The company I work for standardized on the NT/Alpha platform several years ago. Now that we have no OS, we have to pick out of 3 scenarios to get file and print services to our many Mac and Windoze client machines:
Win2K on Intel TRU64 and a package called TAS on the Alpha's Alpha Linux with netatalk and Samba
We're just starting out on our descision making process, and if I have my way, it'll all boil down to value - bang per buck spent. Last year, NT4.0 on Alpha provided the answer to that equation. One machine could serve 80+ G3 and G4 clients without breaking a sweat - I've seen Intel boxes of equivelent MHz and RAM melt with just 20 G3s. Seems to be a result of the huge I/O requirements. I can't see _anything_ in the IA32 architecture coming close to that while staying in the right price range.
Myself , I want to keep the Alphas and get the benefits of Linux. Using Linux sweetens the bang/buck equation even more. I just have to embark on an anti-FUD campaign - you know, counter the "Who's supporting this? Can we sue if it doesn't work?" and other PHB talk. Oh, and prove netatalk 1.4 is stable, even though it's a beta.
BTW, I have a lengthy paper on why the Alpha, it's instruction set and architecture are superior to the Merced (every time I say Itanium I get a twitch X-/), and when I find the URL for it, I'll post it - seems to have disapeared from the Compaq web site.
My apologies, all. I should have labled the Advanced File System in TRU64 as AdvFS. Pretty cool stuff - it's really hard to trash, and no need for fsck. You can read more here.
A hearty "thank you, way to go" and other compliments to our friends at IBM. BTW, I've heard muted rumblings that DE.. ooops, Compaq is thinking about porting AFS (which, by the way, is killer) to Linux as well. I started thinking "great, more competition, more confusion, it's going to be a while before I know which one to support, at least until one has bumped off most of the..", then it hit me. Competition, in it's best form.
A journalling file system is a really critical need for our favorite Open Source OS to be taken seriously in an enterprise setting. IBM, SGI et. al. want to be able to say "See, we initially wrote your FS, so we can suppport it best!", and get more business that way. I think that's why there are so many competing projects.
This, friends, is where a new market paradigm begins - we will decide which new FS becomes the standard on our machines, based on it's merits, not marketing. Then we end up supporting it, and by default, the company that created it. It's the new currency - knowledge, the ability to use that knowledge, and our collective mind set because of that knowledge. Welcome to the new world.
First, I'm another person to add to the long list of people who are in your corner.
My question is this: Did it cross your mind, before you posted the code in question on your web page, to put some sort of a legal disclaimer that people were forced to read before accessing the code that explained that you were postig the code to make DVD players, not copiers?
IANAL, but I bet if you had it would be helping your case right now.
My personal experience is that Intel-PC type hardware, even under Linux, is very limited. Large systems, in terms of band per buck spent, require bigger iron. Have you ever thought about using a different architecture than the commodity Intel/AMD, such as the Compaq Alpha?
Just a short note to all of those who have posted replies to this story, and the John Katz piece: Thank you. Except for the inevitable few trolls, all have been thought provoking.
As a person who is evaluating their faith, it is very important to me that I get the opinions of the community of which I consider myself a member. I believe myself to be Christian too. And a free thinker. And a student of science. And vehemently oppose those who would control the minds of others for their personal gain.
The atheists in the community will ask: OK, dude, if you're a free thinker, and into science, and opposed to mind control, how can you be a Christian? It's all about mind control, isn't it? Aren't your morals and beliefs spoon fed to you? In a word, no. Example: As a student of science, I cannot and will not refute the knowledge that we as a species have won, or simply pass it over because it may conflict with my ethos. There are a few places where it seems to me that science and the Bible align - I don't want waste bandwidth with a long winded proof that isn't really there, because it's based on what I believe to be true. I know you're all saying "Chicken!!!", but I've found something that works for me. My belief, my truth. Of course your mileage will vary - you're not me, are you?
Some of the Christians here will think: You can't do that, zlotnik. You must comply with the Bible in all points or you aren't a true Christian. Again, not really. Don't forget people, faith is a human thing, not a computer thing. Conflicting points do not a core dump make in my mind. I can rationalize, I can see where science does not fly in the face of Christianity - it was created by God in the first place, wasn't it? Understanding science brings us closer to God, not farther. Any good coder will tell you that you have to test a program under all conditions in order to show that it will not break under stress. Test your faith, open your mind. But bury your head in the sand if you must - I'll be busy watching the wonders of Gods universe unfold before our eyes.
BTW, to the more, um, judgmental Christians out there, as far as I understand, being a Christian basically means that you love your enemies as well as your brother, and pass judgement on none but yourself. Jesus loves sinners - you should too.
I begrudge no one their beliefs, and hope no one begrudges me mine. I have accepted my faith with an open and clear mind, and I usually keep all of this to myself. The only reason I'm spouting off like this is because the forum was there, I thought I had some valid points, and I really did want to thank all for the fantastic input. I'll shut my yap now.
Let me start by saying I am not really a programmer, nor a regular *NIX user. Just a somewhat educated observer, who has dealt with the other end of the screen, by setting up a lot of NT stations, some UNIX Boxes and even some Macs for CAD, page layout etc.
Seems to me that X is a little too far from the hardware to perform well. It's also terribly inconsistant. That's one reason that CEOs, CIOs and other have relegated Linux, *BSD and other unicies to the highly technical user or the server room. They want productivity, they want conststancy, they want to be sure someone can sit down and get to work right away. The NT4 GUI is consistant (though ugly) and fairly close to the hardware accelerator, which is a major reason people use it. Also, it has very consistant APIs and graphics libraries. And if the hardware driver is written properly, it's even stable.
I look at X, and think "An X server. K. Why?" With all the hardware accelerated graphics out there, I want my display on my own machine. Only a machine that has no display capabilities should need an X server. The X client should be able to directly hook into the hardware driver. If I were to design a graphics sub-system, I'd do it like this:
Driver>Shim>GUI. Why the Shim?
On an App that serves out graphics:
Driver>Server>Protocol>Client>GUI.
Every system that runs X DOES NOT NEED to be able to send graphics through a network.
And BTW, pick GNOME, KDE, Motif or something, and turf the rest. Or at least pick a standard library - again, like NT. Make the UNIX GUI a known quantity, and users and developers will flock to the screen...
Why? Because NT is such a huge, lumbering beast, its patches are too.
SP4 for the Alpha was a 48Mb download - and the file is a self-extracting exe. If you have Macs, you need another 3 or so hotfixes, and it still won't work quite right without trashing the MacVolume index and rebuilding it. (They re-wrote SFM (Services For Macintosh) to use the disk for the index instead of memory) That 48Mb basicly replaces a full 75% of the OS - exes, dlls, drivers and other such important items. Also, in order to be Y2K ready, you need 2 other "patches" - Internet Exploder 4.01 and Data Acess objects 2.0. It's a scary thing.
My personal experience with SP4 is mixed - killed a few machines, saved others. I would like it better if I could just patch what was needed.
Graphics performance on NT 3.51 sucked - I know, I supported CAD machines using it. Even 2 processors didn't help - something to do with the threading in the subsystem. Moving the graphics subsystem into the kernel space gained speed for graphics intensive applications and some other benefits as well. The only drawback is if you have a poorly written graphics driver, the whole thing crashes.
Does everyone realize that this very discussion proves that OSS works? Do you think for a second that any place full of suits would be able to carry on about this? Wow, people holding thier social mores and ideas up to a mirror, and asking if they like what they see - no matter whom they are. Cool. A pat on the back all around;-|.
Disscussing one's arrogance tends to soften it a little. Saying "I'm good at what I do" is somewhat arrogant, but if you've got the experience and accomplishments to back it up, people don't mind. Saying "I'm BETTER at what I do" tends to alienate people.
As far as RMS is concerned, he does seem to be immature politically - he should drop the GNU/Linux crusade, especially around corporate types (like reporters whose job it is to sel papers/magazines/web site hits etc.) who can readily ( and perhaps willingly) take him out of context. If he, actually any one who's extoling the virtues of OSS, is going into a pit of vipers, he'd better have some fangs too.
Is anyone listening to this guy? 2 things more to consider:
1.We can turn M$'s reknowned strategy, "embrace and extend", against them if they port to Office to Linux.
2. This is just like free speech - the good comes with the bad. You can't say to the rest of the World "Port your app to Linux!!! Except of course if you're from Redmond..." - Linux must be for all, including Mr. Bill if he so desires.
It's math - you require double the ponies to get the time in half - and it gets worse as computational times approach zero. For an analogy, in 1980 a TF Dragster could do the 1/4 mile in just under 6 seconds, with ~2000HP. Today, it takes 6000 HP to do the 1/4 in 4.5. It would take 9000 to get under 4 they say - and so it goes.
C'mon, buddy, MacOS is pretty much diametrically opposed to Linux. Have everyone's desk look and feel the same? Remember the old "if OS's were Airlines" joke? (Look at http://www.frogtown.com/lists/funny/0077.html - found this on short notice, sorry) No (or little) customizations? No window manager of your choice? Suuure.
What you're really saying is replace Bill over at M$ with Mr. Jobs. The result will be the same in the end - an arrogant, bloated company with an egomaniacal leader bent on owning the world. You should really stick to your own - go flame Mr Dvorak some more on the PC Mag site.
We're assaulting the motherland, kids, not liberating a colony like Ghandi was. Windoze is the very foundation of the M$ machine, and as such OSS is threatening it's very survival. You had better belive that they'll try whatever they can to screw up, pre-empt, short circuit, fud to death and/or buy out Linux.
We should fake them out - feed Linux to them in a long protracted battle, and develop a killer FreeBSD on the sly. When they're done schlurping down Linux and look up from the plate, we deposit our newly honed OSS OS right between their eyes.
One other passing thought - what happens to the 2 trillion dollars (or what ever the Redmond behemoth is worth) when Linux starts killing Windoze? Makes you think that there's more people out there that will want to see Linux limited to the geeks....
At least someone is watching the bastions for the invading hordes...
I've said this before in other forums - when you target M$, and score a hit, they eventually shoot back. They've got a big gun too - just ask Netscape.
The unfortunate fact is that there's nothing in the GPL that says "you can't use this if you are an agent for or employee of Microsoft (insert other legaleese)..." , so they can indeed produce thier own distro. Every one associated with Linux is about to have a lesson in Big Business, from the biggest, dirtiest player in the league.
Wake up, people. Be preparred to duke it out with a 800 pound Gorilla.
Hope the people in the DEC division keep this up. We need high powered companies like Compaq to tell M$ to smarten up - and do it by keeping alternate OS's running and supported. Earlier comment was due to the fact DEC had (and now Compaq has) the largest NT support group going - if memory serves, it was bigger than the one at M$. VMS is no treat, and now M$ has it's little brother to play with. No wonder I'm stressed at work - we're a big NT shop and we use Alpha's, but I can't even sneak an RH 5.2 Alpha version cd in the building.:-(.
This may seemed a little odd to me when it happened. Compaq announced the DS20 through e-mail a couple of weeks ago, and was crowing about supporting Linux. I went to the supposed page,
http://www.digital.com/info/CU9403/CU9403H M.HTM
and it wasn't there for a few days. Me thinks M$ may have complained for a bit, but eventually came 'round, since DEC and Compaq are so cosy in bed with them. Bill may now be able to get "strategic business information" from inside the Linux community. We'll have to watch our backs.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats' the general idea.
The company I work for standardized on the NT/Alpha platform several years ago. Now that we have no OS, we have to pick out of 3 scenarios to get file and print services to our many Mac and Windoze client machines:
Win2K on Intel
TRU64 and a package called TAS on the Alpha's
Alpha Linux with netatalk and Samba
We're just starting out on our descision making process, and if I have my way, it'll all boil down to value - bang per buck spent. Last year, NT4.0 on Alpha provided the answer to that equation. One machine could serve 80+ G3 and G4 clients without breaking a sweat - I've seen Intel boxes of equivelent MHz and RAM melt with just 20 G3s. Seems to be a result of the huge I/O requirements. I can't see _anything_ in the IA32 architecture coming close to that while staying in the right price range.
Myself , I want to keep the Alphas and get the benefits of Linux. Using Linux sweetens the bang/buck equation even more. I just have to embark on an anti-FUD campaign - you know, counter the "Who's supporting this? Can we sue if it doesn't work?" and other PHB talk. Oh, and prove netatalk 1.4 is stable, even though it's a beta.
BTW, I have a lengthy paper on why the Alpha, it's instruction set and architecture are superior to the Merced (every time I say Itanium I get a twitch X-/), and when I find the URL for it, I'll post it - seems to have disapeared from the Compaq web site.
My apologies, all. I should have labled the Advanced File System in TRU64 as AdvFS. Pretty cool stuff - it's really hard to trash, and no need for fsck. You can read more here.
A hearty "thank you, way to go" and other compliments to our friends at IBM. BTW, I've heard muted rumblings that DE.. ooops, Compaq is thinking about porting AFS (which, by the way, is killer) to Linux as well. I started thinking "great, more competition, more confusion, it's going to be a while before I know which one to support, at least until one has bumped off most of the..", then it hit me. Competition, in it's best form.
A journalling file system is a really critical need for our favorite Open Source OS to be taken seriously in an enterprise setting. IBM, SGI et. al. want to be able to say "See, we initially wrote your FS, so we can suppport it best!", and get more business that way. I think that's why there are so many competing projects.
This, friends, is where a new market paradigm begins - we will decide which new FS becomes the standard on our machines, based on it's merits, not marketing. Then we end up supporting it, and by default, the company that created it. It's the new currency - knowledge, the ability to use that knowledge, and our collective mind set because of that knowledge. Welcome to the new world.
First, I'm another person to add to the long list of people who are in your corner.
My question is this: Did it cross your mind, before you posted the code in question on your web page, to put some sort of a legal disclaimer that people were forced to read before accessing the code that explained that you were postig the code to make DVD players, not copiers?
IANAL, but I bet if you had it would be helping your case right now.
My personal experience is that Intel-PC type hardware, even under Linux, is very limited. Large systems, in terms of band per buck spent, require bigger iron. Have you ever thought about using a different architecture than the commodity Intel/AMD, such as the Compaq Alpha?
The best thing about this holiday is that it can trancend all faiths and walks of life.
It's really about the best human virtues:
Charity
Giving of oneself
Sacrifice for the sake of others
Loving you fellow human, no matter thier situation or short comings
All the Season's Best to all. Life is the best gift all of us are given. Go in Peace. God bless us all.
Just a short note to all of those who have posted replies to this story, and the John Katz piece: Thank you. Except for the inevitable few trolls, all have been thought provoking.
As a person who is evaluating their faith, it is very important to me that I get the opinions of the community of which I consider myself a member. I believe myself to be Christian too. And a free thinker. And a student of science. And vehemently oppose those who would control the minds of others for their personal gain.
The atheists in the community will ask: OK, dude, if you're a free thinker, and into science, and opposed to mind control, how can you be a Christian? It's all about mind control, isn't it? Aren't your morals and beliefs spoon fed to you? In a word, no. Example: As a student of science, I cannot and will not refute the knowledge that we as a species have won, or simply pass it over because it may conflict with my ethos. There are a few places where it seems to me that science and the Bible align - I don't want waste bandwidth with a long winded proof that isn't really there, because it's based on what I believe to be true. I know you're all saying "Chicken!!!", but I've found something that works for me. My belief, my truth. Of course your mileage will vary - you're not me, are you?
Some of the Christians here will think: You can't do that, zlotnik. You must comply with the Bible in all points or you aren't a true Christian. Again, not really. Don't forget people, faith is a human thing, not a computer thing. Conflicting points do not a core dump make in my mind. I can rationalize, I can see where science does not fly in the face of Christianity - it was created by God in the first place, wasn't it? Understanding science brings us closer to God, not farther. Any good coder will tell you that you have to test a program under all conditions in order to show that it will not break under stress. Test your faith, open your mind. But bury your head in the sand if you must - I'll be busy watching the wonders of Gods universe unfold before our eyes.
BTW, to the more, um, judgmental Christians out there, as far as I understand, being a Christian basically means that you love your enemies as well as your brother, and pass judgement on none but yourself. Jesus loves sinners - you should too.
I begrudge no one their beliefs, and hope no one begrudges me mine. I have accepted my faith with an open and clear mind, and I usually keep all of this to myself. The only reason I'm spouting off like this is because the forum was there, I thought I had some valid points, and I really did want to thank all for the fantastic input. I'll shut my yap now.
Go in Peace. God bless all.
Let me start by saying I am not really a programmer, nor a regular *NIX user. Just a somewhat educated observer, who has dealt with the other end of the screen, by setting up a lot of NT stations, some UNIX Boxes and even some Macs for CAD, page layout etc.
Seems to me that X is a little too far from the hardware to perform well. It's also terribly inconsistant. That's one reason that CEOs, CIOs and other have relegated Linux, *BSD and other unicies to the highly technical user or the server room. They want productivity, they want conststancy, they want to be sure someone can sit down and get to work right away. The NT4 GUI is consistant (though ugly) and fairly close to the hardware accelerator, which is a major reason people use it. Also, it has very consistant APIs and graphics libraries. And if the hardware driver is written properly, it's even stable.
I look at X, and think "An X server. K. Why?" With all the hardware accelerated graphics out there, I want my display on my own machine. Only a machine that has no display capabilities should need an X server. The X client should be able to directly hook into the hardware driver. If I were to design a graphics sub-system, I'd do it like this:
Driver>Shim>GUI. Why the Shim?
On an App that serves out graphics:
Driver>Server>Protocol>Client>GUI.
Every system that runs X DOES NOT NEED to be able to send graphics through a network.
And BTW, pick GNOME, KDE, Motif or something, and turf the rest. Or at least pick a standard library - again, like NT. Make the UNIX GUI a known quantity, and users and developers will flock to the screen...
Can you say "Professional Organization" instead of union? Like the one doctors have. We set the standards, we set the prices...
(You use NT? That's 50% extra on the pay scale, Mr. CIO.)
Why? Because NT is such a huge, lumbering beast, its patches are too.
SP4 for the Alpha was a 48Mb download - and the file is a self-extracting exe. If you have Macs, you need another 3 or so hotfixes, and it still won't work quite right without trashing the MacVolume index and rebuilding it. (They re-wrote SFM (Services For Macintosh) to use the disk for the index instead of memory) That 48Mb basicly replaces a full 75% of the OS - exes, dlls, drivers and other such important items. Also, in order to be Y2K ready, you need 2 other "patches" - Internet Exploder 4.01 and Data Acess objects 2.0. It's a scary thing.
My personal experience with SP4 is mixed - killed a few machines, saved others. I would like it better if I could just patch what was needed.
Graphics performance on NT 3.51 sucked - I know, I supported CAD machines using it. Even 2 processors didn't help - something to do with the threading in the subsystem. Moving the graphics subsystem into the kernel space gained speed for graphics intensive applications and some other benefits as well. The only drawback is if you have a poorly written graphics driver, the whole thing crashes.
Does everyone realize that this very discussion proves that OSS works? Do you think for a second that any place full of suits would be able to carry on about this? Wow, people holding thier social mores and ideas up to a mirror, and asking if they like what they see - no matter whom they are. Cool. A pat on the back all around ;-|.
Disscussing one's arrogance tends to soften it a little. Saying "I'm good at what I do" is somewhat arrogant, but if you've got the experience and accomplishments to back it up, people don't mind. Saying "I'm BETTER at what I do" tends to alienate people.
As far as RMS is concerned, he does seem to be immature politically - he should drop the GNU/Linux crusade, especially around corporate types (like reporters whose job it is to sel papers/magazines/web site hits etc.) who can readily ( and perhaps willingly) take him out of context. If he, actually any one who's extoling the virtues of OSS, is going into a pit of vipers, he'd better have some fangs too.
Is anyone listening to this guy? 2 things more to consider:
1.We can turn M$'s reknowned strategy, "embrace and extend", against them if they port to Office to Linux.
2. This is just like free speech - the good comes with the bad. You can't say to the rest of the World "Port your app to Linux!!! Except of course if you're from Redmond..." - Linux must be for all, including Mr. Bill if he so desires.
It's math - you require double the ponies to get the time in half - and it gets worse as computational times approach zero. For an analogy, in 1980 a TF Dragster could do the 1/4 mile in just under 6 seconds, with ~2000HP. Today, it takes 6000 HP to do the 1/4 in 4.5. It would take 9000 to get under 4 they say - and so it goes.
C'mon, buddy, MacOS is pretty much diametrically opposed to Linux. Have everyone's desk look and feel the same? Remember the old "if OS's were Airlines" joke? (Look at http://www.frogtown.com/lists/funny/0077.html - found this on short notice, sorry) No (or little) customizations? No window manager of your choice? Suuure.
What you're really saying is replace Bill over at M$ with Mr. Jobs. The result will be the same in the end - an arrogant, bloated company with an egomaniacal leader bent on owning the world. You should really stick to your own - go flame Mr Dvorak some more on the PC Mag site.
We're assaulting the motherland, kids, not liberating a colony like Ghandi was. Windoze is the very foundation of the M$ machine, and as such OSS is threatening it's very survival. You had better belive that they'll try whatever they can to screw up, pre-empt, short circuit, fud to death and/or buy out Linux.
We should fake them out - feed Linux to them in a long protracted battle, and develop a killer FreeBSD on the sly. When they're done schlurping down Linux and look up from the plate, we deposit our newly honed OSS OS right between their eyes.
One other passing thought - what happens to the 2 trillion dollars (or what ever the Redmond behemoth is worth) when Linux starts killing Windoze? Makes you think that there's more people out there that will want to see Linux limited to the geeks....
At least someone is watching the bastions for the invading hordes...
I've said this before in other forums - when you target M$, and score a hit, they eventually shoot back. They've got a big gun too - just ask Netscape.
The unfortunate fact is that there's nothing in the GPL that says "you can't use this if you are an agent for or employee of Microsoft (insert other legaleese)..." , so they can indeed produce thier own distro. Every one associated with Linux is about to have a lesson in Big Business, from the biggest, dirtiest player in the league.
Wake up, people. Be preparred to duke it out with a 800 pound Gorilla.
Maybe it's how they're going to "de-commoditize" network protocols...
Hope the people in the DEC division keep this up. We need high powered companies like Compaq to tell M$ to smarten up - and do it by keeping alternate OS's running and supported. Earlier comment was due to the fact DEC had (and now Compaq has) the largest NT support group going - if memory serves, it was bigger than the one at M$. :-(.
VMS is no treat, and now M$ has it's little brother to play with. No wonder I'm stressed at work - we're a big NT shop and we use Alpha's, but I can't even sneak an RH 5.2 Alpha version cd in the building.
This may seemed a little odd to me when it happened. Compaq announced the DS20 through e-mail a couple of weeks ago, and was crowing about supporting Linux. I went to the supposed page,
http://www.digital.com/info/CU9403/CU9403H M.HTM
and it wasn't there for a few days. Me thinks M$ may have complained for a bit, but eventually came 'round, since DEC and Compaq are so cosy in bed with them. Bill may now be able to get "strategic business information" from inside the Linux community. We'll have to watch our backs.