Not really. Elections are supposed to be held in 3 months. He's just taking control for awhile until the have the election and he gets the rubber stamp.:-)
He's not that bad, really. Not nearly as bad as Zhironovsky.
In the last issue of MCP magazine (January 2000), Microsoft openly admits to having the #2 web server, with 22% of the market. This makes them far and away behind Apache. (Which I would guess has better than double that). If you want, you can check out the article here: http://www.mcpmag.com/members/00jan/fea1main.asp
Though you may not be able to get in if you're not an MCP.
Here's the exact snippet, though: "IIS 4.0 and the Option Pack, which were also released for use with NT 4.0, has allowed NT to become the second most popular Web server platform on the Internet today. According to the Netcraft Web Server Survey (www.netcraft.com/survey), IIS follows Apache, with about 22 percent of the market."
Personally, I figure that since both Apache and IIS are basically free products that the survey is probably going to be skewed somehow. *sigh* the trouble with sampling is just that -- it's only a sample. I'm willing to bet that way over half of all hosts didn't bother to answer. I'm also pretty sure that Novell and Apple hosts are probably grossly under-represented.
Personally, I prefer IIS for setting up smaller sites with low requirements, as pretty much anybody can administer it after I'm gone. Usually it depends if they want NT or Red Hat, really...
(Note to lovers of other distributions: I just happen to like RH, and haven't really had the opportunity to delve into all the nooks and crannies of Debian, Suse, et al. There's only so many hours in a day.:-)
Also, the Hubble was originally supposed to go into space in 1986! All the parts are 13 years old. Of COURSE they're a little worn. (How's your 1985 Cutlass Supreme or Commodore 128?):-) Sure, it was in storage for a couple of years, but haven't you ever had anything go bad in the box?
Actually, I'm surprised that it took this long for 4 of the 6 gyroscopes to go bad, given the rigors of space as an environment. Debris (no matter how small) hitting the hull can't help, never mind the occasionally solar flares and such...
A Canticle really is quite period in it's handling of the world, which is of course natural. However, it stacks up very well to other books written in the same period...
Nineteen Eighty-Four: Both books deal with the not-too-distant future that has evolved in a logical manner but the results of which are incomprehensible (and even a bit frightening) to all of us. In 1984, a society that is stripped away of humanity I.E.:the Anti-Sex league, the 2 Minutes Hate, the dumbing down of the populace to keep the elite in command is pitted by one man in search of something to make life worth living. In A Canticle, we have one (cloistered) man who is searching for much the same: fulfillment of a purpose to his otherwise dreary existance, and marvels at what was and now is not, or what could have been.
When Worlds Collide: Both books deal with how civilization fails to cope once the basic premises are removed. WWC discusses the nihilism that occurs when just about everyone on Earth knows it will be destroyed and that few will be able to make the transfer. In A Canticle, the post-apocolypse is much the same as WWC after the first collision... Darwin unleashed.
To me, there is something refreshing, even desireable in BTS (Before the Series) Sci-Fi, where authors were uninfluenced by Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek, Amber, Hitchhiker's Guide et al. (Though I like those series) Here, Sci-Fi is more about the exploration of humanity in a futuristic setting and the psychology of it, as opposed to the morals or the gee-whiz factor.
Not that those aren't explored in other pieces from this period. Just not in these.:-)
Even an Orion class ship (if we built one) would take ~ 16 years to reach Alpha Centauri, one way. That's only 4.3 light years. The CLOSEST one here is 65, the furthest 192! So (for those of you not keen on doing the math): it would take about ** 240 YEARS ** with the fastest possible ship we could build....the unfortunate thing being, however, that the treaty that bans nuclear explosions in space means that we could never even assemble such a ship. Since nukes in space are banned, we'd have to go with a conventional method, such as an Ion engine. I don't even want to figure that one out, it'd take thousands of years to get there!
(the furthest would take 714 years in an Orion... time to get to work on that time distort technology!!)
Nevermind the little detail that we don't actually know if there is anything THERE!!
Sad, but true at many sites. As usual, human operators are to blame. The average company has no problem paying some newbie $26k/year to run around like a madman putting out forest fires.
Then when he gets a few years and certs under his belt, they refuse to keep him because he's too expensive. Oh, and that systems management software he wants so badly to run silent updates? We don't need that!:-)
On another note: MS actually has no AV whatsoever. Somehow, they've completely missed buying up that market...:->
Amazing how a bash-M$ post, with IMHO had little to do with increasing the quality of the thread got a "2", while a "hey, wait a minute" one gets a "0 - Flamebait" rating.
People: If we don't consider this an open community instead of an "Anti-Microsoft House of Worship", we all may as well go home. Squelching debate like this makes us no just like M$, less 1 Trillion Bucks.
* You don't need binoculars or a telescope. The show is over the whole sky, and you'll miss a lot if you use them. However, if you want to try to get a "close up look", remember to never put your face to bare metal in the cold.:-)
* Never lie on the bare ground. It will seep your body heat many times faster than the air will.
Jordan- I see that rudeness is part of your nature, so I'll just leave it at that. I have noticed that you chose not to respond to ANY of the answers I proposed to your queries. This leads me to believe that you don't walk the walk.
However, If you don't want to have a civil discussion, then there is no point to my responding to you.
I only know you from the things you say. I know you read too much MS bull, in this case about release dates, and believe it.
Uh huh. That's up there with I have cooties because I talk to girls.:-) Jeez man. Lighten up! Computers are a TOOL, not a RELIGION.
Let's see, a timetable used in 1996 showed NT5 being out in late 1997. You're right, it's not 2 years late, it's more than 2 years late.
That would be true if NT 5 was still a product. MS decided to change the name. It has also changed some of the feature set as well. Things have been added, things have been dropped. This, at least anywhere I've worked, is NORMAL in production.
I'm not saying they're not playing for some time here. But if you're so anxious, why don't you TRY THE BETA? If you're so anti-MS, you should be HAPPY that their ship date keeps slipping due to more R&D. Or are you worried that they may actually "get it right"?
And your point IS? Exponential growth is easy when you're dealing with a newly accepted technology. Of course Novell isn't growing fast -- it already OWNS 40-55% of the server market, depending on whose numbers you want to use!
I'll take the 9 documented reasons to reboot in Win2k over the 217 documented reasons in NT 4 and the 10^x for 95 for starters. I've been running the betas (1, 2 & 3) for almost 2 years now, and I reboot it and my Red Hat machine about as often... Another is Kerberos security, which is a big deal, given how 95 had no security and NT4 was only rated C2 by the feds without a net card. There is actually quite a bit, but I'll cut it for brevity. Hit for more info:
Not sure about what you're trying to say here. Have you TRIED W2K yet so you can compare them and say you see nothing that dramatic?
Sir, please do not question my integrity. I'm not a MS zealot. I'm not a Linux zealot. I use Windows/Novell/Red Hat both at work and at home, and I see no reason to say X is better than Y. They all have good and bad points.
Yes, it is overdue. But remember that NT is at best half the age of Unix. And from but one company, not a broad range of entities. Change in a single state is slow. Change in a group of states is much faster. No question about Terminal Server, you hit the nail on the head.
How about plug and play on an NT backend? Higher level NTFS security? (or, as above, the reboot & Kerberos) ?
Yes, it was originally called NT5. To say they failed to consolidate may be a bit of a stretch. For example, GE has several hundred thousand 95 machines, as that is their standard. I actually know more 95 shops than NT ones. Also, why patch NT 4? We all know service packs often break as much as they fix. A 100%, total rewrite is a good thing, why bash it?
And, it's, what, 2 years late? What a laugh that MS is saying "On time and in stores Feb. 17".
2 years? No. It *is* about a year late, by MS's own estimate. They're just trying to get it right the first time, and go on a "One service pack a year" schedule. Getting it right is what it's all about. Most folks were HAPPY when Motorola chose to delay shipping a falty chip for this reason.
Again, a personal jibe when you know nothing about me. You're just being rude.
Burning babies and eating houses makes for a much more interesting picture. ("Those ARE bad men!")
I used revolutionary because Win 2K is a *total* rewrite. It doesn't include ANY code from the old days. 95/NT4 was revolutionary as it isn't really a fancy dos shell, ala WFW. New paradigm, in a way. (Yes, we could debate 95 really sitting on top of DOS...)
Linux is indeed revolutionary. But not (say) Red Hat 5.1 to 5.2 or Windows 3.1 to 3.11...
Basically I consider MAJOR revisions to be revolutionary, just because they tend to have new feature sets and/or new code.
Not only is it not obscene, it's actually a good deal in some respects. Check out http://www.msnbc.com/news/330293.asp (Yes, it's an MS partner, but it's not like you can have non-biased news anywhere, including here...)
It's actually half the price to upgrade from older Novell (say, 3.12) to W2K than to Novell 5!
Also, I don't see the CAL as an issue -- just how many web clients are going to USE NT authentication? I think MS is gunning for the PPTP crowd here. That "EVERY USER" statement is a great blanket that folks who don't read the article will respond "THE MS PRICE NAZIS ARE BURNING BABIES AND EATING HOUSES!"
Sheesh. More smoke and mirrors, as usual from both the MS and the ABM (anything-but-Microsoft) sides of the house.
W2K will be as revolutionary to NT4/95 what NT4/95 was to Windows for Workgroups. To say that it wasn't revolutionary is just plain denial. To say it's armageddon for web-life as we know it is just silly.
Dell was having MAJOR problems with it's LCD supplier for laptops. For almost 3 months my company had to buy ThinkPads instead of Latitudes because Dell just couldn't get us the systems we needed. (I'm talking 200 laptops here...)
Fortunately, the supply problem has been cleared up and they're rolling again.
Thank goodness THOSE little pearls of wisdom were let loose on society at large!
I mean, really. How do rags like that stay in business? Are there REALLY that many bored housewives out there in middle America?
You'll note that all the info in the story was masterfully obvious. The question I have is: will they do a follow-up on "How Geeks can attract Chicks"?:->
Size: MS-Word 4.0 for DOS was 4 megs. Wasteland (the game) ran off a single 720k floppy. DOS itself was less than 3 megs. The 5.25" floppy was not only still in production, but you usually got software on BOTH sized disks! The 28.8 modem had JUST come out.
I had an long term, ongoing project when I was an undergrad. Had to document readings off of a server every week regarding logins. It was in WordPerfect.
In 5.1, it was 168k. In WordPefect 6.0 for win, it was 821k. In WordPefect 8.0 for win, it was 5 megs.
I doubt I added more than a half a dozen pages between version upgrades...
...so size is relative.
Re:Lack of productivity software? - uh, wrong.
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 1
Sorry CN. StarOffice is okay. For home use. If you can work around the little quirks and lack of compatibility with certain file types. But it just doesn't cut it when dealing with a production environment.
I can understand you having favorites. I prefer Red Hat instead of Suse. But to say that your solution would work in an enterprise environment is just not realistic. As I said before, yes it would work for folks who KNOW what they're doing.
But even then, what would you do in this situation:
You have a user using your Suse & Star Office. Gets a 15MB Excel spreadsheet, along with a 48 slide PowerPoint presentation that he MUST use to give a seminar on the next day.
He has a brand new Dell laptop (note: Linux friendly!), and MUST be able to get on the Seattle site in the morning. They run Token Ring, you run Ethernet.
With Win 95 w/ Office 97, you have to change PCMCIA cards.
With Linux & StarOffice? Yikes! Never mind the Excel conversion. Never mind the PPT conversion. How about the fact that there are no Linux Madge drivers?
This is the sort of thing that actually HAPPENS all the time. Whereas in home use you can control your environment, in business you have A LOT LESS CONTROL, and more deadlines. Programmers and webmasters have it a bit easier in this respect, as they can get away with rolling their own and generally work around using any M$ products.
Now I like Linux alot. It's my OS of choice at home. But it is currently LIMITED in where you can realistically deploy it in the workplace! Get over it! Eventually, this MAY get solved. But is takes TIME. It took Microsoft a DECADE to become the de facto standard on the desktop. Do you remember Windows 2.0? (Yes, that's a TWO there.)
What Linux needs is more hardware support from vendors and better convertability with M$ and Lotus products. Until then, it remains the OS of the "Power User".
Oh, please. Please, please, please don't be just another ABM voice in the wilderness. To say you can use a "roll your own" system in an office environment is just plain nuts.
Suppose we put you in charge of MIS at my site:
How, may I ask, are you going to A) Train 1100 personnel in Linux, with no tangible loss of productivity? B) Support Linux, given the lack of drivers for many hardware platforms and skilled techs C) Support the applications, same as B D) Correspond with consultants, clients, and other workers sharing MS, Corel or Lotus files? By converting everything? Take a Wordperfect document, convert it to WordPro and see what you get. Or even WP to Word and back. MESSY!
I hate to say it, but Linux is too young and LACKS the office software to be useful in business on the desktop. It need a LOT more cohesion and STANDARDS. This is why you don't see UNIX on the desktop, even though it is FAR more powerfull and older than M$!
WHY DO YOU THINK that Macintosh isn't more widespread? I know of many, many shops that moved away from them due to expense and their little anti-MS war that resulted in no new versions of office for several years.
Hey, for those of us who KNOW what we're doing, Linux is great. For the unwashed masses, they don't CARE about our "petty little war". Do you think a Real Estate analyst who makes ten-million dollar deals cares? No. All s/he wants is to be able to fire up Outlook, attatch a 3 meg Excel spreadsheet, and know that the person who gets it can read it.
And you know what? They can. We all b_tch about M$. And business practice wise, we have a point. But the whole "M$ sucks because it always crashes" arguement is stale, and well, mostly unfounded.
Expecting "flaimbait" status from reactionary moderators,
Re:Don't disagree with what it didn't say
on
Gartner Slams Linux
·
· Score: 1
It's refreshing to see so many folks that are posting that A) Read the article and B) Aren't just rallying around the flag (or flightless aquatic waterfoul, as the case may be)
I wonder about the net-connected servers though. I work for a consulting firm in the NYC-New Haven area. Most of the internet servers I see are NT 4 w/ IIS 3 or 4, occasionally a Novell 4.x box, and very rarely a Mac. I've only seen one (HP) Unix server hosting a company's email/website, and never a Linux box...
Is it an odd run of clients? Or did Gartner research a different demographic?
(BTW, I'm an CNE, MCSE, MCP+I, and Red Hat afficianado)
We *know* that? Really. Good to see you're unbiased.:->
As for what folks get for their donations, I'd say either your too skeptical, Anon, or not enough. Fear not, 'ol Ted will be seeing the benefits of his donations. He basically bought himself good PR for life, possibly in history.
Exactly what will M$ get out of it? Better software? Oh, the horror! M$ stuff that works! Domination of young minds? PUHLEEZE. Give the kids SOME credit!
You're just afraid of not having something to complain about, I think. M$ put $150M into Apple, and I think you'd be hard pressed to say that Mac users love Microsoft for it...
Sheesh. People aren't that dumb. And, believe it or not, Bill Gates isn't the anti-christ. Not that I'm putting him up for sainthood either though.
But Andrew Carnegie was considered a robber baron scum in his day. Today? Hmm... Time will tell.
First big shots like Ted Turner blast Gates for not being philantropic enough. Now, M$ decides to actually GIVE SOMETHING BACK to society, and we're railing against it. C'mon now. If it were Apple or Red Hat, I suspect folks would be cheering.
Despite whatever misgivings we may have, the fact is that this money will help students by funding research. This EMPLOYS students. At least 5 years ago when I got my undergrad, getting an in-major research or even "gopher" position was like finding the holy grail!
If you're being brainwashed in college, you probably aren't smart enough to run a computer anyway.;-> College is all about growing up and being open minded. I don't that believe today's undergrads are sheep.
So let M$ fund some research. Maybe it'll give other businesses (Hello... calling Sun and HP) to do more for higher education.
Also remember that many consumer items have come to us from government spending! For example (and yes, some of these are more valuable than others):
Tang Slick 50 (oil treatment- first & still used to lubricate the brakes on the space shuttle) Silly putty (a failed plasic explosive) Jeeps Humvees Integrated circuits (Navy funding, I think) Computers in general (Navy/Cryptography Intelligence) Satellite communications (ok, thank the Soviet gov't for pioneering that one)
there are a lot more, but I don't have the time (or knowledge) to list them all here. Many of these have offshoots, as well. Satellites led to cell phones and pagers. Heck, you can probably credit the Air Force for creating the demand for a Silicon Valley in the first place! (Those radar installations in Greenland and northern Canada needed lots of advanced components back in the late 50s and early 60's...)
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. Elections are supposed to be held in 3 months. He's just taking control for awhile until the have the election and he gets the rubber stamp. :-)
He's not that bad, really. Not nearly as bad as Zhironovsky.
In the last issue of MCP magazine (January 2000), Microsoft openly admits to having the #2 web server, with 22% of the market. This makes them far and away behind Apache. (Which I would guess has better than double that).p
:-)
If you want, you can check out the article here:
http://www.mcpmag.com/members/00jan/fea1main.as
Though you may not be able to get in if you're not an MCP.
Here's the exact snippet, though:
"IIS 4.0 and the Option Pack, which were also released for use with NT 4.0, has allowed NT to become the second most popular Web server platform on the Internet today. According to the Netcraft Web Server Survey (www.netcraft.com/survey), IIS follows Apache, with about 22 percent of the market."
Personally, I figure that since both Apache and IIS are basically free products that the survey is probably going to be skewed somehow. *sigh* the trouble with sampling is just that -- it's only a sample. I'm willing to bet that way over half of all hosts didn't bother to answer. I'm also pretty sure that Novell and Apple hosts are probably grossly under-represented.
Personally, I prefer IIS for setting up smaller sites with low requirements, as pretty much anybody can administer it after I'm gone. Usually it depends if they want NT or Red Hat, really...
(Note to lovers of other distributions: I just happen to like RH, and haven't really had the opportunity to delve into all the nooks and crannies of Debian, Suse, et al. There's only so many hours in a day.
Also, the Hubble was originally supposed to go into space in 1986! All the parts are 13 years old. Of COURSE they're a little worn. (How's your 1985 Cutlass Supreme or Commodore 128?) :-)
Sure, it was in storage for a couple of years, but haven't you ever had anything go bad in the box?
Actually, I'm surprised that it took this long for 4 of the 6 gyroscopes to go bad, given the rigors of space as an environment. Debris (no matter how small) hitting the hull can't help, never mind the occasionally solar flares and such...
A Canticle really is quite period in it's handling of the world, which is of course natural. However, it stacks up very well to other books written in the same period...
:-)
Nineteen Eighty-Four: Both books deal with the not-too-distant future that has evolved in a logical manner but the results of which are incomprehensible (and even a bit frightening) to all of us. In 1984, a society that is stripped away of humanity I.E.:the Anti-Sex league, the 2 Minutes Hate, the dumbing down of the populace to keep the elite in command is pitted by one man in search of something to make life worth living. In A Canticle, we have one (cloistered) man who is searching for much the same: fulfillment of a purpose to his otherwise dreary existance, and marvels at what was and now is not, or what could have been.
When Worlds Collide: Both books deal with how civilization fails to cope once the basic premises are removed. WWC discusses the nihilism that occurs when just about everyone on Earth knows it will be destroyed and that few will be able to make the transfer. In A Canticle, the post-apocolypse is much the same as WWC after the first collision... Darwin unleashed.
To me, there is something refreshing, even desireable in BTS (Before the Series) Sci-Fi, where authors were uninfluenced by Dune, Star Wars, Star Trek, Amber, Hitchhiker's Guide et al. (Though I like those series)
Here, Sci-Fi is more about the exploration of humanity in a futuristic setting and the psychology of it, as opposed to the morals or the gee-whiz factor.
Not that those aren't explored in other pieces from this period. Just not in these.
Even an Orion class ship (if we built one) would take ~ 16 years to reach Alpha Centauri, one way. That's only 4.3 light years. The CLOSEST one here is 65, the furthest 192! So (for those of you not keen on doing the math): it would take about ** 240 YEARS ** with the fastest possible ship we could build. ...the unfortunate thing being, however, that the treaty that bans nuclear explosions in space means that we could never even assemble such a ship. Since nukes in space are banned, we'd have to go with a conventional method, such as an Ion engine. I don't even want to figure that one out, it'd take thousands of years to get there!
:-)
(the furthest would take 714 years in an Orion... time to get to work on that time distort technology!!)
Nevermind the little detail that we don't actually know if there is anything THERE!!
Moral: Space is vast.
Sad, but true at many sites. As usual, human operators are to blame. The average company has no problem paying some newbie $26k/year to run around like a madman putting out forest fires.
:-)
:->
Then when he gets a few years and certs under his belt, they refuse to keep him because he's too expensive. Oh, and that systems management software he wants so badly to run silent updates? We don't need that!
On another note: MS actually has no AV whatsoever. Somehow, they've completely missed buying up that market...
Or is the great Penguin too thin skinned?
Amazing how a bash-M$ post, with IMHO had little to do with increasing the quality of the thread got a "2", while a "hey, wait a minute" one gets a "0 - Flamebait" rating.
People: If we don't consider this an open community instead of an "Anti-Microsoft House of Worship", we all may as well go home. Squelching debate like this makes us no just like M$, less 1 Trillion Bucks.
* You don't need binoculars or a telescope. The show is over the whole sky, and you'll miss a lot if you use them.
However, if you want to try to get a "close up look", remember to never put your face to bare metal in the cold.
* Never lie on the bare ground. It will seep your body heat many times faster than the air will.
Jordan- I see that rudeness is part of your nature, so I'll just leave it at that.
:-) Jeez man. Lighten up! Computers are a TOOL, not a RELIGION.
I have noticed that you chose not to respond to ANY of the answers I proposed to your queries. This leads me to believe that you don't walk the walk.
However, If you don't want to have a civil discussion, then there is no point to my responding to you.
I only know you from the things you say. I know you read too much MS bull, in this case about release dates, and believe it.
Uh huh. That's up there with I have cooties because I talk to girls.
Let's see, a timetable used in 1996 showed NT5 being out in late 1997. You're right, it's not 2 years late, it's more than 2 years late.
That would be true if NT 5 was still a product. MS decided to change the name. It has also changed some of the feature set as well. Things have been added, things have been dropped. This, at least anywhere I've worked, is NORMAL in production.
I'm not saying they're not playing for some time here. But if you're so anxious, why don't you TRY THE BETA?
If you're so anti-MS, you should be HAPPY that their ship date keeps slipping due to more R&D. Or are you worried that they may actually "get it right"?
And your point IS? Exponential growth is easy when you're dealing with a newly accepted technology. Of course Novell isn't growing fast -- it already OWNS 40-55% of the server market, depending on whose numbers you want to use!
I'll take the 9 documented reasons to reboot in Win2k over the 217 documented reasons in NT 4 and the 10^x for 95 for starters. I've been running the betas (1, 2 & 3) for almost 2 years now, and I reboot it and my Red Hat machine about as often...
Another is Kerberos security, which is a big deal, given how 95 had no security and NT4 was only rated C2 by the feds without a net card.
There is actually quite a bit, but I'll cut it for brevity. Hit for more info:
Not sure about what you're trying to say here. Have you TRIED W2K yet so you can compare them and say you see nothing that dramatic?
Sir, please do not question my integrity. I'm not a MS zealot. I'm not a Linux zealot. I use Windows/Novell/Red Hat both at work and at home, and I see no reason to say X is better than Y. They all have good and bad points.
Yes, it is overdue. But remember that NT is at best half the age of Unix. And from but one company, not a broad range of entities. Change in a single state is slow. Change in a group of states is much faster.
No question about Terminal Server, you hit the nail on the head.
How about plug and play on an NT backend? Higher level NTFS security? (or, as above, the reboot & Kerberos) ?
Yes, it was originally called NT5. To say they failed to consolidate may be a bit of a stretch. For example, GE has several hundred thousand 95 machines, as that is their standard. I actually know more 95 shops than NT ones.
Also, why patch NT 4? We all know service packs often break as much as they fix. A 100%, total rewrite is a good thing, why bash it?
And, it's, what, 2 years late? What a laugh that MS is saying "On time and in stores Feb. 17".
2 years? No. It *is* about a year late, by MS's own estimate. They're just trying to get it right the first time, and go on a "One service pack a year" schedule. Getting it right is what it's all about. Most folks were HAPPY when Motorola chose to delay shipping a falty chip for this reason.
Again, a personal jibe when you know nothing about me. You're just being rude.
Burning babies and eating houses makes for a much more interesting picture. ("Those ARE bad men!")
...
I used revolutionary because Win 2K is a *total* rewrite. It doesn't include ANY code from the old days. 95/NT4 was revolutionary as it isn't really a fancy dos shell, ala WFW. New paradigm, in a way. (Yes, we could debate 95 really sitting on top of DOS...)
Linux is indeed revolutionary. But not (say) Red Hat 5.1 to 5.2 or Windows 3.1 to 3.11
Basically I consider MAJOR revisions to be revolutionary, just because they tend to have new feature sets and/or new code.
You try to tell that to a guy in the marketing department who consideres Linux/Unix "That hacker OS". :-(
Not only is it not obscene, it's actually a good deal in some respects. Check out http://www.msnbc.com/news/330293.asp
(Yes, it's an MS partner, but it's not like you can have non-biased news anywhere, including here...)
It's actually half the price to upgrade from older Novell (say, 3.12) to W2K than to Novell 5!
Also, I don't see the CAL as an issue -- just how many web clients are going to USE NT authentication? I think MS is gunning for the PPTP crowd here. That "EVERY USER" statement is a great blanket that folks who don't read the article will respond "THE MS PRICE NAZIS ARE BURNING BABIES AND EATING HOUSES!"
Sheesh. More smoke and mirrors, as usual from both the MS and the ABM (anything-but-Microsoft) sides of the house.
W2K will be as revolutionary to NT4/95 what NT4/95 was to Windows for Workgroups. To say that it wasn't revolutionary is just plain denial.
To say it's armageddon for web-life as we know it is just silly.
Three years ago, I was buying Dell servers without an OS (and not being charged for one). If you ask, they'll do the same for ANY system.
Dell was having MAJOR problems with it's LCD supplier for laptops. For almost 3 months my company had to buy ThinkPads instead of Latitudes because Dell just couldn't get us the systems we needed. (I'm talking 200 laptops here...)
Fortunately, the supply problem has been cleared up and they're rolling again.
I haven't heard of any Dell DOAs though...
Thank goodness THOSE little pearls of wisdom were let loose on society at large!
:->
I mean, really. How do rags like that stay in business? Are there REALLY that many bored housewives out there in middle America?
You'll note that all the info in the story was masterfully obvious. The question I have is: will they do a follow-up on "How Geeks can attract Chicks"?
(I'm assuming this was 1989/90 or so?)
Size:
MS-Word 4.0 for DOS was 4 megs.
Wasteland (the game) ran off a single 720k floppy.
DOS itself was less than 3 megs.
The 5.25" floppy was not only still in production, but you usually got software on BOTH sized disks!
The 28.8 modem had JUST come out.
I had an long term, ongoing project when I was an undergrad. Had to document readings off of a server every week regarding logins. It was in WordPerfect.
In 5.1, it was 168k.
In WordPefect 6.0 for win, it was 821k.
In WordPefect 8.0 for win, it was 5 megs.
I doubt I added more than a half a dozen pages between version upgrades...
...so size is relative.
Sorry CN. StarOffice is okay. For home use. If you can work around the little quirks and lack of compatibility with certain file types. But it just doesn't cut it when dealing with a production environment.
I can understand you having favorites. I prefer Red Hat instead of Suse. But to say that your solution would work in an enterprise environment is just not realistic. As I said before, yes it would work for folks who KNOW what they're doing.
But even then, what would you do in this situation:
You have a user using your Suse & Star Office. Gets a 15MB Excel spreadsheet, along with a 48 slide PowerPoint presentation that he MUST use to give a seminar on the next day.
He has a brand new Dell laptop (note: Linux friendly!), and MUST be able to get on the Seattle site in the morning. They run Token Ring, you run Ethernet.
With Win 95 w/ Office 97, you have to change PCMCIA cards.
With Linux & StarOffice? Yikes! Never mind the Excel conversion. Never mind the PPT conversion. How about the fact that there are no Linux Madge drivers?
This is the sort of thing that actually HAPPENS all the time. Whereas in home use you can control your environment, in business you have A LOT LESS CONTROL, and more deadlines. Programmers and webmasters have it a bit easier in this respect, as they can get away with rolling their own and generally work around using any M$ products.
Now I like Linux alot. It's my OS of choice at home. But it is currently LIMITED in where you can realistically deploy it in the workplace! Get over it! Eventually, this MAY get solved. But is takes TIME. It took Microsoft a DECADE to become the de facto standard on the desktop. Do you remember Windows 2.0? (Yes, that's a TWO there.)
What Linux needs is more hardware support from vendors and better convertability with M$ and Lotus products. Until then, it remains the OS of the "Power User".
Oh, please. Please, please, please don't be just another ABM voice in the wilderness. To say you can use a "roll your own" system in an office environment is just plain nuts.
Suppose we put you in charge of MIS at my site:
How, may I ask, are you going to
A) Train 1100 personnel in Linux, with no tangible loss of productivity?
B) Support Linux, given the lack of drivers for many hardware platforms and skilled techs
C) Support the applications, same as B
D) Correspond with consultants, clients, and other workers sharing MS, Corel or Lotus files? By converting everything? Take a Wordperfect document, convert it to WordPro and see what you get. Or even WP to Word and back. MESSY!
I hate to say it, but Linux is too young and LACKS the office software to be useful in business on the desktop. It need a LOT more cohesion and STANDARDS. This is why you don't see UNIX on the desktop, even though it is FAR more powerfull and older than M$!
WHY DO YOU THINK that Macintosh isn't more widespread? I know of many, many shops that moved away from them due to expense and their little anti-MS war that resulted in no new versions of office for several years.
Hey, for those of us who KNOW what we're doing, Linux is great. For the unwashed masses, they don't CARE about our "petty little war". Do you think a Real Estate analyst who makes ten-million dollar deals cares? No. All s/he wants is to be able to fire up Outlook, attatch a 3 meg Excel spreadsheet, and know that the person who gets it can read it.
And you know what? They can. We all b_tch about M$. And business practice wise, we have a point. But the whole "M$ sucks because it always crashes" arguement is stale, and well, mostly unfounded.
Expecting "flaimbait" status from reactionary moderators,
It's refreshing to see so many folks that are posting that
A) Read the article and
B) Aren't just rallying around the flag (or flightless aquatic waterfoul, as the case may be)
I wonder about the net-connected servers though. I work for a consulting firm in the NYC-New Haven area. Most of the internet servers I see are NT 4 w/ IIS 3 or 4, occasionally a Novell 4.x box, and very rarely a Mac. I've only seen one (HP) Unix server hosting a company's email/website, and never a Linux box...
Is it an odd run of clients? Or did Gartner research a different demographic?
(BTW, I'm an CNE, MCSE, MCP+I, and Red Hat afficianado)
We *know* that? Really. Good to see you're unbiased. :->
As for what folks get for their donations, I'd say either your too skeptical, Anon, or not enough. Fear not, 'ol Ted will be seeing the benefits of his donations. He basically bought himself good PR for life, possibly in history.
Exactly what will M$ get out of it? Better software? Oh, the horror! M$ stuff that works! Domination of young minds? PUHLEEZE. Give the kids SOME credit!
You're just afraid of not having something to complain about, I think. M$ put $150M into Apple, and I think you'd be hard pressed to say that Mac users love Microsoft for it...
Sheesh. People aren't that dumb. And, believe it or not, Bill Gates isn't the anti-christ. Not that I'm putting him up for sainthood either though.
But Andrew Carnegie was considered a robber baron scum in his day. Today? Hmm... Time will tell.
I'm not sure about Congress, but I know that the Department of Energy and the Park Service both run Novell 3.10... maybe the PS had 3.12.
I also know that the DOE is still using cc:Mail, as are quite a few other agencies, such as at least parts of the DOD and EPA.
First big shots like Ted Turner blast Gates for not being philantropic enough. Now, M$ decides to actually GIVE SOMETHING BACK to society, and we're railing against it. C'mon now. If it were Apple or Red Hat, I suspect folks would be cheering.
;-> College is all about growing up and being open minded. I don't that believe today's undergrads are sheep.
Despite whatever misgivings we may have, the fact is that this money will help students by funding research. This EMPLOYS students. At least 5 years ago when I got my undergrad, getting an in-major research or even "gopher" position was like finding the holy grail!
If you're being brainwashed in college, you probably aren't smart enough to run a computer anyway.
So let M$ fund some research. Maybe it'll give other businesses (Hello... calling Sun and HP) to do more for higher education.
Thanks for the back-up info!
Somehow I changed 30 million to 30,000. Mea Culpa.
Also remember that many consumer items have come to us from government spending! For example (and yes, some of these are more valuable than others):
Tang
Slick 50 (oil treatment- first & still used to lubricate the brakes on the space shuttle)
Silly putty (a failed plasic explosive)
Jeeps
Humvees
Integrated circuits (Navy funding, I think)
Computers in general (Navy/Cryptography Intelligence)
Satellite communications (ok, thank the Soviet gov't for pioneering that one)
there are a lot more, but I don't have the time (or knowledge) to list them all here. Many of these have offshoots, as well. Satellites led to cell phones and pagers. Heck, you can probably credit the Air Force for creating the demand for a Silicon Valley in the first place! (Those radar installations in Greenland and northern Canada needed lots of advanced components back in the late 50s and early 60's...)