hmm, you fail to see the logic? seems clear enough to me -
Let's say the city had been buying it's cars exclusively from an automaker who welded the hood shut and made it illegal to open the hood. Now the city has switched to a vendor who allows the hood to be opened, and provides tech manuals for the engine, electrical systems and whatnot.
The local automotive tech geeks rejoice, now that they will be able to maintain the city's new fleet of cars, and so they immediately begin eagerly familiarizing themselves with the tech manuals.
Meanwhile you say "I fail to see the logic of how this would help the local automotive techs"....
For someone who "lubs" linux (whatever that means) you are pretty clueless about it - anyone who has worked for a living maintaing both windows and linux/unix systems (moi for instance) knows that windows is a _lot_ more work to keep running.
1. The slashdot community does NOT hate microsoft. Since the the slashdot community is composed chiefly of users of microsoft windows, your statement makes no sense.
2. When microsoft does badly, the "entire tech industry" does not do badly, quite the contrary. Those who depend on microsoft stock do badly - period. "the industry" is actually much better off if software companies are able to freely innovate without the fear that the 1300 lb gorilla is going to smash them with monoploy hardball tricks.
3. The mainstream adoption of open source does not mean fewer jobs for programmers, but quite the opposite - what on earth gives you that idea? open source opens up many more opportunities for programmers.
Slackware was running circles around sco back in 1995 - just check the 1994-1996 editions of infoworld. SCO usually finished dead last in any sort of benchmark comparison with modern unices such as linux, freebsd, solaris.
Why would the kernel hackers have any interest in the crappy sco code?
The idiots are the ones who moan about 2.5 being unstable without ever testing it themselves.
It's not for joe 6-pack yet, leave that to the vendor release of 2.6 - but for those who know what they are doing, the 2.5 kernel is getting to be pretty useful for everyday work, and provides some improvements over the current stable kernel.
I've been running 2.5.66-mm1 for 4 days now, and it's been surprisingly stable on a box that is doing 24x7 service -
Nah - the whole purpose of ntfs on linux is to share data with windows, especially on a dual boot setup - no production linux server is going to be using ntfs for anything serious.
Seriously, I used to keep a ms partition on my computer back in 1994 or so, so I could play doom.
That was then, this is now - with all the great id titles over the years (doom II, quake, quake II, Q3A) and games with the id graphics engine (RtCW), or other games such as unreal tournament, or any of the other linux games I haven't even had a chance to play, linux gaming is good for a lot of folks, including me.
someone said "You mean here in the year 2003 Linux is going to get a decent desktop, like Macintosh got in 1984 or Windows in 1995?"
um no... Linux had a decent desktop years ago, but I'll admit that it was best suited to intelligent people.
What this is about is maintaining good GUI responsiveness and smooth multimedia playback in the presence of punishing, disk thrashing system activity - in other words, it's not about catching up to mac or windows, since neither mac nor windows have ever been there. We're talking really good stuff, not commodity pee cee type behavior.
Oh, as for your comment about X windows cutting and pasting, I don't know what to tell you - it was working fine for me in 1993, and it's still working fine. perhaps your problem lies between the headphones...
somebody said "Maybee this will finally blur the line between OS's enough to get more people to switch over."
um no - this will further widen the gap between the OSes.
Seriously, I switched to linux back in 1994, and while microsoft has made significant progress, ms windows still has quite a way to go before I would consider using it again. I see windows 2000 and xp every day at work, and while they have taken some baby steps towards linux-like reliability and performance, ms windows is just not all there yet - they have cute down pat, but cute only goes so far.
I find the performance of a modern linux desktop and a modern ms windows desktop to be in the same league, which is rather impressive since it's a comparison between the full client/server, network-transparent X window system, and a simple, single-user, local pc GUI.
"Of course, the reason Linux users actually want this feature is so that they can play their pirated MP3s in the background while using X-windows."
um no - linux users have been enjoying mp3s for years while running X - what this will do is allow them to listen to mp3s or watch DVDs without skipping, with a smooth and responsive desktop, while simultaneously running disk and/or cpu thrashing jobs -
I'm poking holes in the lame-o idea that linux is an x86-only OS.
True, it can and does run on lowly garden variety x86 boxes, but IBM recently revealed that it's sold a billion and a half bucks worth of Linux related goods and services - and part of that was on mainframe sales.
Linux isn't some x86-bound OS, it covers a large spectrum, wristwatch to supercomputer, that's all I'm saying.
Tee hee, who told you "stock" linux "doesn't like" 8 CPUs?
As I recall, 8-way Linux specweb results are pretty respectable, since late 2000 or so.
Say, didn't SGI just release a million dollar, 64-bit, 64-CPU Linux supercomputer? SGI reports that it's basically a "stock" linux-2.4.19 kernel with a few SGI patches...
It's a typical noobie mistake to think that redhat = linux. red hat is a popular distro, but it is not the only one, or even the best one for many applications.
I have numerous red hat servers running reliably in production, but have also worked on servers where redhat will not install, or if it manages to install, will not run reliably. But those systems are rock solid today. How? I Installed SuSE Linux, and all is good The folks at SuSE are very very good at getting things right, they pay close attention to detail and are conservative.
If redhat doesn't do the right thing, don't blame linux, try one of the other distros and you'll probably find one that's just right.
Re:If RedHat used honest version numbers...
on
New Red Hat Beta
·
· Score: 1
2 days instead of one?
Gee let me see - last 3 servers I installed RH on, it was about an hour for the install, about 20 minutes for the updates, then about 10 minutes to compile a custom kernel.
There is absolutely no need for you as an end user to ever worry about compiling the kernel. That's what the vendors (e.g. redhat, suse) are for. Run the kernel provided by the vendor - it's fully-equipped, modular and optimized - be happy, and don't fret about how hard the kernel is to compile - you don't even need to go there.
As to the monolithic design, it has proven itself handsomely - but feel free to come up with something better!
Slashdot Mirror
hmm, you fail to see the logic? seems clear enough to me -
Let's say the city had been buying it's cars exclusively from an automaker who welded the hood shut and made it illegal to open the hood. Now the city has switched to a vendor who allows the hood to be opened, and provides tech manuals for the engine, electrical systems and whatnot.
The local automotive tech geeks rejoice, now that they will be able to maintain the city's new fleet of cars, and so they immediately begin eagerly familiarizing themselves with the tech manuals.
Meanwhile you say "I fail to see the logic of how this would help the local automotive techs"....
For someone who "lubs" linux (whatever that means) you are pretty clueless about it - anyone who has worked for a living maintaing both windows and linux /unix systems (moi for instance) knows that windows is a _lot_ more work to keep running.
You have no clue -
IBM, SAP, Oracle, SuSE GmBH, Nec, Fujitsu, Red Hat Software et al are not hobbyists -
Whatever you're smoking, it must be potent...
Your message is somewhat nonsensical -
1. The slashdot community does NOT hate microsoft. Since the the slashdot community is composed chiefly of users of microsoft windows, your statement makes no sense.
2. When microsoft does badly, the "entire tech industry" does not do badly, quite the contrary. Those who depend on microsoft stock do badly - period. "the industry" is actually much better off if software companies are able to freely innovate without the fear that the 1300 lb gorilla is going to smash them with monoploy hardball tricks.
3. The mainstream adoption of open source does not mean fewer jobs for programmers, but quite the opposite - what on earth gives you that idea? open source opens up many more opportunities for programmers.
Being a programmer, I find this delightful!
Huh?
Did I miss the part where it said american companies will not be allowed to provide the linux software?
Slackware was running circles around sco back in 1995 - just check the 1994-1996 editions of infoworld. SCO usually finished dead last in any sort of benchmark comparison with modern unices such as linux, freebsd, solaris.
Why would the kernel hackers have any interest in the crappy sco code?
You may want to go to ftp.kernel.org, look in /pub/linux/kernel/people/rusty/modules, and grab module-init-tools-0.9.11 from there.
Follow the directions and you'll be good.
The idiots are the ones who moan about 2.5 being unstable without ever testing it themselves.
It's not for joe 6-pack yet, leave that to the vendor release of 2.6 - but for those who know what they are doing, the 2.5 kernel is getting to be pretty useful for everyday work, and provides some improvements over the current stable kernel.
I've been running 2.5.66-mm1 for 4 days now, and it's been surprisingly stable on a box that is doing 24x7 service -
Nah - the whole purpose of ntfs on linux is to share data with windows, especially on a dual boot setup - no production linux server is going to be using ntfs for anything serious.
Please don't feed the trolls -
Seriously, I used to keep a ms partition on my computer back in 1994 or so, so I could play doom.
That was then, this is now - with all the great id titles over the years (doom II, quake, quake II, Q3A) and games with the id graphics engine (RtCW), or other games such as unreal tournament, or any of the other linux games I haven't even had a chance to play, linux gaming is good for a lot of folks, including me.
Can't wait for doom 3 -
someone said "You mean here in the year 2003 Linux is going to get a decent desktop, like Macintosh got in 1984 or Windows in 1995?"
um no... Linux had a decent desktop years ago, but I'll admit that it was best suited to intelligent people.
What this is about is maintaining good GUI responsiveness and smooth multimedia playback in the presence of punishing, disk thrashing system activity - in other words, it's not about catching up to mac or windows, since neither mac nor windows have ever been there. We're talking really good stuff, not commodity pee cee type behavior.
Oh, as for your comment about X windows cutting and pasting, I don't know what to tell you - it was working fine for me in 1993, and it's still working fine. perhaps your problem lies between the headphones...
It's already in linus' 2.5 tree - which means it will be in 2.5.65
somebody said "Maybee this will finally blur the line between OS's enough to get more people to switch over."
um no - this will further widen the gap between the OSes.
Seriously, I switched to linux back in 1994, and while microsoft has made significant progress, ms windows still has quite a way to go before I would consider using it again. I see windows 2000 and xp every day at work, and while they have taken some baby steps towards linux-like reliability and performance, ms windows is just not all there yet - they have cute down pat, but cute only goes so far.
I find the performance of a modern linux desktop and a modern ms windows desktop to be in the same league, which is rather impressive since it's a comparison between the full client/server, network-transparent X window system, and a simple, single-user, local pc GUI.
kind of a lame comment - considering the majority of visitors to slashdot are win doze users....
"Of course, the reason Linux users actually want this feature is so that they can play their pirated MP3s in the background while using X-windows."
um no - linux users have been enjoying mp3s for years while running X - what this will do is allow them to listen to mp3s or watch DVDs without skipping, with a smooth and responsive desktop, while simultaneously running disk and/or cpu thrashing jobs -
Obviously you do not hate microsoft at all, since whenever you choose direct X, you are choosing microsoft ergo, we have a contradiction...
In any event, almost all of the slashdotters I know are win doze users - whoops, there goes another big myth down the tubes.
Hello?
m l
You can buy a 64-way Linux server from SGI -
http://www.sgi.com/servers/altix/64bit_linux.ht
Who told you linux can't scale?
Trust what?
I think you are confused, this is a test suite, period.
I'm poking holes in the lame-o idea that linux is an x86-only OS.
True, it can and does run on lowly garden variety x86 boxes, but IBM recently revealed that it's sold a billion and a half bucks worth of Linux related goods and services - and part of that was on mainframe sales.
Linux isn't some x86-bound OS, it covers a large spectrum, wristwatch to supercomputer, that's all I'm saying.
Tee hee, who told you "stock" linux "doesn't like" 8 CPUs?
As I recall, 8-way Linux specweb results are pretty respectable, since late 2000 or so.
Say, didn't SGI just release a million dollar, 64-bit, 64-CPU Linux supercomputer? SGI reports that it's basically a "stock" linux-2.4.19 kernel with a few SGI patches...
LOL! 64-way? So much for the "can't scale" FUD!
Someone blurted out:
> People forget that Solaris runs on Sun hardware,
> not Linux hardware.
um..
Linux hardware?
You mean linux hardware as in IBM big iron, S/390 mainframe? true, solaris doesn't run on mainframe class linux hardware.
Oh, wait, you mean linux hardware as in IBM RS6000 RISC boxen right? ah, solaris won't run on those systems either, I'm afraid.
Or, do you mean linux hardware as in Alpha chip based systems? true, solaris won't run on Alpha linux hardware...
Or, do you mean linux hardware as in ARM chipset? hmm, you're right, solaris won't run on ARM linux hardware...
Oh, wait, there is one linux platform - no, two linux platforms, that solaris can also use: x86 and sparc.
Bingo!
It's a typical noobie mistake to think that redhat = linux. red hat is a popular distro, but it is not the only one, or even the best one for many applications.
I have numerous red hat servers running reliably in production, but have also worked on servers where redhat will not install, or if it manages to install, will not run reliably. But those systems are rock solid today. How? I Installed SuSE Linux, and all is good The folks at SuSE are very very good at getting things right, they pay close attention to detail and are conservative.
If redhat doesn't do the right thing, don't blame linux, try one of the other distros and you'll probably find one that's just right.
2 days instead of one?
Gee let me see - last 3 servers I installed RH on, it was about an hour for the install, about 20 minutes for the updates, then about 10 minutes to compile a custom kernel.
2 days? somebody needs to be fired...
There is absolutely no need for you as an end user to ever worry about compiling the kernel. That's what the vendors (e.g. redhat, suse) are for. Run the kernel provided by the vendor - it's fully-equipped, modular and optimized - be happy, and don't fret about how hard the kernel is to compile - you don't even need to go there.
As to the monolithic design, it has proven itself handsomely - but feel free to come up with something better!
Hello?
Get your own computer maybe?