Agreed, 2.7/7 seemed to be more of a reaction to MS's release (popularity?) of Win98, more than Sun's traditional approach of making sure things worked well for a networking environment. They seemed to see MS's success, and shuffled everything else to the side to meet the challenge, choosing quick fame and greed over reality. As a result, today they are pushing an OS that is almost a footnote (if Solaris didn't have it's early 90's success, would anyone even take note?), not just behind MS-Windows, but Linux and MacOS as well, not only in numbers of users, but mindshare as well.
Which, sadly, is the same thing that was said when Sun started to release Solaris free for individual use. As far as the Debian community is concerned, a fair number of them think the CDDL isn't "free enough" to back. (Granted, some of these freedom arguments get a little crazy in the community, but it is what it is.) Some will ask, "If Sun really wanted to contribute, why not simply adopt the GPL?"
So, in the long run, while I think a good number of developers will help out, I'm pretty sure Debian/Open Solaris will be primarily relegated to "just another debian project", and poses no real threat to Linux for the forseeable future. On the other hand, I think D/OS (heh, heh) will greatly benefit Solaris, as Sun will be able to see what the Debian community can do when not encumbered by sales/marketing luggage.
5+ years ago however, I would have probably agreed with you, but today Linux is driving innovation, no longer playing catchup as in those days. The areas Linux "lacks in" today are for the most part on purpose, either because of potential legal issues, or the desire to avoid future problems (i.e., dumping user programs into kernel space).
I suppose it's just my rebellious side, but whenever somebody posts something so feverent, racist and off-topic (not to mention demanding that I set aside everything I'm doing till I follow their demands), I can't help but lean the other way. Go Alito!:)
Perhaps my [British] english is a little rusty, but doesn't that translate roughly as:
"This job is mostly tedious and boring work in places you never wanted to visit, but if you are lucky, perhaps you will make enough mistakes to get yourself into mortal danger."
Will this have some effect on the abandonware issue? It's sad that companies can buy [comparatively unsuccessful] software for pennies on the dollar, only to bury it (to kill competition). More directly, there are a lot of old games that are unavailable, simply because their holding companies are waiting for someone to meet a "pie in the sky" bid to rerelease them.
Nah, I've never really seen B5, and I got many of them, though granted, I probably missed a good number of other ones. If you've at least seen commercials for B5, you get the idea. Besides, star trek is star trek. More to the point however, there are all sorts of other jokes in it, intentional or not, just from the cultural/subtitles situation. As usual, even well meant translations are usually screwy for the intended native speaker...:)
Agreed. I picked it up before it hit the torrents, and download from their site was only 14kbs. Normally I'll torrent something and share it for a couple hours, but I think I'll contribute my mediocre bandwidth for the weekend. It's worth it, if for no better reason than to inspire others to offer their talents and skills in a similar way.
Maybe that's the real gig. MS knows Windows-only admins are among the most prolific pirates out there (and the ones least likely to switch to another OS). Corporates already tend to overbuy, and MS isn't regulating them as severly yet. (The old "we might need extras, boss" excuse.)
So perhaps MS is gambling that the number of users that will switch to Linux or Mac will be offset as these Windows admins who cover their butts by ordering more through the companies they work for. Most PHBs barely have an idea of the number of licenses they need, and MS's tangle of licensing terms is probably more than enough that a creative admin can make it sound like they need more licences than they truly do.
For the users that got pirated software from these admins, it's an easy deal. "Get me one that works, or else." For the admins, it's probably unlikely anyone will find out. For MS, they've suddenly turned a pirated copy of XP into a paid corporate license, possibly padding a service agreement as well.
Damn, it's almost brilliant, if it works. Personally, I'll stick with Linux. Less headaches and a clear conscience aren't something that often find their way into TCO reports.:)
>>Right now the only implementation of unix that is ready to go for your regular tom, dick and jane users is OS X. Until linux can get itself into a form like that, your general users won't be able to do a god damn thing in it.
You might be right, but that means little, as the idea is to advance the systems, not copy somebody else's ideas. Besides, what's the fun in imitating? The advantage Linux has is that some groups ("distros") can imitate, while others can advance.
Lumping all of these together is ignorance, not as bad, but comparable with, 1930's genetic superiority.
I defer to HermanAB, with one exception. Personally, I think Linux fonts are much nicer than those available for Windows. Although the Windows fonts have seniority, and therefore have garnered a certain following and acceptance as "normal", the fonts available for Linux do not seem to suffer the same problems when it comes to alterations and conversions to other media.
Naturally, that's a matter of personal preference, but the various reports and ad fluff we'd provided have received less complaints in the last couple years, since the drive to produce better fonts on FOSS systems. (Linux and many of the BSDs that share the ability to use Linux-originated font systems.)
It's sad that you are such an expert in MS Windows, but don't know anything about the rest of the IT multiverse. Let's start with the easiest, click on "control panel" in your Linux GUI.
Disable the tremendous amount of eyecandy available for your system, as per your taste.
If it's slower, even on your p200 with 128mb ram, disable a few unneeded kernel modules. If that's not enough, pop into kernel configuration, and alter the kernel as needed. This is a little more complicated, but pretty easy, especially in light of the modern tools available for doing so. At least when you make the changes, you understand what you are changing, as compared to altering obscure registry settings in windows, handed down from the Redmond priesthood and it's third party bishops.
Then again, the Linux machines you use probably aren't slow at all, you just have more powerful applications and flexiblity at your fingertips than most of the MS Windows users on the Slashdot MS bandwagon.:)
>> Home users might want to do all kinds of crazy things with their computers, and customize them. This can be difficult with Linux.
You're kidding right? Linux (as evidenced by the "scary" number of distros out there) is prime grounds for customization, from cutesy themes to automation projects. Microsoft and Apple have panicked and sued people for doing some of the things that have become commonplace on Linux systems.
You didn't get the memo? US governmental branches that don't show an increase in necessary funding will lose the potential for that funding in the future. Therefore, by using "gg" in place of "ff", certain divisions of the government have secured a 7% increase in funding for next year.:)
Now, I'm 180 degrees from you on this point. I think Linux is perfect for "parents" (i.e., those who could care less about computing, and just want to use them. For instance, my mom is terrified anytime she uses my dad's computer to check her email, to the point that she's phoned me about some otherwise straightforward items, but when she's using her own system (an old system with Mepis), she's much more relaxed about it. Yes, part of this is that if she messes up dad's computer, she'll have to listen to him, but mostly, she knows she can explore and do things with Linux, and as a normal user, cannot mess up the system too badly.
More importantly, the Linux system has a ton of software, whereas my dad's has a minimal amount (MS Office, Act!, a couple super cheesy things, etc.) In essense, she can "play" with things on the Linux system that she would never be able to afford on a MS OS.
So, despite the fact that Linux is more difficult to understand fully (it's a much larger and varied system), for those who barely understand the concept of "copy/paste", Linux is a lot more interesting and comforting. After three years, my mom's almost annoying when she brags about how her system isn't taken down when her friend's get infected.
Um, just so you know, Unix doesn't have "distros". They are a direct result of the Linux/GPL/FOSS situation. Unix, in it's heyday, was worse than MS in licensing terms, and the idea of a "distro" would have given Unix execs aneurysms. Some speculate that the only reason FreeBSD and it's kin exist was simply because they allowed Unix companies to "steal back" future innovations, via the BSD license.
My guess is that the deciding factor was momentum. The BSDs are terrific OSs, but they aren't typically seen as driving innovation in the same way as Linux. Not that that's bad, because Linux isn't nearly as reliable as most flavors of BSD. Still, if it were my job, I'd put my money on the one that appeared to have the strongest development support, on both OS and applications levels. That makes Linux the choice, by default.
>>would think that it would take the Evil Empire about 30 seconds to distribute a patch for Windows,
Hey, here's a new conspiracy theory! Maybe this is all a scheme by MS. They'll patch it, but only for Windows 2003 and newer systems, in an attempt to force everyone to upgrade. Pure brilliance, I say!
(Why not, they seem to think people will upgrade for IE7.)
You're right. I've read up on this a little, and when DST was first implemented (and the numbers are all over the place, so take these with a grain of salt), the savings were in the double digits, with some estimates as high as 25-30%. Today, we're not quite to 1%, for the reasons you mention as well as others.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, 2.7/7 seemed to be more of a reaction to MS's release (popularity?) of Win98, more than Sun's traditional approach of making sure things worked well for a networking environment. They seemed to see MS's success, and shuffled everything else to the side to meet the challenge, choosing quick fame and greed over reality. As a result, today they are pushing an OS that is almost a footnote (if Solaris didn't have it's early 90's success, would anyone even take note?), not just behind MS-Windows, but Linux and MacOS as well, not only in numbers of users, but mindshare as well.
Which, sadly, is the same thing that was said when Sun started to release Solaris free for individual use. As far as the Debian community is concerned, a fair number of them think the CDDL isn't "free enough" to back. (Granted, some of these freedom arguments get a little crazy in the community, but it is what it is.) Some will ask, "If Sun really wanted to contribute, why not simply adopt the GPL?"
So, in the long run, while I think a good number of developers will help out, I'm pretty sure Debian/Open Solaris will be primarily relegated to "just another debian project", and poses no real threat to Linux for the forseeable future. On the other hand, I think D/OS (heh, heh) will greatly benefit Solaris, as Sun will be able to see what the Debian community can do when not encumbered by sales/marketing luggage.
5+ years ago however, I would have probably agreed with you, but today Linux is driving innovation, no longer playing catchup as in those days. The areas Linux "lacks in" today are for the most part on purpose, either because of potential legal issues, or the desire to avoid future problems (i.e., dumping user programs into kernel space).
>>"...but your Fuhrer's days are numbered..."
:)
>>"Defeat Samuel Alito. We're not asking you. We're telling you."
Okay, now I'm really confused. Is Bush the Fuhrer, or are the liberals??!
I suppose it's just my rebellious side, but whenever somebody posts something so feverent, racist and off-topic (not to mention demanding that I set aside everything I'm doing till I follow their demands), I can't help but lean the other way. Go Alito! :)
Which is why it's so painful to graduate, and end up making $7/hr as a cashier at your local grocery store. :)
Perhaps my [British] english is a little rusty, but doesn't that translate roughly as:
:)
"This job is mostly tedious and boring work in places you never wanted to visit, but if you are lucky, perhaps you will make enough mistakes to get yourself into mortal danger."
Gee, where can I sign up?!!
>>"I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts" -
:)
Crowley on L-Ron Hubbard and Jack Parsons
Aleister Crowley?
Will this have some effect on the abandonware issue? It's sad that companies can buy [comparatively unsuccessful] software for pennies on the dollar, only to bury it (to kill competition). More directly, there are a lot of old games that are unavailable, simply because their holding companies are waiting for someone to meet a "pie in the sky" bid to rerelease them.
Grrr...
Seems kind of ironic that this is only about AOL, etc., especially when MS seems to be losing the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray war.
Nah, I've never really seen B5, and I got many of them, though granted, I probably missed a good number of other ones. If you've at least seen commercials for B5, you get the idea. Besides, star trek is star trek. More to the point however, there are all sorts of other jokes in it, intentional or not, just from the cultural/subtitles situation. As usual, even well meant translations are usually screwy for the intended native speaker... :)
Agreed. I picked it up before it hit the torrents, and download from their site was only 14kbs. Normally I'll torrent something and share it for a couple hours, but I think I'll contribute my mediocre bandwidth for the weekend. It's worth it, if for no better reason than to inspire others to offer their talents and skills in a similar way.
The part about Pirk (as the "ultimate wrecky" being a virgin was a nice touch too. So realistic. :)
Maybe that's the real gig. MS knows Windows-only admins are among the most prolific pirates out there (and the ones least likely to switch to another OS). Corporates already tend to overbuy, and MS isn't regulating them as severly yet. (The old "we might need extras, boss" excuse.)
:)
So perhaps MS is gambling that the number of users that will switch to Linux or Mac will be offset as these Windows admins who cover their butts by ordering more through the companies they work for. Most PHBs barely have an idea of the number of licenses they need, and MS's tangle of licensing terms is probably more than enough that a creative admin can make it sound like they need more licences than they truly do.
For the users that got pirated software from these admins, it's an easy deal. "Get me one that works, or else." For the admins, it's probably unlikely anyone will find out. For MS, they've suddenly turned a pirated copy of XP into a paid corporate license, possibly padding a service agreement as well.
Damn, it's almost brilliant, if it works. Personally, I'll stick with Linux. Less headaches and a clear conscience aren't something that often find their way into TCO reports.
>>Right now the only implementation of unix that is ready to go for your regular tom, dick and jane users is OS X. Until linux can get itself into a form like that, your general users won't be able to do a god damn thing in it.
:)
You might be right, but that means little, as the idea is to advance the systems, not copy somebody else's ideas. Besides, what's the fun in imitating? The advantage Linux has is that some groups ("distros") can imitate, while others can advance.
Lumping all of these together is ignorance, not as bad, but comparable with, 1930's genetic superiority.
In other words, wake up folks!
I defer to HermanAB, with one exception. Personally, I think Linux fonts are much nicer than those available for Windows. Although the Windows fonts have seniority, and therefore have garnered a certain following and acceptance as "normal", the fonts available for Linux do not seem to suffer the same problems when it comes to alterations and conversions to other media.
Naturally, that's a matter of personal preference, but the various reports and ad fluff we'd provided have received less complaints in the last couple years, since the drive to produce better fonts on FOSS systems. (Linux and many of the BSDs that share the ability to use Linux-originated font systems.)
It's sad that you are such an expert in MS Windows, but don't know anything about the rest of the IT multiverse. Let's start with the easiest, click on "control panel" in your Linux GUI.
:)
Disable the tremendous amount of eyecandy available for your system, as per your taste.
If it's slower, even on your p200 with 128mb ram, disable a few unneeded kernel modules. If that's not enough, pop into kernel configuration, and alter the kernel as needed. This is a little more complicated, but pretty easy, especially in light of the modern tools available for doing so. At least when you make the changes, you understand what you are changing, as compared to altering obscure registry settings in windows, handed down from the Redmond priesthood and it's third party bishops.
Then again, the Linux machines you use probably aren't slow at all, you just have more powerful applications and flexiblity at your fingertips than most of the MS Windows users on the Slashdot MS bandwagon.
>> Home users might want to do all kinds of crazy things with their computers, and customize them. This can be difficult with Linux.
You're kidding right? Linux (as evidenced by the
"scary" number of distros out there) is prime grounds for customization, from cutesy themes to automation projects. Microsoft and Apple have panicked and sued people for doing some of the things that have become commonplace on Linux systems.
You didn't get the memo? US governmental branches that don't show an increase in necessary funding will lose the potential for that funding in the future. Therefore, by using "gg" in place of "ff", certain divisions of the government have secured a 7% increase in funding for next year. :)
Now, I'm 180 degrees from you on this point. I think Linux is perfect for "parents" (i.e., those who could care less about computing, and just want to use them. For instance, my mom is terrified anytime she uses my dad's computer to check her email, to the point that she's phoned me about some otherwise straightforward items, but when she's using her own system (an old system with Mepis), she's much more relaxed about it. Yes, part of this is that if she messes up dad's computer, she'll have to listen to him, but mostly, she knows she can explore and do things with Linux, and as a normal user, cannot mess up the system too badly.
More importantly, the Linux system has a ton of software, whereas my dad's has a minimal amount (MS Office, Act!, a couple super cheesy things, etc.) In essense, she can "play" with things on the Linux system that she would never be able to afford on a MS OS.
So, despite the fact that Linux is more difficult to understand fully (it's a much larger and varied system), for those who barely understand the concept of "copy/paste", Linux is a lot more interesting and comforting. After three years, my mom's almost annoying when she brags about how her system isn't taken down when her friend's get infected.
That's just my experience, though.
Um, just so you know, Unix doesn't have "distros". They are a direct result of the Linux/GPL/FOSS situation. Unix, in it's heyday, was worse than MS in licensing terms, and the idea of a "distro" would have given Unix execs aneurysms. Some speculate that the only reason FreeBSD and it's kin exist was simply because they allowed Unix companies to "steal back" future innovations, via the BSD license.
My guess is that the deciding factor was momentum. The BSDs are terrific OSs, but they aren't typically seen as driving innovation in the same way as Linux. Not that that's bad, because Linux isn't nearly as reliable as most flavors of BSD. Still, if it were my job, I'd put my money on the one that appeared to have the strongest development support, on both OS and applications levels. That makes Linux the choice, by default.
Darn, and I was hoping to earn a little interest out of the situation. :)
Hey, if you're lucky, maybe the new algorithm will make it run backwards. Then it will be a collector's item. :)
>>would think that it would take the Evil Empire about 30 seconds to distribute a patch for Windows,
Hey, here's a new conspiracy theory! Maybe this is all a scheme by MS. They'll patch it, but only for Windows 2003 and newer systems, in an attempt to force everyone to upgrade. Pure brilliance, I say!
(Why not, they seem to think people will upgrade for IE7.)
You're right. I've read up on this a little, and when DST was first implemented (and the numbers are all over the place, so take these with a grain of salt), the savings were in the double digits, with some estimates as high as 25-30%. Today, we're not quite to 1%, for the reasons you mention as well as others.