Suffer from WHAT? Do you seriously think that a lack of mindshare is what's keeping the "I have Linux installed, it kicks ass and I have no desire to change" people from jumping ship?
Scared is not the issue with hurd vs. Linux on the desktop/server. HURD being what IBM is helping to make Linux for Big Iron is a scarry thought.
If I were IBM I would be scared of the amount of control RMS exercises over GNU/HURD. I mean think about it, he wants to be able to insist that people who use any of his code use the GNU/ extension to the product name.
It's not GNU/Linux dangit (unless you run Debian but I don't care what that is called, it just kicks ass.)
If I were IBM I would not want to lay hopes and development money on a system driven by a fanatic (granted a good intentioned one) who lets his ego govern the direction of the system.
-Nathan
Re:heh. Silly rabbit, don't you know HURD is for..
on
HURD For 'Big Iron'?
·
· Score: 1
Political neutrality is not the issue.
Linux is in the pre-2.4 code freeze. The stupidity of people not connecting that with the fact that IBM can't dump 10MB of patches in to change the systme components in is the issue.
IBM knows what ifdef is. They just need to figure out how to work with Linus' kernel development system.
-Nathan
Re:because it's only available as unstable on i386
on
HURD For 'Big Iron'?
·
· Score: 1
Yes Linux can be patched.
No this isn't an issue.
Yes the IBM fixes will get in.
Yes the IBM people are being too impatient and not conforming to the development schedule.
DOES ANYONE REMEMBER 2.4 IS IN A CODE FREEEEEZE.
HELLO? PEOPLE?
Freak.
When 2.5 comes out, by the time it gets to 2.5.10 if the IBM people still havne't worked out the development speed for getting their stuff in, then it will be an issue.
The file command did not look at the extension to get that data, it looked at the file. In Linux the program opening the file needs to be smart enough to know what it's opening, that's not hard.
The functionality you want of a file being opened by clicking on it in XWindows depends on how "smart" the software you are using to browse the fileystem is in the first place, and I believe most take care of that request in their design.
The 8.3 curse lives with us still in the minds of the uninitiated;)
The success of RedHat only serves to fuel the fire of Linux being associated with a low-quality operating system.
The BSD camp whines enough as it is.
After years of watching the net flood with horror stories from RedHat installs everytime you release anything, I wonder how you can still be in business.
No wonder there is so many distributions.
Closed source is the one thing you do NOT have in common with Microsoft. Many other things about Microsoft that are hated have their mirrors in RedHat's behavior.
Security is important to Microsoft as long as it doesn't impeed the adoption of their products. Unfortunatly, quality and freedom are important to RedHat as long as they don't hinder RedHat's quest for world domination.
People are also forgetting the toilet the developers worshiped after last nights JD fest.
UNIX by definition means very little.
What the people believe UNIX defines is more important that you are willing to realise.
My Dad still can't tell the difference between WordPerfect and the operating system. He just knows he hates Bill Gates because I told him to. Do you think he gives a damn about the C library? Do you think he would if it were part of the OS name?
People who know Linux and know how to use it know what the GNU software is and where it comes from and at least for the most part, are grateful.
Pitching into Linux gave IBM a whole bunch of "eyes" for it's applications and OS development efforts. All that potential development would be cut off if they forked the Kernel.
If they fork it, they will be taking a few developers with them and alienating the entire point. They arn't in Linux for the so-far developed Kernel, they are in it for the philosephy of a system that nobody, not even IBM "ownes".
They may as well just rename AIX or OpenSource it or something and start over from scratch in the OpenSource mind-share department.
IBM has a good thing going with their involvement with Linux right now, don't expect them to shoot themselves in the foot by forking the Kernel tree anytime soon.
IBM doesn't pick. IBM responds to the demand from their customers.
They have stated they will support RH + descendants but not Debian because "although Debian is well thought of in the community, our customers are just not asking for it."
Or something like that anyway - I think I got the quote right.
I think the poster meant will he be able to use RedHat or Debin in his IBM mainframe wet-dreams.
The answer (I believe) is that IBM is giving-back all it's improvements and ports of it's utilities, so anybody is open to port their distribution over. Most of the improvements will be to the standard kernel, everything else will hopefully go upstream where needed so anybody can package it up.
Debian is having trouble getting it's IA64 port flying for lack of the right hardware environment. I don't want to think about what it would have to do to get a s390 to port to.
Hey, the discussion has nothing to do with anything vs. Linux - Linux is a platform for clusters OR mainframes. That's the cool part of the article.
I want to get more info from IBM about how the progress for big iron features is actualy getting into the Linux Kernel - at last check Linus wasn't letting it in because it would have hurt performance for the rest of us normal humans.
Simple, compare the bandwith between CPUs on a 16xSMP system to the bandwith between servers in a cluster. To get information processed between those machines, you have to be able to send items to them to be computed and get the results back dang quick.
Gigabit does not compare to a motherboards bus.
HA clusters are great when you have 24 copies of the program which can work on individual sections of data and not have to report back or send results very often/fast, but they suck ass when you need the CPU's to be dependant on each other and what each other produces.
-Nathan
Re:Meanwhile, in the exclusive Wintel Clubhouse...
on
Microprocessor Forum
·
· Score: 1
Maybe they are so worried about how well Linux will be ported to the IA64 they are focusing all their 64bit related resources on developing Whistler?
Ya think? I like the idea of MS running scared;)
IA64 has had a large push corporation wise for Linux support, does Hammer have anyone besides AMD pushing for Linux support?
Problem 1: Two things, first journaling fixes it, second out of 75+ fsck events I have experienced in the 6+ years I have run Linux, less than three had serious issues.
Problem 2: Dependencies? in Linux? Oh, you mean RedHat - well that's shit anyways, go look at the dependencies under Debian, now that rocks and is the "essence" of stable.
You can only get a 60% compile working rate under FreeBSD? Ouch. sucks to be you dude.
Though I am shocked to think that a RedHat7.0 user could even get 30% with shipping a dev compiler standard. Morons.
Seriously, if you want the stability and other things your post talks about - give Debian a try;)
2 minor things patched and you are calling ME the troll?
*shakes head* That's beyond laughable - each pre-release of the.17 (now.18) series has had 15-20+ patched sections (that were big enough to mention in the announcements.)
By faster technical and overall development I mean just for a second, look at the pure skill of people who work on Linux for a living or hobby. Look at the pure numbers of projects and perople who care enough to get it right (please don't bring RedHat into this, they are an emberasment).
Look at the technical work big companies like Intel and IBM are putting into Linux.
If the BSD zealots didn't insist on having every post dripping with envy of Linux's lime-light, I would be much more inclined to respect their opinions.
"just fine" described the Linux RAID implimentation in 2.2 and 2.4 completely blows it away.
I have boxes running test# series kernels in production capacity which have been up and running for close to as long as their respective kernel series' were released. If there is a problem or 2.4.0-final comes out, I will upgrade.
I think a single box with 5 hot-swap auto-rebuild SCSI drives (the support for which kicks ass) running in a RAID5 solution on a multiproc system handling >300 web sites, DNS for over 500 domains and disk space for mail clients for three ISP's (total of 12,000 user directories) running test2 (I think) says more about 2.4's potential stability than anything I have heard from a BSD fan yet.
Linux lets you go a hell of a long distance with decent hardware. It's a shame the BSD people won't pull their collective heads out and contribute what they think Linux is missing.
By insisting on holding onto a loosing end of a UNIX distribution war, the segmentation of camps is only hurting both the BSD and Linux systems.
And no, complaints about how the development model won't let them walk in with their inflated ego's and start running things doesn't phase me.
Ok, then will somene who is "well versed" in the implimentations please explain to my why the FreeBSD SMP page can mention sacrifices they are making because of legacy design issues in every third sentence and still be so technicaly advanced?
I just want to see the dang numbers ot compare the two - can FreeBSD 5 run on 64 processors on IA64?
Two: Product can be used before release by anyone who wants to download it. the vaporware rules are different because the product is real and you can load it and run it.
The kernel versions are only useful to promote a stability/development cycle and to let people know when a version when considerable upgrades is stable enough to install or a bigfix has been implimented.
It's two completely different systems of development and release or didn't all you elite "you don't bash MS for this when they did it you hypocrits" morons notice that part?
Thanks a ton for the links, it looks like some good reading.
I read through (not in depth, I admit I mostly skimmed) but the impression I got was there is a serious amount of development going on and alot of changes are still under consideration.
The only point with that is it seems the promise of a wonderful rewrite of SMP for FreeBSD can't quite stand up to what 2.4-test? can handle now.
Any comments on what my FreeBSD friends tell me about the sorry state of RAID under FreeBSD?
Being unable to purchase or in any way get ahold of a MS product that has been "releasing any day now" for a year+ does NOT compare to "the final release of the stable kernel is not ready, but you can ge the pre-release that's a week old now if you want."
You can patch the kernel for use with a debugger without a problem, Linus just doesn't want to distribute a standard one. It's kruft in his opinion and he isn't/can't stop anyone from inserting their own anyway.
It's the use or not of kdb that's actualy at issue with the developers. The violent discussions are about whether it's a good idea or not. To include one or not isn't something that too many developers care that much about.
Those who need one, will choose one from the many available and install it - not a tough issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Suffer from WHAT? Do you seriously think that a lack of mindshare is what's keeping the "I have Linux installed, it kicks ass and I have no desire to change" people from jumping ship?
Scared is not the issue with hurd vs. Linux on the desktop/server. HURD being what IBM is helping to make Linux for Big Iron is a scarry thought.
If I were IBM I would be scared of the amount of control RMS exercises over GNU/HURD. I mean think about it, he wants to be able to insist that people who use any of his code use the GNU/ extension to the product name.
It's not GNU/Linux dangit (unless you run Debian but I don't care what that is called, it just kicks ass.)
If I were IBM I would not want to lay hopes and development money on a system driven by a fanatic (granted a good intentioned one) who lets his ego govern the direction of the system.
-Nathan
Political neutrality is not the issue.
Linux is in the pre-2.4 code freeze. The stupidity of people not connecting that with the fact that IBM can't dump 10MB of patches in to change the systme components in is the issue.
IBM knows what ifdef is. They just need to figure out how to work with Linus' kernel development system.
-Nathan
Yes Linux can be patched.
No this isn't an issue.
Yes the IBM fixes will get in.
Yes the IBM people are being too impatient and not conforming to the development schedule.
DOES ANYONE REMEMBER 2.4 IS IN A CODE FREEEEEZE.
HELLO? PEOPLE?
Freak.
When 2.5 comes out, by the time it gets to 2.5.10 if the IBM people still havne't worked out the development speed for getting their stuff in, then it will be an issue.
But not until.
-Nathan
Journaling is not the feature of those FSs that makes them faster.
They do other tricks that ext2 does not to get the speed.
root@linux:/usr/share/pixmaps# file xchat.png
;)
xchap.png: PNG image data, 50 x 50, 8-bit/color RGBA, non-interlaced
The file command did not look at the extension to get that data, it looked at the file. In Linux the program opening the file needs to be smart enough to know what it's opening, that's not hard.
The functionality you want of a file being opened by clicking on it in XWindows depends on how "smart" the software you are using to browse the fileystem is in the first place, and I believe most take care of that request in their design.
The 8.3 curse lives with us still in the minds of the uninitiated
-Nathan
Dear Bob,
Blow it out your ass.
The success of RedHat only serves to fuel the fire of Linux being associated with a low-quality operating system.
The BSD camp whines enough as it is.
After years of watching the net flood with horror stories from RedHat installs everytime you release anything, I wonder how you can still be in business.
No wonder there is so many distributions.
Closed source is the one thing you do NOT have in common with Microsoft. Many other things about Microsoft that are hated have their mirrors in RedHat's behavior.
Security is important to Microsoft as long as it doesn't impeed the adoption of their products. Unfortunatly, quality and freedom are important to RedHat as long as they don't hinder RedHat's quest for world domination.
-Nathan
Moot Point.
People are also forgetting the toilet the developers worshiped after last nights JD fest.
UNIX by definition means very little.
What the people believe UNIX defines is more important that you are willing to realise.
My Dad still can't tell the difference between WordPerfect and the operating system. He just knows he hates Bill Gates because I told him to. Do you think he gives a damn about the C library? Do you think he would if it were part of the OS name?
People who know Linux and know how to use it know what the GNU software is and where it comes from and at least for the most part, are grateful.
-Nathan
IBM has commited to releasing the code to everything that they "can". Yes, I mean as far as kernel hacks and whatnot.
So yes, they are in essence giving everything back, except for the pieces of code like that dang soundcard with the Lawyers having such issues.
Not a chance.
Pitching into Linux gave IBM a whole bunch of "eyes" for it's applications and OS development efforts. All that potential development would be cut off if they forked the Kernel.
If they fork it, they will be taking a few developers with them and alienating the entire point. They arn't in Linux for the so-far developed Kernel, they are in it for the philosephy of a system that nobody, not even IBM "ownes".
They may as well just rename AIX or OpenSource it or something and start over from scratch in the OpenSource mind-share department.
IBM has a good thing going with their involvement with Linux right now, don't expect them to shoot themselves in the foot by forking the Kernel tree anytime soon.
-Nathan
Conflicts can and tend to be resolved.
IBM doesn't pick. IBM responds to the demand from their customers.
They have stated they will support RH + descendants but not Debian because "although Debian is well thought of in the community, our customers are just not asking for it."
Or something like that anyway - I think I got the quote right.
Having to sift through all the "but they mentioned RedHat Linux not just Linux so WHAT DOES THAT MEAN" crap is a downside.
Dangit.
(read with whiny 16-year-old-wants-to-borrow-the-keys voice.)
I think the poster meant will he be able to use RedHat or Debin in his IBM mainframe wet-dreams.
The answer (I believe) is that IBM is giving-back all it's improvements and ports of it's utilities, so anybody is open to port their distribution over. Most of the improvements will be to the standard kernel, everything else will hopefully go upstream where needed so anybody can package it up.
Debian is having trouble getting it's IA64 port flying for lack of the right hardware environment. I don't want to think about what it would have to do to get a s390 to port to.
*shudder*
-Nathan
Hey, the discussion has nothing to do with anything vs. Linux - Linux is a platform for clusters OR mainframes. That's the cool part of the article.
I want to get more info from IBM about how the progress for big iron features is actualy getting into the Linux Kernel - at last check Linus wasn't letting it in because it would have hurt performance for the rest of us normal humans.
IBM + Linux = very cool.
Simple, compare the bandwith between CPUs on a 16xSMP system to the bandwith between servers in a cluster. To get information processed between those machines, you have to be able to send items to them to be computed and get the results back dang quick.
Gigabit does not compare to a motherboards bus.
HA clusters are great when you have 24 copies of the program which can work on individual sections of data and not have to report back or send results very often/fast, but they suck ass when you need the CPU's to be dependant on each other and what each other produces.
-Nathan
Maybe they are so worried about how well Linux will be ported to the IA64 they are focusing all their 64bit related resources on developing Whistler?
;)
Ya think? I like the idea of MS running scared
IA64 has had a large push corporation wise for Linux support, does Hammer have anyone besides AMD pushing for Linux support?
-Nathan
*whomps you on the head*
;)
;)
Here we go again
Problem 1: Two things, first journaling fixes it, second out of 75+ fsck events I have experienced in the 6+ years I have run Linux, less than three had serious issues.
Problem 2: Dependencies? in Linux? Oh, you mean RedHat - well that's shit anyways, go look at the dependencies under Debian, now that rocks and is the "essence" of stable.
You can only get a 60% compile working rate under FreeBSD? Ouch. sucks to be you dude.
Though I am shocked to think that a RedHat7.0 user could even get 30% with shipping a dev compiler standard. Morons.
Seriously, if you want the stability and other things your post talks about - give Debian a try
2 minor things patched and you are calling ME the troll?
.17 (now .18) series has had 15-20+ patched sections (that were big enough to mention in the announcements.)
*shakes head* That's beyond laughable - each pre-release of the
By faster technical and overall development I mean just for a second, look at the pure skill of people who work on Linux for a living or hobby. Look at the pure numbers of projects and perople who care enough to get it right (please don't bring RedHat into this, they are an emberasment).
Look at the technical work big companies like Intel and IBM are putting into Linux.
If the BSD zealots didn't insist on having every post dripping with envy of Linux's lime-light, I would be much more inclined to respect their opinions.
-Nathan
"just fine" described the Linux RAID implimentation in 2.2 and 2.4 completely blows it away.
I have boxes running test# series kernels in production capacity which have been up and running for close to as long as their respective kernel series' were released. If there is a problem or 2.4.0-final comes out, I will upgrade.
I think a single box with 5 hot-swap auto-rebuild SCSI drives (the support for which kicks ass) running in a RAID5 solution on a multiproc system handling >300 web sites, DNS for over 500 domains and disk space for mail clients for three ISP's (total of 12,000 user directories) running test2 (I think) says more about 2.4's potential stability than anything I have heard from a BSD fan yet.
Linux lets you go a hell of a long distance with decent hardware. It's a shame the BSD people won't pull their collective heads out and contribute what they think Linux is missing.
By insisting on holding onto a loosing end of a UNIX distribution war, the segmentation of camps is only hurting both the BSD and Linux systems.
And no, complaints about how the development model won't let them walk in with their inflated ego's and start running things doesn't phase me.
-Nathan
Ok, then will somene who is "well versed" in the implimentations please explain to my why the FreeBSD SMP page can mention sacrifices they are making because of legacy design issues in every third sentence and still be so technicaly advanced?
I just want to see the dang numbers ot compare the two - can FreeBSD 5 run on 64 processors on IA64?
Can it run on 32 processors on IA32?
Linux's can.
-Nathan
Will somebody care to *please* explain why that was marked as flamebait?
There is not a single item in there I wouldn't mind backing up.
Two systems, apples and oranges.
One: Product cannot be used before release.
Two: Product can be used before release by anyone who wants to download it. the vaporware rules are different because the product is real and you can load it and run it.
The kernel versions are only useful to promote a stability/development cycle and to let people know when a version when considerable upgrades is stable enough to install or a bigfix has been implimented.
It's two completely different systems of development and release or didn't all you elite "you don't bash MS for this when they did it you hypocrits" morons notice that part?
Think. Damit.
-Nathan
Thanks a ton for the links, it looks like some good reading.
I read through (not in depth, I admit I mostly skimmed) but the impression I got was there is a serious amount of development going on and alot of changes are still under consideration.
The only point with that is it seems the promise of a wonderful rewrite of SMP for FreeBSD can't quite stand up to what 2.4-test? can handle now.
Any comments on what my FreeBSD friends tell me about the sorry state of RAID under FreeBSD?
-Nathan
How in the hell is this insightful?
Being unable to purchase or in any way get ahold of a MS product that has been "releasing any day now" for a year+ does NOT compare to "the final release of the stable kernel is not ready, but you can ge the pre-release that's a week old now if you want."
Freak the moderators are asleep today.
kdb in mainstream sources in a overworked point.
You can patch the kernel for use with a debugger without a problem, Linus just doesn't want to distribute a standard one. It's kruft in his opinion and he isn't/can't stop anyone from inserting their own anyway.
It's the use or not of kdb that's actualy at issue with the developers. The violent discussions are about whether it's a good idea or not. To include one or not isn't something that too many developers care that much about.
Those who need one, will choose one from the many available and install it - not a tough issue.
USB is in 2.4 (I don't think 2.2 support is worth a damn)
Since 3? Was USB even an option or there anything decent to support back then?
2.4 has damn cool USB actualy. You should take a look.