Look, BeOS is interesting, and commercial. You even contridicted yourself in your first sentance, "it's good...it's crap"
Personally, I would love to try out BeOS, and for that matter, QNX. But I can't afford it, so I won't be trying it.
Which brings me to my point, opinions are like a^H^H^H^, everyone has one. What will really matter is how the market treats the OS. Is price a factor? You bettcha. You think Linux would be this popular if it were say, $400 a pop, with $25 per user licence tacked on?
If it's worth the price, someone will pay it, if it's not, it will die. Then, there will always be people like me that just go with what they can afford and try to make the best of it...;-)
BTW, your troll is sooo far off base. You ever really benchmarked preformance of apps with open source versus commercial compilers? I have seen quite a few comparisons between open source and commercial C and Fortan compilers, and believe me, some people out there pay the money, and are glad to do it for good reason.
Well, if Pluto doesn't meet the criteria to qualify it as a planet, then we shouldn't be calling it one. Seems simple to me. Actually cool, if we are to a point where we can find out the truth dispite historical opinion, that's one of the cooler things about being alive today.
But, why is it that I am more concerned that it's referanced to a BBC artical? Uh, teen age encription experts discover it's not a planet or what? BBC credibility seems more like tabloid that news level lately.... Or is it just me?
www.sun.com then hit "products and solutions" then hit Workstations, and it droped me right to that # tag about no longer making X, Y, and Z....
So, I spook too soon, I happened to come across this SGI thread on/. about the same time I was looking at that, and who'da thought you were suppose to scroll _UP_ to get to where they were suppose to send me;-)
Spoke too soon... It felt like a dark day, but I guess it's not _that_ bad.
Geeze. First you can't get a Sun Workstation (supported but no longer sold) at all anymore. Now MIPS is on it's way out. Who's next? If Compaq follows Sun's and SGI's lead, they will can the Alpha workstations too...
Things are NOT looking up for x86 alternitives. Well, I guess the good news is that at least AMD is making things look good _in_ the x86 world.:-(
Speaking of Creative Labs Linux support, this may be a touch off topic, but...
I was looking at thier "Graphics Blaster RIVA TNT AGP 128-bit graphics engine, 16MB sdram. 250MHz DAC. Support Direct X and Open GL. Retail Box AGP" which seems to be around $120? Looks like Tom's Hardware did a decent review on this thing, if I am reading it right, but didn't say it was al that great. Anyone use one, and can comment on it's preformance in Linux, and just how well supported it really is?
I notice a lot of comments about DVD and 3-D sound possabilities... Would be interesting to see it happen, would be great. I would love to buy a new Linux box twards the end of the year that can "do it all" multimedia wise...;-)
That's good news. I am not even going to bother replying to the other guys post, bus speed and communication rates between componants do matter...;-) I have seen how x86 systems run faster at 2.5x112 than they do at 4.5x66 at some things. It matters. Cache is important, but not the only thing.
Linux preformance on G3 needs to be polished a bit from what I hear, but I don't know for sure. I would seriously consider a G3, and am looking into it more and more. Mac might make my list of interests. I tell you one thing that does are some of the IBM's (the 43P-140 and the 43P-50) that have got my intrest too. I think AIX makes them a bit steep in price though, and a _good_ free *NIX port would probably make them much much more popular systems, but that's all opinion.
Mac is impressive in some areas, many actually. I think the thing that turns me off the most is the vocal people who use them and defend them at all costs... I like the boxes, but, a bus speed boost would help in something that has to function as a part time server IMHO (despite some peoples excuse that it doesn't matter, I still believe it does).
Got a link to the new ones you could send me, resaler's street prices or anything?
The artical seems about what I would expect. Maybe even a little _less_ opinionated than I expected. People who like Mac's are firmly intrenched in believing there is nothing wrong with them. When I think of the mac users I know, I do believe that the Mac's they use are probably a good choice for them. Most of them (forgive me, but I am speeking of the ones I know) are not capable of multitasking themselfs, so that ability in a system is unnessessary for them.
I do think the hardware in general has some interesting (and always has had, remember when even the cheap mac's had SCSI, and hardly anyone in the x86 world did?) features. If they were able to crank the bus speed up to >100MHz on even current hardware, and BeOS or some *NIX was avaliable, I would definately get one, and I haven't personaly bought a Mac since 1994.
But, to defend something and try to minimize or totally ignore it's faults is not wise. For example, Linux has experianced success due to the fact the community faces it's problems head on and attackes them. The Apple community use to do that in the past, but now they seem to have changed thier tune a bit.
Wouldn't we all love to find just ANYTHING that didn't have SOME shortcomming? But to say things like RISC is superior, but forget that it's running on a system with a slow bus is shortsited. Overall though, what did you expect this guy's responce to be? I guess I am a little supprised that he even did mention that there were some shortcomings...
And, BTW, another thing... WTF does Visual mean to SGI now days. This box is billed as thier Visual Workstation (which it seems to be capable of decent graphics) but then they are pusing that lame flat monitor that couldn't probably render decent animation to save it's life!
Do they mean it looks cool? Obviously with that monitor, it's not because it will be stunning graphics. IF anyone out there get's one of these things, do yourself a favor, and consider getting a real monitor for it.
Hmm, Let me think a minute. PII 450, Quality motherboard, 256M 7ns SDRAM, 12-18M video card...
Nope, a rock solid kick butt box just doesn't seem to top $3,000 the when I add it up. And, with personal experiance telling me that SGI's support is less than pleasing, strike two.
Now, they MAY(?) support Linux? Well, IMHO, they would be better off supporting IRIX on it, because that is the only way we would buy one around here. The only reason I can see for gettting this beast is price compared to other SGI's, and the fact that our department relys on some commercial software that the vendors will only port to IRIX (we have begged for years for something else). But, no IRIX? Strike three.
If I wanted a hot PII Linux box, I think I would consider building one. This SGI looks like it has some Killer I/O bandwidth, and a very interesting chipset... but, when the smut hit's the fan, it's still the same CPU's...
Don't get me wrong, it looks like it's a great box. But be fully aware, it's for a specific nitch, and it's not for everyone. I would probably say, IMHO, most people would be better servered with something else, considering some of the great stuff you could get in this price range. But if your one of those people who are in the nitch, be happy, now it's filled.... But I know, this thing just isn't for me.
I explored some sites that I KNOW to be running Apache, and I get this message "Sorry, no hostnames match." Therefore, I wonder how up-to-date or out-of-date thier dns is... and I have further suspicions about the accuracy of this survay.
I always found these statistics somewhat confusing. I believe they do NOT count virtual hosted sites as the same web server.
Therefore, since many of the webservers out there are configured with Apache (which I don't doubt), and Apache is very easy to do virtual hosting with, I would have to believe that these statistics do not account for actual number of web servers in use using a specific product.
Note, that this is both good and bad for Apache, in analysis. The statistics may be misleadingly high for Apache, and that fact comming into light will shine poorly on Apache. But then again, competeting products which don't do virtual hosting, or are more difficult to set up virtual hosts on (and therefore seprate servers are set up) would show a strength in Apache, because it shows the power of this software when you can get one machine to do what it takes several machines to do using a diffrent product.
So, do they do this by IP or address? I would think, it would be most accrurately done based on IP alone... But it says "ystematically poll each one with an HTTP request for the server name." So, therefore, the statistics could be quite misleading.
The minute you install Linux or FreeBSD or any *NIX, your a system administrator, technically. You administer a system.
Of course, that won't get you a job anywhere. But, you have to start with the basics. My approch to learning is my site, allowing a few people I trust to have accounts, and slowly learning how to deal with problems when them come up. And problems DO come up.
I have learned more in the last 6 months maintaining a single server for several people than I have in years of just "useing" UNIX.
And, that alone wouldn't qualify me for a system administrator position, nor would I dare apply for one yet. You need to learn about as much of the "networking" side as you can as well as just keeping one box standing and meeting the needs of your users. DNS, Routing, etc...
Buy some books, start reading, there are plenty of books out there. Look into what kind of jobs you would want, an then see what the work would be doing mostly. But it's a vast experiance, I have bearly scratched the surface in my experiances, and I know people who have been at it for years and years still find new problems every day. A good system Administrator isn't someone who knows more than everyone else. A good system administrator is someone who can figure out how to solve problems no one else has seen before.. Work on your problem solving skills!
Uh, Sure, you get gnome and kde compliance in WindowMaker, then you want to go and run ATerm? It's now a contest (AFAIK) to mix as many X-WindowManager componants. Stay True to WindowMaker and use WMTerm or WTerm (why, when there are two very slick terminals, that support transparent backgrounds, and tinting in your choice of colors, and NeXT scrollbars, and less bloated than an ETerm, would you want anything else anyway?).
BTW, Didn't ATerm come out like the next day after WTerm became publicly avaliable, and only looking a TINY bit diffrent in the code? Kinda like they started hacking from a pre-alpha reliese of wterm? No matter, Wterm has come a long way even this last week, so there is no reason for consirn.
wterm -tint -tr -fg grey -bg blue -fn kates forever! (or at least this week)
Personally, I disagree with AOL, and thier case, and agree with you. But no it's not a hoax, it's a bunch of lawyers and buisnessmen in suits in an office that have just saw a preview for the new Tom Hanks movie and decided to get thier names in the papers.
Personally, I am supprised AOL hasn't spam mailed anyone yet. They seem willing to do anything to get more attention, and I sure get enought junk mail from them in my REAL mailbox (but I do have a nice set of AOL/CD/Coasters for my beer!).
NM, I don't aggree after RE READING...
on
SGI's Visual PC
·
· Score: 1
I had to go back and re read that artical over, and from all indications i saw, it was NT only. If this box _IS_ NT only, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will be porting LINUX to it fast.
No, if they actually had IRIX for it on the other hand, that wouldn't be the case.
ps. I am still frusturated to hell with the tiny print in that artical, I had to set the font selection in Netscape through the roof (like 18 point) to read it, now/. looks like something for kindergarders that I should break out some crayons to color by comparison.
Is it just me, or does that page have some of the tinyest, hardest to read text I have seen in any web page at all lately. I may have to reconfigure X completely to set things to a lower resolution in order to read this vaguly worded artical well enough to even understand what OS these things are running? I think I saw "NT" in there, but maybe it was "MT?" or "VT?" I also think I saw IRIX in there, but I couldn't make out if it was just an IRIX style boot screen for an NT box or what...
Maybe it's just to early in the morning for me or something, or a bad day... I need a magnifying glass for this thing.... Oh, wait, "View Page Source!" yea, that Will show it at a standard size that hopefully I can read... What a sad way to have to read something.
Slashdot Mirror
Look, BeOS is interesting, and commercial. You even contridicted yourself in your first sentance, "it's good...it's crap"
Personally, I would love to try out BeOS, and for that matter, QNX. But I can't afford it, so I won't be trying it.
Which brings me to my point, opinions are like a^H^H^H^, everyone has one. What will really matter is how the market treats the OS. Is price a factor? You bettcha. You think Linux would be this popular if it were say, $400 a pop, with $25 per user licence tacked on?
If it's worth the price, someone will pay it, if it's not, it will die. Then, there will always be people like me that just go with what they can afford and try to make the best of it... ;-)
BTW, your troll is sooo far off base. You ever really benchmarked preformance of apps with open source versus commercial compilers? I have seen quite a few comparisons between open source and commercial C and Fortan compilers, and believe me, some people out there pay the money, and are glad to do it for good reason.
But, why is it that I am more concerned that it's referanced to a BBC artical? Uh, teen age encription experts discover it's not a planet or what? BBC credibility seems more like tabloid that news level lately.... Or is it just me?
www.sun.com then hit "products and solutions" then hit Workstations, and it droped me right to that # tag about no longer making X, Y, and Z....
So, I spook too soon, I happened to come across this SGI thread on /. about the same time I was looking at that, and who'da thought you were suppose to scroll _UP_ to get to where they were suppose to send me ;-)
Spoke too soon... It felt like a dark day, but I guess it's not _that_ bad.
Geeze. First you can't get a Sun Workstation (supported but no longer sold) at all anymore. Now MIPS is on it's way out. Who's next? If Compaq follows Sun's and SGI's lead, they will can the Alpha workstations too...
Things are NOT looking up for x86 alternitives. Well, I guess the good news is that at least AMD is making things look good _in_ the x86 world. :-(
Maybe it's my mood lately... But something about hearing GNU/GPL stuff refered to as "Freeware" just rubs me the wrong way.
Speaking of Creative Labs Linux support, this may be a touch off topic, but...
I was looking at thier "Graphics Blaster RIVA TNT AGP 128-bit graphics engine, 16MB sdram. 250MHz DAC. Support Direct X and Open GL. Retail Box AGP" which seems to be around $120? Looks like Tom's Hardware did a decent review on this thing, if I am reading it right, but didn't say it was al that great. Anyone use one, and can comment on it's preformance in Linux, and just how well supported it really is?
I notice a lot of comments about DVD and 3-D sound possabilities... Would be interesting to see it happen, would be great. I would love to buy a new Linux box twards the end of the year that can "do it all" multimedia wise... ;-)
That's good news. I am not even going to bother replying to the other guys post, bus speed and communication rates between componants do matter... ;-) I have seen how x86 systems run faster at 2.5x112 than they do at 4.5x66 at some things. It matters. Cache is important, but not the only thing.
Linux preformance on G3 needs to be polished a bit from what I hear, but I don't know for sure. I would seriously consider a G3, and am looking into it more and more. Mac might make my list of interests. I tell you one thing that does are some of the IBM's (the 43P-140 and the 43P-50) that have got my intrest too. I think AIX makes them a bit steep in price though, and a _good_ free *NIX port would probably make them much much more popular systems, but that's all opinion.
Mac is impressive in some areas, many actually. I think the thing that turns me off the most is the vocal people who use them and defend them at all costs... I like the boxes, but, a bus speed boost would help in something that has to function as a part time server IMHO (despite some peoples excuse that it doesn't matter, I still believe it does).
Got a link to the new ones you could send me, resaler's street prices or anything?
The artical seems about what I would expect. Maybe even a little _less_ opinionated than I expected. People who like Mac's are firmly intrenched in believing there is nothing wrong with them. When I think of the mac users I know, I do believe that the Mac's they use are probably a good choice for them. Most of them (forgive me, but I am speeking of the ones I know) are not capable of multitasking themselfs, so that ability in a system is unnessessary for them.
I do think the hardware in general has some interesting (and always has had, remember when even the cheap mac's had SCSI, and hardly anyone in the x86 world did?) features. If they were able to crank the bus speed up to >100MHz on even current hardware, and BeOS or some *NIX was avaliable, I would definately get one, and I haven't personaly bought a Mac since 1994.
But, to defend something and try to minimize or totally ignore it's faults is not wise. For example, Linux has experianced success due to the fact the community faces it's problems head on and attackes them. The Apple community use to do that in the past, but now they seem to have changed thier tune a bit.
Wouldn't we all love to find just ANYTHING that didn't have SOME shortcomming? But to say things like RISC is superior, but forget that it's running on a system with a slow bus is shortsited. Overall though, what did you expect this guy's responce to be? I guess I am a little supprised that he even did mention that there were some shortcomings...
Do they mean it looks cool? Obviously with that monitor, it's not because it will be stunning graphics. IF anyone out there get's one of these things, do yourself a favor, and consider getting a real monitor for it.
Hmm, Let me think a minute. PII 450, Quality motherboard, 256M 7ns SDRAM, 12-18M video card...
Nope, a rock solid kick butt box just doesn't seem to top $3,000 the when I add it up. And, with personal experiance telling me that SGI's support is less than pleasing, strike two.
Now, they MAY(?) support Linux? Well, IMHO, they would be better off supporting IRIX on it, because that is the only way we would buy one around here. The only reason I can see for gettting this beast is price compared to other SGI's, and the fact that our department relys on some commercial software that the vendors will only port to IRIX (we have begged for years for something else). But, no IRIX? Strike three.
If I wanted a hot PII Linux box, I think I would consider building one. This SGI looks like it has some Killer I/O bandwidth, and a very interesting chipset... but, when the smut hit's the fan, it's still the same CPU's...
Don't get me wrong, it looks like it's a great box. But be fully aware, it's for a specific nitch, and it's not for everyone. I would probably say, IMHO, most people would be better servered with something else, considering some of the great stuff you could get in this price range. But if your one of those people who are in the nitch, be happy, now it's filled.... But I know, this thing just isn't for me.
Ok, that would make sence.
Uh, Socket 370 isn't socket 7.
I explored some sites that I KNOW to be running Apache, and I get this message "Sorry, no hostnames match." Therefore, I wonder how up-to-date or out-of-date thier dns is... and I have further suspicions about the accuracy of this survay.
Therefore, since many of the webservers out there are configured with Apache (which I don't doubt), and Apache is very easy to do virtual hosting with, I would have to believe that these statistics do not account for actual number of web servers in use using a specific product.
Note, that this is both good and bad for Apache, in analysis. The statistics may be misleadingly high for Apache, and that fact comming into light will shine poorly on Apache. But then again, competeting products which don't do virtual hosting, or are more difficult to set up virtual hosts on (and therefore seprate servers are set up) would show a strength in Apache, because it shows the power of this software when you can get one machine to do what it takes several machines to do using a diffrent product.
So, do they do this by IP or address? I would think, it would be most accrurately done based on IP alone... But it says "ystematically poll each one with an HTTP request for the server name." So, therefore, the statistics could be quite misleading.
Isn't this what the goal of Genie, or Jeni, or Jenie, or whatever that is SUN is doing is?
Not that MicroSoft might not ship it first, but I do think they weren't the first to announce that they came up with the idea for something like this.
The minute you install Linux or FreeBSD or any *NIX, your a system administrator, technically. You administer a system.
Of course, that won't get you a job anywhere. But, you have to start with the basics. My approch to learning is my site, allowing a few people I trust to have accounts, and slowly learning how to deal with problems when them come up. And problems DO come up.
I have learned more in the last 6 months maintaining a single server for several people than I have in years of just "useing" UNIX.
And, that alone wouldn't qualify me for a system administrator position, nor would I dare apply for one yet. You need to learn about as much of the "networking" side as you can as well as just keeping one box standing and meeting the needs of your users. DNS, Routing, etc...
Buy some books, start reading, there are plenty of books out there. Look into what kind of jobs you would want, an then see what the work would be doing mostly. But it's a vast experiance, I have bearly scratched the surface in my experiances, and I know people who have been at it for years and years still find new problems every day. A good system Administrator isn't someone who knows more than everyone else. A good system administrator is someone who can figure out how to solve problems no one else has seen before. . Work on your problem solving skills!
Should be
wmterm -tint -tr -fg grey -bg blue -fn kates
I use wmterm personally, so, uh, sorry for all of you that tried to run that command...
BTW, efnet #windowmaker seems a bit buzy, you all might want to try "./configure --help" on things before you ask questions. ;-)
BTW, Didn't ATerm come out like the next day after WTerm became publicly avaliable, and only looking a TINY bit diffrent in the code? Kinda like they started hacking from a pre-alpha reliese of wterm? No matter, Wterm has come a long way even this last week, so there is no reason for consirn.
wterm -tint -tr -fg grey -bg blue -fn kates forever! (or at least this week)
AOL is hoping cash in a little on
You've got Press^H^H^H^H^HMail.
Personally, I disagree with AOL, and thier case, and agree with you. But no it's not a hoax, it's a bunch of lawyers and buisnessmen in suits in an office that have just saw a preview for the new Tom Hanks movie and decided to get thier names in the papers.
Personally, I am supprised AOL hasn't spam mailed anyone yet. They seem willing to do anything to get more attention, and I sure get enought junk mail from them in my REAL mailbox (but I do have a nice set of AOL/CD/Coasters for my beer!).
I had to go back and re read that artical over, and from all indications i saw, it was NT only. If this box _IS_ NT only, you can bet your bottom dollar someone will be porting LINUX to it fast.
No, if they actually had IRIX for it on the other hand, that wouldn't be the case.
ps. I am still frusturated to hell with the tiny print in that artical, I had to set the font selection in Netscape through the roof (like 18 point) to read it, now /. looks like something for kindergarders that I should break out some crayons to color by comparison.
Is it just me, or does that page have some of the tinyest, hardest to read text I have seen in any web page at all lately. I may have to reconfigure X completely to set things to a lower resolution in order to read this vaguly worded artical well enough to even understand what OS these things are running? I think I saw "NT" in there, but maybe it was "MT?" or "VT?" I also think I saw IRIX in there, but I couldn't make out if it was just an IRIX style boot screen for an NT box or what...
Maybe it's just to early in the morning for me or something, or a bad day... I need a magnifying glass for this thing.... Oh, wait, "View Page Source!" yea, that Will show it at a standard size that hopefully I can read... What a sad way to have to read something.