That one of the journalists called Gates "Billy" when asking him a question? Seemes to somewhat amuse the bastard; I wonder if the journalist made it to his car alive:)
The *BSD's are all very well, thank you very much. Check out the replies to the troll (if you could find the original, please do post a _real_ link to it...).
How does this fit in with regular Slashdot fare? Whoever needs such material will find it at the proper sites (from which it should be linked). Are you going to start featuring rc-script customization next?
This is a very big issue for software development houses - using OSS code is risky, unless you're using a very "well known" source (e.g. the basic GNU libs, and stuff like the core Perl); otherwise, you can't be sure until it's been checked (which is a time- and money-consuming operation).
It truly disgusts me to read this. I'd just leave at the first opportunity - there's no shortage of work for Unix sysadmins, anywhere. (Unless, that is, you want to continue working in a "Unix free" environment, in which case stop bitching).
Besides having stuff back out into the OSS stream?
You give a much worse solution - a _small_, _inexperienced_ company (IPO'd just now) will solve _everyone's_ problems, if only they'd move to Linux. Thanks alot, I'd rather stick with that big black box (Sun/IBM/whatever's working right now). Remember - the right tool for each job, and if Solaris is working for them right now, why should the organization move to another platform (and shift their support paradigm ever so slightly)? Just to feed some movement that isn't really generating any revenue for them? Don't kid yourself; the "savings" in moving to Linux will easily be swallowed in the costs of adapting it (not to say retraining all those admins, downtime due to misadministration etc.).
Ooops, seems everytime we get some hard info everyone just shuts up eh? Nothing to say? Microsoft HAS a prerelease Win2000/64 running on Merced silicon, suddenly everyone's bloody silent? I haven't seen a new post here in the last hour.
Well okay then, got to keep the momentum going, why not just take a couple of pot shots at... um... SCO for instance. Yeah, I remember mates they have this really weird SVR3 variant which wouldn't boot with my nVidia - SCO SUUUCKS!!!
Come on people, doesn't anyone have anything _intelligent_ to say about this? Could Microsoft just pull this off under our noses? Sure NT will always be slower and buggier than any other Unix out there, but is it just possible they'll be ready IN TIME, be Y2K compliant, 64-bit with full 32-bit compatibility, better open-standards compliance, good scalability? Why isn't anyone posting some intelligent response to this? Rabbit-in-headlights syndrome?
He's talking about selecting hardware configs. One of the problems with all Intel Unixen has always been that isoteric hardware mostly doesn't get supported, so you find a couple of "working sets", which you sell to your clients as part of a "shrink-wrapped" solution (hardware+OS+apps). Plenty of consultants have been making money off SCO from the last 20 years this way, and you'll see plenty of shops where a 486+Xenix/SCO Unix is still running the show. SCO's old-school unixen are rock solid (interesting to see what comes out with UnixWare 7.x). I've had customers come in only because their disks crashed or too many ports on their multi-port card have become clogged up with dust, after 7-8 years of the machine running without coming down for maintenance.
And about your remark,
>>I mean, you could make windows stable if you put the right hardware and software together and froze the configuration.
it takes an active admin to keep _any_ NT box up and running for longer than a couple of weeks (or at least it's so with all the installations I've seen). Not so with most Unix configurations.
Like there's an, um, _multitude_ of systems? I count Solaris, UnixWare, OpenServer. All the others are irrelevant (from a "popularity" point of view). Number-wise, Solaris is quite irrelevant as well, compared to OpenServer/UnixWare (85% of the Intel UNIX market).
First off, PS is definitely not considered top of the line. It is technologically last right now (N64 is far, _far_ more advanced than PS). Also, you're comparing a home gaming console to an office utility. Compare it to a 3-year old PC and see what _that_ can run as smoothly today. The PC gamer has had to invest at least 1K $$$ since buying his hot-shot whathaveyou PC 3 years ago, in order to stay reasonably near the top today. Of course, you're right about the inflexible hardware locking you in - however, the good sides are that by the time the platform has matured (which is about 2-3 years), it's being milked for all its worth by the developers, instead of getting untested, unstable, buggy games on the PC because developers can always expect the suckers to buy more RAM/HD/accelerators/etc, and download their "updates".
The new PSX processor(s)' advantage is a large number of floating-point units together with extremely wide IO/memory busses. Its integer performance on the other hand should be about on-par with a 486/66DX.
You are absolutely wrong. Be has a telnet server, and the GUI is not an essential component of _any_ application. Many things are done with bash scripts. The fact that a system has a GUI does not make the use of this GUI a precondition for any application.
Check out some _commercial_ unices, which _don't_ keep their kernels compressed like Linux - you'll be in about the same ballpark as NT's kernel booted - between 1.5MB and 3.5MB. Are _these_ slow and bloated? Kernel size measures _nothing_ (except maybe how small a system you could comfortably use on a stripped-down system).
>>I think that the file server portion of the test is inherently flawed in that it uses a non-native protocol under linux...SMB. SMB is native to all windows platforms. They should be testing NFS as well, then I would think that linux would fair better
No, the testing was for Windows connectivity - NFS is not very relevant in that context. If you want to compete with NT, do it on _their_ turf.
>> IIS 4.0 vs apache was much the same, test apache vs apache
Same principle applies. We're talking about the high-profile solutions from the Windows universe and Linux universe.
>> I'd like to see NT's wolfpack clustering compared to that of Beowolf...but I guess that's not necessary considering that NT is listed nowhere in the top 500
These are completely differently-targeted clustering solutions. And schlepping together 200 Intel boxes with PVM does _not_ make Linux superior to NT in any performance scale.
>> Let's take the cue from the IP stack problem and from BeOS and multi-thread the hell out of the kernel
Yes sir, right away:| SMP is a weakness which is not going away very soon, or very easily. It's very easy for people to say things like the above - but it takes a huge amount of effort. Linux was designed from the ground up to be a single-CPU system, and going back and unraveling all those dependencies as well as staying stable is one hell of an undertaking. Expect a couple of years before this is finished. SVR4 MP was designed from the ground up to run on multiprocessors, and indeed SVR4 based systems have excellent scalability. (check out SVR3 - SCO had to re-engineer it from inside out in order to make it anywhere near scalable). I believe that Linux should be relegated to single-CPU boxes... too many scalability and stability probs. Get a commercial Unix if you're already into investing in a multi-CPU box.
This is good news; one of the things I miss most on Linux/*BSD is SAR (and SysV ps). Two notes: 1) Regarding Doug Michels' "FUD"Ding: check out http://www.sco.com/linux/letter.html. Not the big bad wolf you thought he is; why wasn't _this_ put up here? (yes Rob, you _do_ have a sensationalist streak:) 2) AFAIK Microsoft owns less than 10% of SCO, and can't make a move to grab the rest: SCO's contract with IBM says IBM've got dibs. It's also an employee-owned company (although I really don't know exactly how that's supposed to stop takeover - not an economistic bone in my body).
According to their agreement, IBM has first buying rights. If anyone makes a move, IBM will buy out SCO first. This won't matter much anyway - with all the AIX-UnixWare-ptx integration stuff that's going on, SCO can just lie back and live off the royalties.
Gee, people seem to forget really really quickly all the effort and money RedHat pour into opensource projects and opensourcing internally-developed stuff (see Gnome/X etc.) Sure, RH is a commercially-oriented distro, and it's to be expected commercial interests will go to them first. This is just decrying the obvious and expected. Stop whining and start doing something productive.
Slashdot Mirror
That one of the journalists called Gates "Billy" when asking him a question? :)
Seemes to somewhat amuse the bastard; I wonder if the journalist made it to his car alive
Absolutely correct my friend. You have to look for a partner for life - a worthy mate, not a nanny.
The *BSD's are all very well, thank you very much.
:)
Check out the replies to the troll (if you could find the original, please do post a _real_ link to it...).
Nice attempt at flamebait, tho
First the screen enlagring lens, now this... :)
How does this fit in with regular Slashdot fare?
Whoever needs such material will find it at the proper sites (from which it should be linked). Are you going to start featuring rc-script customization next?
This is a very big issue for software development houses - using OSS code is risky, unless you're using a very "well known" source (e.g. the basic GNU libs, and stuff like the core Perl); otherwise, you can't be sure until it's been checked (which is a time- and money-consuming operation).
It truly disgusts me to read this. I'd just leave at the first opportunity - there's no shortage of work for Unix sysadmins, anywhere.
(Unless, that is, you want to continue working in a "Unix free" environment, in which case stop bitching).
Besides having stuff back out into the OSS stream?
You give a much worse solution - a _small_, _inexperienced_ company (IPO'd just now) will solve _everyone's_ problems, if only they'd move to Linux. Thanks alot, I'd rather stick with that big black box (Sun/IBM/whatever's working right now). Remember - the right tool for each job, and if Solaris is working for them right now, why should the organization move to another platform (and shift their support paradigm ever so slightly)? Just to feed some movement that isn't really generating any revenue for them? Don't kid yourself; the "savings" in moving to Linux will easily be swallowed in the costs of adapting it (not to say retraining all those admins, downtime due to misadministration etc.).
SCO Unix beat it to that, as did Sequent and Burroughs (Unisys). :)
I'm sure Intel had a variant of one of their RT OS's up first though
Ooops, seems everytime we get some hard info everyone just shuts up eh?
Nothing to say? Microsoft HAS a prerelease Win2000/64 running on Merced silicon, suddenly everyone's bloody silent? I haven't seen a new post here in the last hour.
Well okay then, got to keep the momentum going, why not just take a couple of pot shots at... um... SCO for instance. Yeah, I remember mates they have this really weird SVR3 variant which wouldn't boot with my nVidia - SCO SUUUCKS!!!
Come on people, doesn't anyone have anything _intelligent_ to say about this? Could Microsoft just pull this off under our noses?
Sure NT will always be slower and buggier than any other Unix out there, but is it just possible they'll be ready IN TIME, be Y2K compliant, 64-bit with full 32-bit compatibility, better open-standards compliance, good scalability? Why isn't anyone posting some intelligent response to this? Rabbit-in-headlights syndrome?
and besides - how would you rather your system was judged - by the number of obscure adapters it supports, or on its architectural merits?
He's talking about selecting hardware configs. One of the problems with all Intel Unixen has always been that isoteric hardware mostly doesn't get supported, so you find a couple of "working sets", which you sell to your clients as part of a "shrink-wrapped" solution (hardware+OS+apps).
Plenty of consultants have been making money off SCO from the last 20 years this way, and you'll see plenty of shops where a 486+Xenix/SCO Unix is still running the show. SCO's old-school unixen are rock solid (interesting to see what comes out with UnixWare 7.x). I've had customers come in only because their disks crashed or too many ports on their multi-port card have become clogged up with dust, after 7-8 years of the machine running without coming down for maintenance.
And about your remark,
>>I mean, you could make windows stable if you put the right hardware and software together and froze the configuration.
it takes an active admin to keep _any_ NT box up and running for longer than a couple of weeks (or at least it's so with all the installations I've seen). Not so with most Unix configurations.
*ROTFL*
Oh please, please stop!
*howl*
Oh have mercy!
No, my friend; this is a well-paid whore who's (well) paid to _get_ beaten. So she either shouldn't complain, or get the hell out of the business.
Like there's an, um, _multitude_ of systems? I count Solaris, UnixWare, OpenServer. All the others are irrelevant (from a "popularity" point of view). Number-wise, Solaris is quite irrelevant as well, compared to OpenServer/UnixWare (85% of the Intel UNIX market).
First off, PS is definitely not considered top of the line. It is technologically last right now (N64 is far, _far_ more advanced than PS).
Also, you're comparing a home gaming console to an office utility. Compare it to a 3-year old PC and see what _that_ can run as smoothly today. The PC gamer has had to invest at least 1K $$$ since buying his hot-shot whathaveyou PC 3 years ago, in order to stay reasonably near the top today.
Of course, you're right about the inflexible hardware locking you in - however, the good sides are that by the time the platform has matured (which is about 2-3 years), it's being milked for all its worth by the developers, instead of getting untested, unstable, buggy games on the PC because developers can always expect the suckers to buy more RAM/HD/accelerators/etc, and download their "updates".
Does this mean that PC games will start being as rigorously tested as console ones? That _will_ be terrible :)
The new PSX processor(s)' advantage is a large number of floating-point units together with extremely wide IO/memory busses. Its integer performance on the other hand should be about on-par with a 486/66DX.
You are absolutely wrong. Be has a telnet server, and the GUI is not an essential component of _any_ application. Many things are done with bash scripts.
The fact that a system has a GUI does not make the use of this GUI a precondition for any application.
Check out some _commercial_ unices, which _don't_ keep their kernels compressed like Linux - you'll be in about the same ballpark as NT's kernel booted - between 1.5MB and 3.5MB. Are _these_ slow and bloated? Kernel size measures _nothing_ (except maybe how small a system you could comfortably use on a stripped-down system).
>>I think that the file server portion of the test is inherently flawed in that it uses a non-native protocol under linux...SMB. SMB is native to all windows platforms. They should be testing NFS as well, then I would think that linux would fair better
:| SMP is a weakness which is not going away very soon, or very easily. It's very easy for people to say things like the above - but it takes a huge amount of effort. Linux was designed from the ground up to be a single-CPU system, and going back and unraveling all those dependencies as well as staying stable is one hell of an undertaking. Expect a couple of years before this is finished. SVR4 MP was designed from the ground up to run on multiprocessors, and indeed SVR4 based systems have excellent scalability. (check out SVR3 - SCO had to re-engineer it from inside out in order to make it anywhere near scalable). I believe that Linux should be relegated to single-CPU boxes... too many scalability and stability probs. Get a commercial Unix if you're already into investing in a multi-CPU box.
No, the testing was for Windows connectivity - NFS is not very relevant in that context. If you want to compete with NT, do it on _their_ turf.
>> IIS 4.0 vs apache was much the same, test apache vs apache
Same principle applies. We're talking about the high-profile solutions from the Windows universe and Linux universe.
>> I'd like to see NT's wolfpack clustering compared to that of Beowolf...but I guess that's not necessary considering that NT is listed nowhere in the top 500
These are completely differently-targeted clustering solutions. And schlepping together 200 Intel boxes with PVM does _not_ make Linux superior to NT in any performance scale.
>> Let's take the cue from the IP stack problem and from BeOS and multi-thread the hell out of the kernel
Yes sir, right away
This is good news; one of the things I miss most on Linux/*BSD is SAR (and SysV ps). :)
Two notes:
1) Regarding Doug Michels' "FUD"Ding: check out
http://www.sco.com/linux/letter.html. Not the big bad wolf you thought he is; why wasn't _this_ put up here? (yes Rob, you _do_ have a sensationalist streak
2) AFAIK Microsoft owns less than 10% of SCO, and can't make a move to grab the rest: SCO's contract with IBM says IBM've got dibs. It's also an employee-owned company (although I really don't know exactly how that's supposed to stop takeover - not an economistic bone in my body).
According to their agreement, IBM has first buying rights. If anyone makes a move, IBM will buy out SCO first. This won't matter much anyway - with all the AIX-UnixWare-ptx integration stuff that's going on, SCO can just lie back and live off the royalties.
Deja-vu?
Gee, people seem to forget really really quickly all the effort and money RedHat pour into opensource projects and opensourcing internally-developed stuff (see Gnome/X etc.)
Sure, RH is a commercially-oriented distro, and it's to be expected commercial interests will go to them first. This is just decrying the obvious and expected. Stop whining and start doing something productive.