Actually, Win4Lin Terminal Server has been on the market for quite some time now, and can serve multiple concurrent Windows desktops from a Linux server to thin clients, web browsers, etc. Also, despite serving an entire Windows session, performance in general is far superior to WINE-based applications because of the amount of hardware virtualization (Windows device drivers run natively on the CPU, but translate to Linux system calls on the fly.) Finally, WTS runs almost all Windows applications that do not require DirectX, you are not restricted to just MS Office.
I want to first say that I work for NeTraverse, so now that it's out in the open, I would like to suggest that Win4Lin is a good option for running Outlook, even quaranteened, under Linux. And it really is not too expensive!
Well, I think it's important to note that artificially high upward mobility is not the norm in every industry, but in fact was at least somewhat common in ours in the past few years. For instance, at 22, I received a software team to manage at GTE (now Verizon) after just over 1 year of service with the company in various high-visibility projects. The good news is that I left the company a few years ago. I say good news because with increased responsibility, especially when it slaps you in the face almost overnight, comes burden. In my case, the personal demands were just too great (super long hours were required, pagers/phone going off all night and weekends, etc.)
I think that when people look at our field, they surely have seen very high profile examples of this upward mobility (CEO's in their early 20's who started hacking in their garage, etc.) So it is natural for outsiders to think that just because programmers do not automatically "ascend" into management, then it must be a dead-end job, given the high profile cases in the news every day. Frankly, I've met many folks who just do not want to "ascend." Personally, I have to admit that I love having the opportunity to direct people, but what I like most about it is running the design side of things. However, many people are not even comfortable in that role. With that said, many programming jobs appear to be "dead-end" because the employees want it that way.
Also, in recent times, many folks entered the computer industry because it paid well. Me? Ever since I was a little kid and started hacking on my TRS-80, I *knew* that this was what I was going to do for a living in the future, regardless of pay. Do I like the fact that I get to do what I love to do, and still own a house, drive a Corvette, and enjoy many other luxuries because it pays well? Of course. But, even if the pay was mediocre, I would still be doing this.
I agree in some capacity with what you said, but I have to cite personal experience and disagree with waiting until Jr. high school to introduce children to computers. I started programming at the age of 7, and I actually learned the abstract concepts of computer logic a few months before that in a matter of days. You see, my father wanted me to learn how to make electronic circuits (because that's what he did), and he taught me the basic gates (AND, OR, XOR, NAND, etc.) I had little interest in electronics, but a few months later when I first started programming, I immediately applied the abstract logic. I think that children's minds at that age are ripe for understanding concepts that adults sometimes can never learn. In fact, I find myself today (at 25) having a hard time learning new computer languages/technologies, while when I was a kid (even before Jr. high), I could pick up any language or technology in just days.
Now, with that said, I do agree that video games (of any sort) should not replace legos, play-do, etc. However, I think that exposing children at a young age to computers, foreign languages, etc. is a great thing. If they show interest (beyond the entertainment value that is), then I think they should be given the opportunity to explore. We all know that computing skills are pretty much mandatory in today's job market, so imagine what it will be like in 20 years. This will also increase the demand for computer programmers and content creators over time. So why not?
My wife and I are actually expecting our first child. I am already in the planning stages for providing a Linux-based X terminal for him or her (we do not know yet:) I want to make 100% sure that my child is comfortable and competent on the computer at as early an age as possible. That does not mean, however, that I will not provide traditional toys, games, and other things. And the child will not play games on the computer or surf the web mindlessly - I expect him/her to learn their way around Linux and I will do my best to teach abstract concepts as soon as I see that he/she is ready to listen to that.
Is this selfish? Maybe. I will do my best not to force my career choice on my child(ren) But I also do not want to watch them to have their first serious exposure much later in life, when if they want to go into the field, they will regret not learning at an earlier age. There is plenty of mediocrity in this industry, and I think one great way to help it is to get children who show interest some heavy exposure as early in life as possible.
I think that you are absolutely right, but hopefully, it will not be too long before we see at least a decently thought-out Intel-based server. Let's face it, with AMD's latest line of processors (the XP and MP's), there is enough processing power and bang for the buck to rival most larger scale systems from traditional UNIX vendors. Obviously, the weakness is in the bus architecture, BIOS-design, etc. A lot of this is due to the fact that comodity hardware vendors must still allow legacy software/operating system/applications (we know what these are) to run properly on their systems.
I think that we will see some positive developments now that folks such as IBM are involved. Let's face it, IBM hasn't always had the latest and greatest, but quality and robust design has always been a staple of their products (at least from my experience.) Besides, if we really look at it, a PC is not too far from being a reliable server: a good solid power supply (redundant perhaps), a real bootloader rather than the BIOS, 64-bit PCI slots (and/or 66MHz ones too), and a well engineered rack-mountable case are some of the tweaks that come to mind mind at least, that can get a PC over the hump and be a reliable Linux server.
I do agree that Sun hardware is a blast to work on. However, I'll take Linux hands down any day over Solaris in terms of usability. Solaris is a fine system, but over the years I've found that Linux has been able to adapt to *my* needs, rather than the other way around. And as for Linux on non-x86 architectures, I think that is excellent too. But there is a certain aura to the grass-roots nature of Linux on an x86 platform that is hard to match. I also think that if one builds a server from scratch, one can pick high quality components and make wise decisions, even with commodity hardware. There is decent gear out there for reasonable prices, you just have to give it some thought.
Finally, I am very hopeful that we will see more and more projects and technologies which will allow us to build Linux-based commodity servers that begin to rival the robustness of their much more expensive RISC-based cousins. I would even be ecstatic the day that I can boot an x86 server without video:)
By the way, well written software is inherently portable, especially among UNIX family operating systems. There is very little work to do if the code is written right, to use portable APIs, data types, etc. Conceptually, UNIX operating systems are all quite similar, so if you stick to portable tactics and take advantage of these simple concepts, you will have no problem porting code. Especially today, when you can even standardize development tools (using GNU tools) across any platform, that really makes life easy.
In my opinion, the clear and robust process model, which no other OS has ever been able to implement as well, is the major factor. Along with that, the file model - how everything has a polymorphic interface based on file descriptors - very cool, makes programming very simple. IPC is great - many forms to choose from, very simple to use, especially pipes. I guess the common thread in all these aspects is simplicity - it is really amazing how UNIX systems can abstract such complex functionality into such simple APIs - I have never worked with another OS capable of such a feat. Today's models tend to be overarchitected, but not UNIX. The architecture is simple and robust, yet modular and interchangeable enough to stand the test of time. It's amazing how a 30+ year old operating system can still power most of the computers on the Internet and the WWW, which is what we consider today to be the most state of the art area of computer software. Whether it's BSD, SVRx, Linux, or any other member of the UNIX family, it still shares these fundamentals which make it 'UNIX.'
You must be one of those M$ public relations people who spam forums with BS posing as users.
Talk about being afraid to compete - resorting to such low methods like this just because there are very viable (and much better) alternatives to the crap developed in Redmond. And, surprise, surprise, people are starting to wake up and adopt these systems for their businesses (finally) because they are tired of burning money on trying to get your vaporware to work.
Who's afraid to compete again?
BTW: I've got news for you - people who read this news site are educated, intelligent human beings, many of whom are probably at least partly responsible for this new phenomenom that you are so obviously afraid of. We will not fall for your dumb FUD which you routinely quote to your brainless (single digit IQ) Windows using drones, so please stop posting crap on this site - it's a waste of Internet bandwidth. Oh wait, you work for Micro$oft - wasting valuable resources is all you and your software knows how to do. Well, you can go do that on your Presspass site, aka PRAVDA - no offense to the former USSR:)
You must be one of those M$ public relations people who spam forums with BS posing as users.
Talk about being afraid to compete - resorting to such low methods like this just because there are very viable (and much better) alternatives to the crap developed in Redmond. And, surprise, surprise, people are starting to wake up and adopt these systems for their businesses (finally) because they are tired of burning money on trying to get your vaporware to work.
Who's afraid to compete again?
BTW: I've got news for you - people who read this news site are educated, intelligent human beings, many of whom are probably at least partly responsible for this new phenomenom that you are so obviously afraid of. We will not fall for your dumb FUD which you can quote that to your brainless Windows using drones, so please stop posting crap on this site - it's a waste of Internet bandwidth. Oh wait, you work for Micro$oft - wasting valuable resources is all you and your software knows how to do. Well, you can go do that on your Presspass site, aka PRAVDA - no offense to the former USSR:)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Win4Lin Terminal Server has been on the market for quite some time now, and can serve multiple concurrent Windows desktops from a Linux server to thin clients, web browsers, etc. Also, despite serving an entire Windows session, performance in general is far superior to WINE-based applications because of the amount of hardware virtualization (Windows device drivers run natively on the CPU, but translate to Linux system calls on the fly.) Finally, WTS runs almost all Windows applications that do not require DirectX, you are not restricted to just MS Office.
check it out at our website: http://www.netraverse.com
Well, I think it's important to note that artificially high upward mobility is not the norm in every industry, but in fact was at least somewhat common in ours in the past few years. For instance, at 22, I received a software team to manage at GTE (now Verizon) after just over 1 year of service with the company in various high-visibility projects. The good news is that I left the company a few years ago. I say good news because with increased responsibility, especially when it slaps you in the face almost overnight, comes burden. In my case, the personal demands were just too great (super long hours were required, pagers/phone going off all night and weekends, etc.)
I think that when people look at our field, they surely have seen very high profile examples of this upward mobility (CEO's in their early 20's who started hacking in their garage, etc.) So it is natural for outsiders to think that just because programmers do not automatically "ascend" into management, then it must be a dead-end job, given the high profile cases in the news every day. Frankly, I've met many folks who just do not want to "ascend." Personally, I have to admit that I love having the opportunity to direct people, but what I like most about it is running the design side of things. However, many people are not even comfortable in that role. With that said, many programming jobs appear to be "dead-end" because the employees want it that way.
Also, in recent times, many folks entered the computer industry because it paid well. Me? Ever since I was a little kid and started hacking on my TRS-80, I *knew* that this was what I was going to do for a living in the future, regardless of pay. Do I like the fact that I get to do what I love to do, and still own a house, drive a Corvette, and enjoy many other luxuries because it pays well? Of course. But, even if the pay was mediocre, I would still be doing this.
I agree in some capacity with what you said, but I have to cite personal experience and disagree with waiting until Jr. high school to introduce children to computers. I started programming at the age of 7, and I actually learned the abstract concepts of computer logic a few months before that in a matter of days. You see, my father wanted me to learn how to make electronic circuits (because that's what he did), and he taught me the basic gates (AND, OR, XOR, NAND, etc.) I had little interest in electronics, but a few months later when I first started programming, I immediately applied the abstract logic. I think that children's minds at that age are ripe for understanding concepts that adults sometimes can never learn. In fact, I find myself today (at 25) having a hard time learning new computer languages/technologies, while when I was a kid (even before Jr. high), I could pick up any language or technology in just days.
:) I want to make 100% sure that my child is comfortable and competent on the computer at as early an age as possible. That does not mean, however, that I will not provide traditional toys, games, and other things. And the child will not play games on the computer or surf the web mindlessly - I expect him/her to learn their way around Linux and I will do my best to teach abstract concepts as soon as I see that he/she is ready to listen to that.
Now, with that said, I do agree that video games (of any sort) should not replace legos, play-do, etc. However, I think that exposing children at a young age to computers, foreign languages, etc. is a great thing. If they show interest (beyond the entertainment value that is), then I think they should be given the opportunity to explore. We all know that computing skills are pretty much mandatory in today's job market, so imagine what it will be like in 20 years. This will also increase the demand for computer programmers and content creators over time. So why not?
My wife and I are actually expecting our first child. I am already in the planning stages for providing a Linux-based X terminal for him or her (we do not know yet
Is this selfish? Maybe. I will do my best not to force my career choice on my child(ren) But I also do not want to watch them to have their first serious exposure much later in life, when if they want to go into the field, they will regret not learning at an earlier age. There is plenty of mediocrity in this industry, and I think one great way to help it is to get children who show interest some heavy exposure as early in life as possible.
I think that you are absolutely right, but hopefully, it will not be too long before we see at least a decently thought-out Intel-based server. Let's face it, with AMD's latest line of processors (the XP and MP's), there is enough processing power and bang for the buck to rival most larger scale systems from traditional UNIX vendors. Obviously, the weakness is in the bus architecture, BIOS-design, etc. A lot of this is due to the fact that comodity hardware vendors must still allow legacy software/operating system/applications (we know what these are) to run properly on their systems. I think that we will see some positive developments now that folks such as IBM are involved. Let's face it, IBM hasn't always had the latest and greatest, but quality and robust design has always been a staple of their products (at least from my experience.) Besides, if we really look at it, a PC is not too far from being a reliable server: a good solid power supply (redundant perhaps), a real bootloader rather than the BIOS, 64-bit PCI slots (and/or 66MHz ones too), and a well engineered rack-mountable case are some of the tweaks that come to mind mind at least, that can get a PC over the hump and be a reliable Linux server. I do agree that Sun hardware is a blast to work on. However, I'll take Linux hands down any day over Solaris in terms of usability. Solaris is a fine system, but over the years I've found that Linux has been able to adapt to *my* needs, rather than the other way around. And as for Linux on non-x86 architectures, I think that is excellent too. But there is a certain aura to the grass-roots nature of Linux on an x86 platform that is hard to match. I also think that if one builds a server from scratch, one can pick high quality components and make wise decisions, even with commodity hardware. There is decent gear out there for reasonable prices, you just have to give it some thought. Finally, I am very hopeful that we will see more and more projects and technologies which will allow us to build Linux-based commodity servers that begin to rival the robustness of their much more expensive RISC-based cousins. I would even be ecstatic the day that I can boot an x86 server without video :)
By the way, well written software is inherently portable, especially among UNIX family operating systems. There is very little work to do if the code is written right, to use portable APIs, data types, etc. Conceptually, UNIX operating systems are all quite similar, so if you stick to portable tactics and take advantage of these simple concepts, you will have no problem porting code. Especially today, when you can even standardize development tools (using GNU tools) across any platform, that really makes life easy.
In my opinion, the clear and robust process model, which no other OS has ever been able to implement as well, is the major factor. Along with that, the file model - how everything has a polymorphic interface based on file descriptors - very cool, makes programming very simple. IPC is great - many forms to choose from, very simple to use, especially pipes. I guess the common thread in all these aspects is simplicity - it is really amazing how UNIX systems can abstract such complex functionality into such simple APIs - I have never worked with another OS capable of such a feat. Today's models tend to be overarchitected, but not UNIX. The architecture is simple and robust, yet modular and interchangeable enough to stand the test of time. It's amazing how a 30+ year old operating system can still power most of the computers on the Internet and the WWW, which is what we consider today to be the most state of the art area of computer software. Whether it's BSD, SVRx, Linux, or any other member of the UNIX family, it still shares these fundamentals which make it 'UNIX.'
What color is the sky in your world?
:)
You must be one of those M$ public relations people who spam forums with BS posing as users.
Talk about being afraid to compete - resorting to such low methods like this just because there are very viable (and much better) alternatives to the crap developed in Redmond. And, surprise, surprise, people are starting to wake up and adopt these systems for their businesses (finally) because they are tired of burning money on trying to get your vaporware to work.
Who's afraid to compete again?
BTW: I've got news for you - people who read this news site are educated, intelligent human beings, many of whom are probably at least partly responsible for this new phenomenom that you are so obviously afraid of. We will not fall for your dumb FUD which you routinely quote to your brainless (single digit IQ) Windows using drones, so please stop posting crap on this site - it's a waste of Internet bandwidth. Oh wait, you work for Micro$oft - wasting valuable resources is all you and your software knows how to do. Well, you can go do that on your Presspass site, aka PRAVDA - no offense to the former USSR
What color is the sky in your world?
:)
You must be one of those M$ public relations people who spam forums with BS posing as users.
Talk about being afraid to compete - resorting to such low methods like this just because there are very viable (and much better) alternatives to the crap developed in Redmond. And, surprise, surprise, people are starting to wake up and adopt these systems for their businesses (finally) because they are tired of burning money on trying to get your vaporware to work.
Who's afraid to compete again?
BTW: I've got news for you - people who read this news site are educated, intelligent human beings, many of whom are probably at least partly responsible for this new phenomenom that you are so obviously afraid of. We will not fall for your dumb FUD which you can quote that to your brainless Windows using drones, so please stop posting crap on this site - it's a waste of Internet bandwidth. Oh wait, you work for Micro$oft - wasting valuable resources is all you and your software knows how to do. Well, you can go do that on your Presspass site, aka PRAVDA - no offense to the former USSR