um.. that's not always the case - often times individuals who are bribed by corrupt firms such as microsoft will succumb to temptation and make a decision based on personal enrichment beyond their wildest dreams, and to hell with what's "good for the company"
Oh come now, does anybody seriously believe that ms ever had the slightest intention to comply with the spirit of the agreement? They will find loopholes everywhere in their struggle to avoid being forced to compete - that you can bank on.
Linux already has pretty damn good network drivers - I'm not sure what would be the advantage of instead using drivers written for a windows pc - I certainly can't think of any, and in fact I can see several downsides, not the least of which is the idea of carrying along this legacy windows baggage for no reason, in addition to the peformance penalities which such a kludge would incur. The last thing we would want is for driver writers to all write drivers for windows pcs and then consider their job done, that would be a giant step backwards.
In any case, people are people, and have their interests, be it linux, mswindoze, scifi, or whatever. I suggest you find something else to do, anonymous coward, and quite trying to run people's lives.
Actually current linux distros ship with tons of features and capabilities that were never in the old system V unix code that SCO claims is being "violated".
How have they been hurt? Well of course their rather lackluster, yet extrordinarily expensive OS offerings have been harmed by the emergence of Linux, but what on earth does that have to do with the fatc that SGI used a few lines of old, pubic code used to implement some simple, very well known algorithms?
Not to mention the fact that the code in question has been replaced by something more efficient anyway, and isn't even in the linux kernel anymore. SCO's other grandiose claims about "owning" XFS, RCU, SMP amd other parts of linux are equally baseless.
Seriously, SCO's case is nonsense and they know it - it's merely a punp-and-dump scam, and they are milking it for all it's worth before they crash hard.
especially since they "forgot" to indicate how many of the linux websites were conversions from ms windows. The careful selection of facts presented does appear to be slanted to favor microsoft.
Look at it this way: 5% of windows 2k3 installs used to be linux, but the overall % of linux sites is growing, and the % of windows sites is shrinking - so there are some missing details! What's the rest of the story? This obviously means windows sites are moving over to linux at a greater rate, but you'd never suspect that from the glib headline.
kalvin b whines "I don't use Linux because it's an unneccessary pain in the ass to do things with it."
um no, that just means you've invested a lot of time in becoming an ms windows geek, and you're clueless about linux. I've used both, and I find linux much less painful to "do things with" than any other OS, especially ms windows.
kalvin b also complains "I have better things to do with my time (like actually building up the web-site) than dicking around with an OS."
Exactly - which is why I've been running linux, not windows, for some years now. life is good.
Whatever gave you the idea that linux users won't pay? That's nothing but sour grapes FUD, my friend.
If a vendor makes some half-hearted linux port of a crappy program and linux users don't want it, that simply means it's a crappy program - get over it.
I've seen a lot of these halfhearted "linux" ports of and I wouldn't pay a nickel, you're right - the interface is usually ugly, more often than not the program is unstable, in most cases the company has no friggin clue about linux, and the product shows that. Case in point, word perfect. Back in the late 90s I was using wp 8 and was fairly happy with it. I was looking forward to wp office 2000 and would have paid handsomely if it was quality software - but no, those bozos decided to write it as a windows program with a wine emulation wrapper. It was sluggish as hell, and the look and feel was all wrong - it looked awkward and foreign on the linux desktop. Most linux users felt the same way, and nobody bought it.
On the other hand, I've bought thousands, that's right, thousands of dollars worth of linux software that was up to snuff. Linux users will gladly pull out the credit card to pay for well-written software that is fun or useful, but not just any crap software that says "linux" on it.
Some lame ass anonymous coward wrote: "When linux speeds up to acceptable levels, and supports Professional hardware, we will consider it again in a few years."
I smell a troll...
Totally clueless, probably not real. Linux runs circles around OS X performance wise. What the troll was complaining about (if it was actually an actual real life occurrence) was the performance of the gimp vs photoshop on a certain operation.
I'm skeptical, and would love to see a benchmark of common graphics operations on gimp/linux vs photoshop/osx and photoshop/windoze.
Who knows, perhaps the gimp is doing some things in a non-optimal fashion. If so, the comparison would cause the gimp crew to step up and make it right.
We've heard this argument for ages, but it falls flat on it's face in reality. By your logic, the open source apache web server, which also happens to be the most popular web server on the net, should be afflicted with orders of magnitude worse security issues than the "secure by obscurity" iis web server - but in fact, iis is responsible for the _vast_ majority of web server security woes on the internet.
Nah, you don't know the difference between an advisory about some minor potential permissions issue and a worm which cripples millions of actual win doze pee cees.
If you can't see the difference in the severity of those two issues you have no business working in the computing or IT fields.
I'm not sure what the number of groups has to do with the filesystem ownership/permissions, and in any case you may have some interesting way of doing things that uses a lot of groups.
I've worked for the past 10 years as a sys admin in university, small business and enterprise settings, and have been able to satisfy every single permissions scenario I've come across by using the ugo and the sticky/setuid bits - plus the occasional ext2 extended attributes.
Despite your comment, it's not only red hat, but vendors such as suse, who added acl support only after acls had been generally available as an add-on and used by certain folks for some years.
That's FUD - red hat's enterprise stuff is 100% supported for mission critical applications.
You're probably thinking of the unsupported consumer releases, which in the past have been a bit buggy at *.0 releases and shaped up nicely by *.2 releases.
Having said that, our RH 9 firewalls are holding up nicely after some months of heavy use - but managers love the accountability of having someone to yell at with the "enterprise" editions...
ACLs for linux have been available for years as an add-on. Just not a lot of demand, since the standard unix ownership/permissions bits work fine for 99.99% of the imaginable needed scenarios.
Looks like the vendors finally decided to add it officially to satisfy bureaucratic checklists.
Slashdot Mirror
um.. that's not always the case - often times individuals who are bribed by corrupt firms such as microsoft will succumb to temptation and make a decision based on personal enrichment beyond their wildest dreams, and to hell with what's "good for the company"
Sweet! more choices is always good -
:(
and with this program, you won't get the rug pulled out from under you for dcma violations
what a waste of electons - dude, if you've got nothing to say, please feel free to not say it...
er, windoze server market share has been pretty flat for 3 years and ms is not happy about that - linux is gaining share though.
I shell out money for linux because it's worth it, why else?
"might as well install ms?" I think you're a little confused - if you thought the whole point of linux was price tag, you've missed the whole point.
Oh come now, does anybody seriously believe that ms ever had the slightest intention to comply with the spirit of the agreement? They will find loopholes everywhere in their struggle to avoid being forced to compete - that you can bank on.
Linux already has pretty damn good network drivers - I'm not sure what would be the advantage of instead using drivers written for a windows pc - I certainly can't think of any, and in fact I can see several downsides, not the least of which is the idea of carrying along this legacy windows baggage for no reason, in addition to the peformance penalities which such a kludge would incur. The last thing we would want is for driver writers to all write drivers for windows pcs and then consider their job done, that would be a giant step backwards.
spoken like an anonymous coward.
In any case, people are people, and have their interests, be it linux, mswindoze, scifi, or whatever. I suggest you find something else to do, anonymous coward, and quite trying to run people's lives.
Actually current linux distros ship with tons of features and capabilities that were never in the old system V unix code that SCO claims is being "violated".
How have they been hurt? Well of course their rather lackluster, yet extrordinarily expensive OS offerings have been harmed by the emergence of Linux, but what on earth does that have to do with the fatc that SGI used a few lines of old, pubic code used to implement some simple, very well known algorithms?
Not to mention the fact that the code in question has been replaced by something more efficient anyway, and isn't even in the linux kernel anymore. SCO's other grandiose claims about "owning" XFS, RCU, SMP amd other parts of linux are equally baseless.
Seriously, SCO's case is nonsense and they know it - it's merely a punp-and-dump scam, and they are milking it for all it's worth before they crash hard.
especially since they "forgot" to indicate how many of the linux websites were conversions from ms windows. The careful selection of facts presented does appear to be slanted to favor microsoft.
Look at it this way: 5% of windows 2k3 installs used to be linux, but the overall % of linux sites is growing, and the % of windows sites is shrinking - so there are some missing details! What's the rest of the story? This obviously means windows sites are moving over to linux at a greater rate, but you'd never suspect that from the glib headline.
kalvin b whines "I don't use Linux because it's an unneccessary pain in the ass to do things with it."
um no, that just means you've invested a lot of time in becoming an ms windows geek, and you're clueless about linux. I've used both, and I find linux much less painful to "do things with" than any other OS, especially ms windows.
kalvin b also complains "I have better things to do with my time (like actually building up the web-site) than dicking around with an OS."
Exactly - which is why I've been running linux, not windows, for some years now. life is good.
If you're a windoze user, you've got excel, right? how many spreadsheet apps do you need?
If you want to demonstrate gnumeric, why not run it on a platform that gnumeric supports?
Whatever gave you the idea that linux users won't pay? That's nothing but sour grapes FUD, my friend.
If a vendor makes some half-hearted linux port of a crappy program and linux users don't want it, that simply means it's a crappy program - get over it.
I've seen a lot of these halfhearted "linux" ports of and I wouldn't pay a nickel, you're right - the interface is usually ugly, more often than not the program is unstable, in most cases the company has no friggin clue about linux, and the product shows that. Case in point, word perfect. Back in the late 90s I was using wp 8 and was fairly happy with it. I was looking forward to wp office 2000 and would have paid handsomely if it was quality software - but no, those bozos decided to write it as a windows program with a wine emulation wrapper. It was sluggish as hell, and the look and feel was all wrong - it looked awkward and foreign on the linux desktop. Most linux users felt the same way, and nobody bought it.
On the other hand, I've bought thousands, that's right, thousands of dollars worth of linux software that was up to snuff. Linux users will gladly pull out the credit card to pay for well-written software that is fun or useful, but not just any crap software that says "linux" on it.
FYI Mandarin Chinese is the official language in Taiwan - most can also speak Taiwanese but not all...
Sorry monkey boy, linux-savvy people don't come cheap. MCSEs may come cheap, but not linux-savvy people.
Hope this clears things up -
Some lame ass anonymous coward wrote: "When linux speeds up to acceptable levels, and supports Professional hardware, we will consider it again in a few years."
I smell a troll...
Totally clueless, probably not real. Linux runs circles around OS X performance wise. What the troll was complaining about (if it was actually an actual real life occurrence) was the performance of the gimp vs photoshop on a certain operation.
I'm skeptical, and would love to see a benchmark of common graphics operations on gimp/linux vs photoshop/osx and photoshop/windoze.
Who knows, perhaps the gimp is doing some things in a non-optimal fashion. If so, the comparison would cause the gimp crew to step up and make it right.
We've heard this argument for ages, but it falls flat on it's face in reality. By your logic, the open source apache web server, which also happens to be the most popular web server on the net, should be afflicted with orders of magnitude worse security issues than the "secure by obscurity" iis web server - but in fact, iis is responsible for the _vast_ majority of web server security woes on the internet.
So much for yet another naive theory
Nah, you don't know the difference between an advisory about some minor potential permissions issue and a worm which cripples millions of actual win doze pee cees.
If you can't see the difference in the severity of those two issues you have no business working in the computing or IT fields.
I'm not sure what the number of groups has to do with the filesystem ownership/permissions, and in any case you may have some interesting way of doing things that uses a lot of groups.
I've worked for the past 10 years as a sys admin in university, small business and enterprise settings, and have been able to satisfy every single permissions scenario I've come across by using the ugo and the sticky/setuid bits - plus the occasional ext2 extended attributes.
Despite your comment, it's not only red hat, but vendors such as suse, who added acl support only after acls had been generally available as an add-on and used by certain folks for some years.
That's FUD - red hat's enterprise stuff is 100% supported for mission critical applications.
You're probably thinking of the unsupported consumer releases, which in the past have been a bit buggy at *.0 releases and shaped up nicely by *.2 releases.
Having said that, our RH 9 firewalls are holding up nicely after some months of heavy use - but managers love the accountability of having someone to yell at with the "enterprise" editions...
ACLs for linux have been available for years as an add-on. Just not a lot of demand, since the standard unix ownership/permissions bits work fine for 99.99% of the imaginable needed scenarios.
Looks like the vendors finally decided to add it officially to satisfy bureaucratic checklists.
Could it be that your pc firewall is infested with worms and virii, and you don't even know it? windows xp is vulnerable, you know -
ms windows users, of all people, ought not to be too cocky about things like this.
Linux is absolutely positively unix - the pedigree is unmistakable for anyone with any understanding of the unix nature.
As lawyers and non tech savvy managers are quick to remind us, linux is not UNIX (TM) - but it is certainly unix.
Look Pa, come quick! You won't beleive this!
We finally found some fool that actually fell for that SCO nonsense!