed Windows in ease of use.
At the University of Michigan, everybody can have WinXP for $14
Actually, if you look at it, you get an upgrade copy of Windows XP Pro for $14, plus $30-70 per semester for the campus to maintain their agreement (note that if they don't, your license vanishes and the money is completely wasted, nor may you keep it if you don't graduate), depending on whom you ask. Hardly a great deal IMHO, but also not exactly trumpeted from the rooftops either--in fact, from what I've gleaned, the students are only told about the bookstore price, not the additional moneys each semester that go directly into Microsoft's pockets for software most of them don't actually need and which they can obtain for at least comparable sums. Additionally, it's hard to buy a PC without XP already installed (you really do have to either be knowledgeable or go looking hard for it) so generally your money is wasted as you can (legally) only upgrade and XP Home or 2000 (or maybe even 9x of some sort) has gotten you along just fine thus far and likely would continue to do so.
Luckily, the Office license is a full one, not an upgrade, though if you've gotten a PC from a major vendor, you likely already have software for it. Not to mention that Office Academic is pretty cheap (relatively speaking--OpenOffice or even Star Office or WordPerfect Office is at least on par). Finally, you have to specifically ask to upgrade your license to a permanent one upon graduation, or your license evaporates, along with your $240 (a very conservative estimate of $30/semester for 2 semesters for 4 years).
Of course, this is the agreement my uni (U. Iowa) hashed out; yours may well be different, but it's likely to be very similar.
Personally, I wish I could opt out because what I have works just fine, and if not I can buy a full license via the Academic licensing channels for similar, if not significantly less money.
And engineering students get it free through MSDNAA (MSDN Academic Alliance)
That could be. I'm in physics, not engineering, but I understand that it's not at all the same beast as the campus agreement, so you may well be right--I've no special knowledge about it atm.
Makes it kind of a pain to do LUG evangelism there...
Yes. Yes it does. Nice move on Microsoft's part, especially given the lockin value plus the fact that the downsides are well-hidden from the students. sigh Double the fact that (at least for some unis) it was actually less an agreement than coercion.
alternate interpretation....
on
GUADEC 2006
·
· Score: 1
GNOME -- the user environment for desktop computers, networked servers and portable Internet devices, not the little guys that run around in your garden.
But we have to emphasize MSO right now because--like I said--it's the standard out there and we'd rather them learn button-pushing than nothing at all...and right now, we're having a hard time creating the third option.
Excellent. Assuming they're freshmen/women, please tell me where I can go find MSOffice 2k9? I can't seem to find it anywhere, and it'll be what they'll be using it when they get out of school, not this 2k3 or (heavens forbid) 2k or XP. I hear the interface has changed greatly (yet again) and it's a fridge-magnet-poetry type interface in 2009, so they really need to bone up on the buttons they need to push.
Unfortunately, we got and are staying where we are due to short-sightedness.
Continuing to use Microsoft's products despite their actions is the short-sighted response. They will continue doing what they are doing because they will continue to get away with it. The long-sighted action is to abandon Microsoft, incurring the short-term pain for the long-term gain.
Linux is a mess right now. Has been for years.
I humbly disagree. I don't know the particulars of the situation you described, but in my experience, it's as much a viable server and desktop OS as Windows, if not a superior one. The main shortcoming is purely 3rd-party support, due to a lack of marketshare. This is a fixable problem, with your help.
Once Linux (globally) accepts the OSX style application installer then I'll go back.
OSX has an OSX style application installer. Use it instead, if you prefer. Linux's install systems are being improved, and OSX-style installers have been kicked around and may well make it in. Windows-style.exe installers already exist for Linux, including InstallShield; ask your software vendor why it's not being used.
However, the point stands--continuing to use Microsoft despite their behavior is trading off long-term good for short-term.
Did you check to see if your video card has open-source drivers?
Drivers do not have to be "open-source" to be in a Linux distro. It certainly helps keep the driver running smoothly, but it's not required. The only requirement is for the driver's license to allow distributions to ship it.
Even if it does, you'll spend hours upon hours editing config files, installing packages, and generally mucking about trying to get it to work before it actually does
The modern linux desktop does not require this anymore, not for a great many years.
If you post to any of the online forums, you'll likely be met with a loud chorus of "RTFM!!!"
Or, more likely, you'll get help.
Of course, all of this will involve recompiling your kernel multiple times, etc.
The modern linux desktop does not require this anymore, not for a great many years.
These are things that are difficult for techie people. My mom could never get it going in a million years and nor would she want to spend the time trying.
Luckily for them, it's vastly easier than the nightmare scenario you describe, and they would likely have on average as easy or as hard of a time as on Windows.
I'm not anti-Linux by any means
Horse honkey. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we?
After all, physicists are there to do science, not write code.
That depends entirely on the physicist. For some clusterjockey physicists, writing code (usually c++ in my experience) is part and parcel with doing the science, because matlab and mathematica (and maple and well, for some people maybe even IDL) are great for some domains, but not all, and c or c++ will get you to those other domains.
Plus, MATLAB (Distributed Computing Toolbox) and Mathematica (gridMathematica) will both be available for Windows CCS, and I imagine Star-P may be out before too long.
They already exist for existing nix/nux based cluster solutions, save for "star-p" which I've never heard of. They're still Matlab and Mathematica, with all of the tradeoffs that go with each.
Most bussinesses get the no OS or the freedos and just wipe and install linux or windows. A good IT department has a blanket license anyway to prevent an audit by the BSA.
Note: It's important to understand that Volume License Agreements do not cover the full windows operating system; Volume Licensing provides for Windows OS upgrades only. Customers must first have a qualifying underlying operating system license before installing Volume License software on their computers.
Synopsis: if you buy a PC with no OS and install a Microsoft volume license on it, you are in violation of the license and can be sued by Microsoft/BSA and/or automagically be deactivated in the next few iterations of WGA. (in general; there's a small chance that your legal department wrangled a special license I have no way of knowing about and this isn't applicable to you)
Re:probably on Microsoft's list of next important
on
Apache down, IIS up
·
· Score: 1
They are using the fact that they have such an enormous war chest of cash.
This warchest is built on monopoly rents for Office and Windows. Hence the tie-in, at least in the "bloatloads of cash" aspect. There may well likely be (and very probably are; it just makes business sense) others.
With the browser war, Microsoft won by abusing their monopoly a bit-- no doubt.
Indeed. But you seem to forget that Microsoft used similar tactics against Netscape--buying install CD space and support with ISP's and websites from cash from their monopoly rents on Windows. It was one arm of their successful strategy. Notably, a similar strategy may have been used to convince Corel to drop Linux support.
But this is good old fashioned capitalism.
Depending on certain definitions of "good old fashioned capitalism" certainly. OTOH, the behavior wrt Netscape was arguably also merely "good old fashioned capitalism".
The core of the problem is that pure capitalism (beyond "lasseiz-faire"; even lasseiz-faire includes some governmental intervention, says Merriam-Webster) has an inherent instability in this area, and this is what anti-trust seeks to address.
Adobe was trying to get $$ from the great MS and threatening them with going to the EU if Microsoft didn't pony up royalties, and people here are rushing to defend Adobe even if they have to make it up...
The real story here is watching Adobe try to bully $$ from MS by threatening them with the EU.
What evidence for this do you have, other than Microsoft saying that Adobe threatened anti-trust against them in the EU?
Additionally, what evidence do you have that this is the sole motivating factor for Adobe, aside from your guesses based on Microsoft's statements?
Models outside the "Adobe just wants cash from Microsoft" model fit the data much better IMHO.
Actually, IIRC, once the trip through the court system took so long as to nail Java's coffin lid firmly shut, Sun demanded that Microsoft quit shipping the Microsoft VM and that they be forced to ship the Sun JVM. Microsoft naturally objected and the courts agreed.
As you point out, playing with Microsoft (or not) is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. Either let Microsoft warp your software/spec as they see fit (here, Windows-only "java" apps and non-portability), or be shut down by Microsoft since they will take 90% of the userbase another direction (Microsoft's warped JVM +.net). This is why monopoly power in software is truly a fearsome beast.
It appears that they're doing the same thing to Adobe that they did to Sun and Java.
Not really. It's merely a (hitherto unmentioned) model that would also neatly fit current events, given past behaviour. There are also scenarios where Adobe is just a greedy backstabber, but those have already been mentioned in abundance.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Because I know you're waiting with bated breath for updates, here's more info, this time from someone directly involved, with more information. Blog posting from a Sun employee
Sweet. Thanks. I'm always on the lookout for Linux and FreeDOS/Naked PC's.
To me, it depends entirely on the use. For my wife's PC (no real 3D required), I went with Intel since I knew 3d would go straight out of the box, no fussing with un-user-friendly driver installs and X configs. For my own desktop usage, it'd be ATI or nVidia, leaning slightly toward ATI for their prior Linux Free driver support. For notebooks, however, 3d is much less important to me than reliable suspend/resume, which I'm unable to get with ATI and which I get in spades from Intel.
I distinctly remember having to put the kibosh on Messenger any number of a bajillion times.
inquiring minds want to know: where's the list?
A related link: OpenOffice's response
You can also tune your VM system as well as various things within PHP and .net as well.
Beyond that, under Linux, you can change anything, since you have the source code (though I'd not expect it for a simple benchmark).
Why not use it? Oh, right. vendors....
But for an individual user or business differences between distros are irrelevant. Use the one you're familar with, and it's the same distro!
Vendor lockin aside (i.e. exising proprietary-formatted files, Windows-only apps and hardware), Linux is there now. You're looking at it and just giving up. As a desktop, I ind that it's already surpassed Windows in ease of use .Less screwed does not imply not screwed.
Actually, if you look at it, you get an upgrade copy of Windows XP Pro for $14, plus $30-70 per semester for the campus to maintain their agreement (note that if they don't, your license vanishes and the money is completely wasted, nor may you keep it if you don't graduate), depending on whom you ask. Hardly a great deal IMHO, but also not exactly trumpeted from the rooftops either--in fact, from what I've gleaned, the students are only told about the bookstore price, not the additional moneys each semester that go directly into Microsoft's pockets for software most of them don't actually need and which they can obtain for at least comparable sums. Additionally, it's hard to buy a PC without XP already installed (you really do have to either be knowledgeable or go looking hard for it) so generally your money is wasted as you can (legally) only upgrade and XP Home or 2000 (or maybe even 9x of some sort) has gotten you along just fine thus far and likely would continue to do so.
Luckily, the Office license is a full one, not an upgrade, though if you've gotten a PC from a major vendor, you likely already have software for it. Not to mention that Office Academic is pretty cheap (relatively speaking--OpenOffice or even Star Office or WordPerfect Office is at least on par). Finally, you have to specifically ask to upgrade your license to a permanent one upon graduation, or your license evaporates, along with your $240 (a very conservative estimate of $30/semester for 2 semesters for 4 years).
Of course, this is the agreement my uni (U. Iowa) hashed out; yours may well be different, but it's likely to be very similar.
Personally, I wish I could opt out because what I have works just fine, and if not I can buy a full license via the Academic licensing channels for similar, if not significantly less money.
That could be. I'm in physics, not engineering, but I understand that it's not at all the same beast as the campus agreement, so you may well be right--I've no special knowledge about it atm. Yes. Yes it does. Nice move on Microsoft's part, especially given the lockin value plus the fact that the downsides are well-hidden from the students. sigh Double the fact that (at least for some unis) it was actually less an agreement than coercion.Can I have a penguin logo instead?
Continuing to use Microsoft's products despite their actions is the short-sighted response. They will continue doing what they are doing because they will continue to get away with it. The long-sighted action is to abandon Microsoft, incurring the short-term pain for the long-term gain.
I humbly disagree. I don't know the particulars of the situation you described, but in my experience, it's as much a viable server and desktop OS as Windows, if not a superior one. The main shortcoming is purely 3rd-party support, due to a lack of marketshare. This is a fixable problem, with your help. OSX has an OSX style application installer. Use it instead, if you prefer. Linux's install systems are being improved, and OSX-style installers have been kicked around and may well make it in. Windows-styleHowever, the point stands--continuing to use Microsoft despite their behavior is trading off long-term good for short-term.
Enough feeding trolls. I'm going to bed.
Synopsis: if you buy a PC with no OS and install a Microsoft volume license on it, you are in violation of the license and can be sued by Microsoft/BSA and/or automagically be deactivated in the next few iterations of WGA. (in general; there's a small chance that your legal department wrangled a special license I have no way of knowing about and this isn't applicable to you)
The core of the problem is that pure capitalism (beyond "lasseiz-faire"; even lasseiz-faire includes some governmental intervention, says Merriam-Webster) has an inherent instability in this area, and this is what anti-trust seeks to address.
Additionally, what evidence do you have that this is the sole motivating factor for Adobe, aside from your guesses based on Microsoft's statements?
Models outside the "Adobe just wants cash from Microsoft" model fit the data much better IMHO.
As you point out, playing with Microsoft (or not) is a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. Either let Microsoft warp your software/spec as they see fit (here, Windows-only "java" apps and non-portability), or be shut down by Microsoft since they will take 90% of the userbase another direction (Microsoft's warped JVM + .net). This is why monopoly power in software is truly a fearsome beast.