I wonder how someone who admits he doesn't know anything about the benefits of LFS can be modded informative, that's truely insane. If you had used LFS, you would have known that it is a book, and a book tailored to teach you specifically how "Linux the OS" works. And it works pretty well, so you are completely off-base. You thought it was a way to spend time tinkering your computer, and did not try anything, and now come saying nonsense out of hot air : this can't be serious.
It shows you do not understand LFS a bit. Gentoo or Sorcerer gives you NO benefit of LFS, because LFS is a book that TEACHES you (go read it dammit !), when Gentoo and Sorcerer are source-based distro, which do NOT teach you ANYTHING.
My god, you really thought LFS benefit was custom compilation ? I still wonder how someone so clueless could be modded informative, that does not bode well for moderators. Fact is, the best, more universal packages are tarballs, but you have to know how to handle them (it is not rocket science). Once you know how to handle a tarball, and how a Linux OS works (and LFS has tremendous lessons on these), you are ready to tackle anything in Linux, you have control, and never have a dependancy problem.
I have an LFS based system since 2001, completely automated (nALFS) and with package management (paco). I have complete control over it (it works on my bi-AMD 2200+ and on my P75 200 @133 too with the latest packages !!) and I NEVER had a dependancy problem. And this is because of LFS and what it learned to me. And this was not even LFS 6.0, it was years before now. LFS is way better nowadays. It explains most errors to you too, that is how you learn.
The irony is that you have more chances of getting dependancy problems on a distro than on a LFS based system (again, I never got one). Dependancy problems are caused by package systems that try to think like a human knowing what he is doing would do. It is obvious to me that if you are such a human (one that know what he is doing), it works FAR BETTER (until we get powerful human AI that is more intelligent than the user) than a limited AI.
I'm amazed, really, by people who are fooled constantly by MS, despite History. People told me the same thing about open MS Office XML formats in 2003, I assured them they were wrong, and that MS was making a fool of them, and that they were too stupid to learn from history. MS was sued in Europe partly because of their format which should have been so open. So I was right, and I knew I would be right. What disturbs me, is that I'm not a genius, but MS behaviour is obvious to me. I wonder why it is not to most people. Is the brainwash working ?
Anyway, when I see the headline, and when I look at the reality (in the real world), there's a chasm between the two : how can someone be so clueless ?
The openness of their format was announced in 2003 for christ sake, the specs are still not usable by every developers in 2005 ! And the answers of brainwashed people like you ? Amazing things like: - "whether it's patented or not, I don't know". So STFU, you are not qualified to talk - "But this is a _VERY_ big step for Microsoft". What this have to do with the end of closed MS file formats ? - "It's going to make translating between this and OASIS... as simple as an XSLT transformation". Completely wrong, so much that it is amazing.
I disagree that MS has become a better company, it has become a worse company in my eyes. But they do some products better, of course, as there are open source programs kicking the butt of some of their 'best' expensive ones (Apache against IIS for example). I don't know what you mean when you say that MS has boosted ease of use and a good office suite, I hope you are kidding. KDE came because of the availability of Qt for free, and because the Qt API was so great, look at the initial KDE announcement (http://www.kde.org/announcements/announcement.php), this is the major reason, not Windows 95/NT. MS Office Suite arguably was not the better office suite at the time (or today), and was not even good, until Mac developers made it better, and then MS killed all competitors. Gnome followed because of KDE, which was not Free Software, not because of MS. And OpenOffice is there because it is Open Source, I don't know what would have been the fate of StarOffice, but given the fate of Word Perfect, I bet it would not have lasted long.
MS surely boosted some things in Linux desktops (KParts, Bonobo), but surely not usability. Most of the most powerful usability features of Linux desktop are not even available in Windows (but MS is quickly trying to add them) !!!: - Powerful out-of-the-box (and sometimes on-the-fly) i18n and l10n - Powerful integrated accessibility - Virtual desktops (that work) ! - Lots of integrated apps, for nearly any day to day task (that was one of the initial goals of KDE and Gnome 2) - Looks good (with optional anti-aliasing, adapts to your monitor, themes, SVG icons, translucency,...) - Reliable and consistent (the main goal of KDE and Gnome 2): no 3 different printer dialogs, no 4 different widget sets, no 3 mix of icon sets (4 bits, 256 bits,...), no disappearing menus, no reverse order selection, no different behaviours between reboots, no 1-3 minutes locks, sessions that work, no slowing after 5 days of running,...
Of course you're completely wrong: 1) Package managers on Linux have perfectly good installers. Distribution tailored for non-techie like Mandriva commercial PowerPacks include the packages necessary to auto-install NVidia or ATI drivers. And NVidia did not have to write an installer, they used an old one created by a game company.
2) Your problem is in the "almost" all 2000 drivers work as is in XP. In Linux, ALL drivers coming with the kernel that worked in 2.6.10 works in 2.6.11. If you were not biased, you would know that the NVidia kernel driver is NOT SUPPORTED by kernel developers, it SAYS IT LOUD when you load it, and this is NO fault of Linux developers, it is caused by the choice of licencing of NVidia. That is also why free distro can't include the driver out of the box, same for ATI and Java and... Then, you are surely not force to update to the latest Linux driver, and it is even discouraged on consumer grade distros. To finish destroy your stupid FUD, there is one driver per architecture for Linux, I see several one for each of the two architectures Windows support.
3) And that is why every time there is a problem in Windows, people like you come whining that it is caused by bad drivers ? When I used Windows, the NVidia certified drivers were utter crap, only the non certified ones coming from NVidia were good. Please ! Even the certified SCSI driver blue screened XP, and it was a known problem in Windows problems base (which is HUGE).
4) I wonder what is this nonsense you're talking about. Learn what is XOrg compared to XFree before saying such nonsense. And everyone mattering in Linux world has already switched to XOrg.
I can tell you that the peopke I switched to Linux are unable to install any NVidia driver on Windows, they stay with crappy Windows ones.
Now in Windows the problem was a simple fix. Download a driver, click install. Everything else was handled and it works superbly. In Linux, I've gone through quite a lengthy process and it STILL doesn't work. I'm sure I'll solve the problem on Tuesday, however I can gaurentee a non-techie would have given up long ago
And that is why no non-techie would do something as stupid as getting a geek OS like Fedora Core 3, but a mainstream one designed for him, like a Mandriva PowerPack (and I'm NOT talking about the download edition there), where these drivers installation are prepackaged in the distribution, and where then, it becomes way simpler than on Windows, as you don't even have to go get the drivers, it automagically installes them...
The fact that Linux comes preinstalled or not with the hardware doesn't matter IMHO.
That is where you are completely wrong, as this is the only difficult part.
But once Linux is installed, the difficult part is to *use* it
Explain please ! IMHO it is a LOT easier to use Linux than Windows. One single example : configure the antivirus. Most users do not even understand the concept of an antivirus. At least in Linux you do not need one.
Installing new software and making it work properly is not trivial
Example please ! Installing software in a distro makes it work automatically. I wonder what you meant.
Even with GUIs like Synaptic, using any Linux distribution requires Unix knowledge
The lot of people I converted to Linux have exactly 0 Unix knowledge and use Linux pretty well.
You can't use (upgrade/customize/etc) a Linux workstation without using a terminal for instance
Several stupid FUD in one sentence: - You can use (upgrade/customize) a Linux workstation with the tools of your distribution (to upgrade) + a text editor (to customize), or with a Web interface like Webmin. - Using a terminal does not require Unix knowledge, see Easy URPMI on the web before saying such clueless thing. Copy/pasting some instructions in a terminal is not Unix knowledge to me.
So for a newbie or for my parents, I'd never recommend a laptop running Linux (preinstalled or not).
That is your choice. In contrast, I will recommend it, it is so much more powerful than Windows XP.
Well, let's start with Firefox. Exactly what great, utterly innovative features did it come up with? No, seriously?
Instant search with keyboard ? The fact that the functionalities you describe are all in one package, not provided by myriad of plugins to IE, lots of them full of spyware, or badly crashing the browser ? The fact that it had all of this before plugins started to get implemented for IE ? The fact that it supports CSS better than IE ? The fact that it supports PNG better than IE ?...
I thought the _whole_ idea of Firefox was to [...] render HTML, something that they did _not_ pioneer or invent.
No, another open source program (Mosaic) did that...
Well, ok, maybe Firefox was the wrong example.
Finally you admit it.
BitTorrent? Need I point out that file sharing was pioneered by Napster? Yep, another app that copied a closed source product.
Are you really so clueless ? You just prove that people having the same convictions than you are all clueless morons. FYI BitTorrent has NOTHING to do with Napster, and file sharing started wway before Napster. Does (X)DCC means something to you. I was using its ancestor in 1991 on IRC.
OpenOffice? Need I point out that the vast majority of work was originally called StarOffice and was a closed source product?
You mean, the pretty unusable thing on Linux that was StarOffice 6 (or was it 5 ?) ?
And its innovations are...?
Exporting to PDF ? Starting the OASIS standard (though under RAND) ? MS Office still can't do it BTW, before you tell me it does. The more I read you, the more I think you are clueless beyond all recognition.
PHP? Yet another clone of MS's ASP. Yes, MS did invent that kind of server-side inline scripting. (Yes, I know they're supposed to never have invented anything. Sorry 'bout letting reality get in the way of that.)
Others have corrected you, you are beyond hope. And you are drawing blanks already for you moronic stupidity and lies ? Poor you, the very Internet you use right now to diss FOSS is mostly made thanks to FOSS.
I use open source software on a daily basis, and I love the freedom it provides, but McVoy is right that it is very hard to monetize
Perhaps because most Free Softwares are still the property of their authors, and that they chose to offer their program for free ? GPL violators and enterprises like Red Hat, MySQL, Qt would disagree with you I think. Perhaps you meant : McVoy is right that it is very hard to get RICH and alienate people like I did with FOSS.
I'm sick of this guy. He consistently contradicts itself, it is amazing ! He is a true enemy of Free Software, and really full of himself. Some amazing pieces of contradiction: - "if you give [customers] software that works, what is the point of service?" VS "I'd rather pay someone to take care of me" - "One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap" VS "But I'm not evil"
Some funny ones: - "'You're an evil corporate guy, and you don't get it.' But I'm not evil"... So now we know he doesn't get it - "I'm well-known in the open source community"... Yes, just not in a positive sense - "McVoy says open source advocates fail to recognize that building new software requires lots of trial and error, which means investing lots of money"... That's because OSS advocates do it without investing lots of money. Instead, they invest lots of time and cooperation - "McVoy says the cost of offering free support to Linux developers has grown to more than $500,000 a year"... That is 5 very well paid engineers full time for a year.
Yes, there are plenty of OSS projects that do go full cycle but they're often the popular-closed-source clones that Larry's complaining about. The ones you cite all are, arguably.
What ? Because you think BitKeeper is innovative ? BitKeeper is a clear counter example of what you are saying, the original ideas comes from several products like CVS you know. And I really hate the FUD spin that you put i nyour sentence. Closed source have nothing to do with the fact that a "clone" is available on Linux. Popularity is the only reason, because if a lot of Linux users want a popular functionality, they will implement it, be it closed or open. Surely Gnome, KDE, Gnumeric are more than clones, they innovate. Your way of thinking reminds me of the 80s, when western people said Japan was copying everything, whereas they were truly innovating, and when people realized it, it was already too late : all your electronics was japanese or asian, and it would have been the same for things like car, if west governments did not take draconian protectionist measures. I see Free Software as the same kind.
One thing that I've always admired about Apple is that (like Google) they seem to have a corporate culture which heavily encourages new features to be integrated ELEGANTLY into existing frameworks. They really seem to spend time, thought, money, and even passion on finding a "clean" way to do things
I don't know to what extent you think Apple is elegant or to what you meant by "clean" way to do things, but I think the KDE, and specifically, the Konqui developers would not agree with you. The few facts about what happened between Apple and KDE developers clearly contradicts what you just said.
At least he knows more than you, I will explain in a moment. I think inertia is a big reason why this guy (and others) suffered this long with Windows. Because I'm younger than him, but realised the pain Windows gave me in 1999 (after 6 months of use), and finished switching entirely to Linux in 2001, switching one app at a time. Deciding which app to switch was simple : each time one Windows app failed badly on me (like Outlook loosing more than a year of my emails), I switched it to the Linux desktop (and never had such big problems since !). Which means that by 2001, EVERY app on Windows failed badly on me, no wonder I suffered so much.
Well, where are you wrong ? Simple, in your "simple" steps of securing Windows. They will not secure you much I'm afraid, there's a good chance you are a zombie without even knewing it, if you applied only these.
1 : Avoid fishy sites Sorry, but my wife goes wherever she wants on the net, and me too. We NEVER had ANY problem on Linux when doing that. The Internet may not be a safe place, but at least, Linux is a safe boat for it. Could say the same for email. You just showed the hassle it is to use Windows : you have to be alert, on your toe, whatever you do on Windows. No such thing with Linux. And my wife is a standard clueless user...
2 : Get updates every couple of months In two months time, you have plenty of time to become the next internet zombie on Windows. No such thing on Linux. On Linux distro, the few servers that run by default are protected by a firewall set up for you at install time. So you have nearly zero chance of being eaten by a worm or virus. If you put a server visible to the internet on a Linux box, you have to know what you are doing (though it is simple to do), and then, yes, has then to update your server regularly. Your sophistic sentence of course is FUD : yes Linux can be compromised, even when well updated. But not as fast, not as often as a Windows box, and most of the time, not automatically (need of a black hat to crack the box with a rootkit).
3 : Use a Firewall of some sort Stupid to rely on this. No firewall will protect you if there are flaws in one server of your box accessible to the internet, especially if the flaw allows an attacker to get remote access to the machine. You are all wrong really : even the most powerful firewall will NOT prevent that access then.
You have a lot of facts wrong actually, that is the problem: - Windows does NOT works on everything, and you forgot to say which Windows (9x ? NT ? 2000 ? XP ? 2003 ?...). Even if you take all of them, they do not work on everything. Linux does not either, but it runs on a lot more hardware than Windows and Mac OS combined. - The popularity of Windows is not what has caused all these exploits. The FLAWS of Windows are what have caused all these exploits. The fact that they are design flaws explains why they are present in the OS to this day. - "how do you know they won't happen under Mac OSX, Linux" ? : both theoretical and empirical evidences. IIRC Kapersky head said that Linux would be full of virus soon... that was in 2000 (or end 1999). We still have not seen anything. And Linux has correct privilege separation, which Windows does with badly implemented hacks, with ACL so complicated that no developer nor user dare to use them, and those who do are burnt by it fast. There is a howto on how to create viruses for Linux. You see, the OSS community even helps you create viruses. And yet, there are NO (0, ZERO) Linux viruses in the wild, in 2005. Contrast that with Windows... Even if you scale Windows boxes to the amount of Linux boxes, basic math tells you there is a BIG problem with Windows. Yes it is harder to write viruses for Linux (theoretically impossible, because at any one time, the virus would be visible, unable to spread, or unable to execute). You could write spyware for Linux (though the GNU OS makes it more difficult), and the only effective attacks against Linux are worms and rootkits (which need human intervention).
What is your agenda ? People like you are dangerous, I see where you come from. Several BIG contradictions in what you say: - You found a "200 pages" document (and that is with very fine print, otherwise it took 480 pages) to be "inspiring" and "clear" ?!!! OMG, but most people in France do not even have the courage to read it, most people do not even understand the first page for christ sake. Even specialist lawyers cannot agree on the meaning of a lot of very important parts of this "constitution", but yet, you understand all of it very clearly ? - "Our constitution... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number". Strangely enough, in a LOT of EU country, the approbation was NOT decided by the "greatest number", but by ONE (i.e. "a minority") man, the representant (president) of the country. This is why you have to put your lie that this is a constitution. It is NOT, that is why they call it "constitutional treaty" and not "constitution". It would not be a "legal" constitution, as the people would have to have created it in the first place. It was actually made by a minority of wealthy or poweful people who have nothing in common with standard citizens. And the citizens would have to agree with it. I'm fortunate to be able to do this in France, all countries did not have the same opportunity. - Worse, there is no separation of powers in this "constitution". It doesn't seem to bother you, but then, it has nothing to do with a democracy anymore. Or perhaps you lost that part, which is buried in several pages and references, in the lot of obscure legalese you find so clear to everyone. - Perhaps the worst part, is that this "constituion" defines the economic regime. This is the worst thing you could find in a constitution (we can see the effects with the software patents episode), but it does not seem to be a big deal to you.
Accepting this thing will surely do no good to someone like me, I will fight for my rights.
You can get 10k SATA drives now. There are 15k SCSI drives, but they have small capaciticies and are very expensive. There are a small number of applications that actually want to use them. For most uses, a 300 GB 7200 RPM drive is better than a 73 GB 10,000 RPM drive that costs four times as much.
Nonsense ! In no way a 300 GB 7200 RPM drive is better than a 73 GB 10 000 RPM drive, except in one way : the ability to lose 300 GB worth of data in one go when the disk crashes. I have 36 Go SCSI 15 000 RPM drives. I paid them 170 euros (that is what you call really expensive I guess). Spindle speed is not even the best performance factor, the access time is. These "low cost" SCSI drives mops the floor of any SATA disk you put against them in REAL situation, on a REAL filesystem. I have a small number of situation for you where the SCSI drives have no equivalent : swap, file transfers, system partition. When you have a machine that swaps like crazy without you noticing (except for the sudden noise the disk make), you will understand the difference with a SATA (or IDE) drive where everything just freezes several seconds.
Secondly, you can't connect 15 drives to a single SCSI bus and run at ultra-160 or ultra-320 speed. You're only allowed to connect something like 4 drives to remain in spec at those speeds.
Huh ? Perhaps that is because you will saturate the SCSI bus at full speed before being able to add other disks...
A 3ware 12 port SATA card and a three port U320 SCSI card with four drives on each port both support the same number of drives. Except the SATA card will probably be 1/3 the price, the SATA drives will be 1/10 the cost per GB, and have higher transfer rates.
And I bet anything that the transfer rate of the SCSI disks will be much better. And you have strange facts too. Because here in France, the Adaptec SCSI RAID card is 400-450 euros, the 3ware card you talk about is not available, but a 8 port 3ware SATA card is already 600 euros !!! And we're not even at the performance level of the SCSI card or disks. Even with 10k RPM SCSI disks, we are at a higher performance level than SATA. And we are talking of less than 2 times the price in favor of the SATA drives here (290 VS 165 ) !! So stop saying nonsense please !
SATA does have real command queuing. There are real hotswap SATA drive bays. It's true the cables can't be as long, but since you only need to connect once device per cable instead of 4 or more, it's usually easier to connect. And believe me, I know my way around a SCSI cable.distributions.
I agree with you, except on the easier to connect part I don't understand. Anyway, I agree that SCSI is more expensive, but don't tell me SATA is higher perf, that is just a lie. We did not even get into the reliability realm (though I don't think my low cost SCSI U320 drives can last more than 5 years working 24/24 7/7, one of my low cost U2W disk died after 4,5 years of this regime)...
Patching open source is always easy and does not need to be done as often. You didn't prove the contrary:
1. You start with an if, which, of course, is completely stupid. Because "if" you intend to work with a patched version of a OSS product, you do the obvious : get the original product or patches, apply all of that, and THEN apply your patches. It is still easier to do than the MS part where you can't even patch the product, and so, lose time and money everytime, because of lack of functionality or bug.
2. You are NOT obliged to apply the patches when they come. You describe the patching coming willy nilly like it is a flaw, are you a MS shill ? You can plan to apply the patches every second tuesday of every month if you want. With MS, you have no choice, you have to adapt to their planning. With OSS, you have choice to do your planning like you want.
3. Same stupid thing than in 2. "Product in heavy development" : and you use that in production ? Please ! You talk about your Win2k servers still on the same OS install like it is a prowess (no SP installed ?!!). And then you say your RH 5.x have been upgraded a number of times. Of course they have, patching and upgrading are far easier on OSS distro, and cost far less, so why would you stay on RH 5 ? Now, why haven't you gone to Win2003 ? BTW, where I work at the moment, they still use RH 6 customised packages for some app servers, I think this is pretty stupid, because hey, it was released in April 1999, but as long as it works...
4. This is all wrong. I admin several production servers running on my own custom system built entirely from source, and I can update any server without any problem. And I'm so confident in OSS patches that I NEVER test patches. I know I should, but I have a 2 hours time frame to correct any problem, and I actually RARELY had any problem with OSS patches (I did ONCE, with OpenSSL). I just pass basic tests once the new version is up, and it always works. I have NO uncertainty with OSS. For example, I regularly update the Apache servers this way. I then restart the services, and watch any strange thing in the log : there never are any !!
OSS does the good thing, release as soon as a flaw is doscovered, then, you decide when to apply, but you can't blame OSS for leaving you the choice. You are not supposed to be a clueless newbie, but a professional admin.
I'm sick of this MS nonsense reports. It is not even accessible (or slashdotted ?) for me to check it. But knowing that a Linux distro allows you to update any program you have, and hey, even third parties can add their repository for the package manager, I don't understand how Windows patching can be cheaper, really. Do they imply that getting patches by hand and applying them is cheaper than what a package manager with automatic notification does ? Did they compare patching Windows with patching an entire Linux distro ? I just don't understand this nonsense.
Except that X is far more low-level than RDP, and the fact that it is "backwards" from the perspective of accessing a server.
Of course, and X is also a lot more than RDP... As you are comparing apples and oranges, I don't see your point.
To get X working over NAT, you need something like X-forwarding with SSH. Not to mention that you *need* SSH or an equivelent because X doesn't have built-in encryption.
And what was your point again ? Do you mean X should reinvent the wheel and should integrate all the security of OpenSSH ?
Not to mention that GTK+ and QT both backbuffer their drawing, so you effectively are transmitting large bitmaps accross the link, in some cases without any encryption.
And all of this works efficiently and encrypted with FreeNX, which, oh shock, uses a patched OpenSSH for encryption.
No, RDP isn't "new", but it's far better implemented than X. RDP is usable over 1xRTT. Try that with X.
RDP is new compared to X, sorry. Far better implemented I don't know, I wonder how you came with that, you work for MS ? I ask because of the facts that: - The XFree code is available, still did not see the code of the RDP servers - X (and VNC) is cross-platform, AFAIK RDP is not, it is only available on Windows - FreeNX (a forked XFree with efficient compression) is usable on 1xRTT, and it works
Sadly, I disagree with nearly everything you say. I don't even understand the logic of what you write, or your strange facts. I agree only on the fact that usually, "people associate 'no name brand' = inferior".
But I still wonder why the mainstream would bite a freeOpenOffice.org, when OpenOffice.org is already free : this is just stupid. It could only smell of bootlegs. People don't want to think perhaps, but I know that in computing, most people depend on some people opinion to choose for them and install things for them. Because sure enough it does not "just works" like so many people with brain damage want us (or me) to believe. I know Windows cause a way of thinking similar to amnesia (because there are so many problems, most people forget they had a problem, even 2 minutes after having dealt with it !!!), but this is too much ! For example, I bought a Creative MuVo N200 device as a gift for my wife, the sort of "just works" device you talk about. I plugged it in the USB port, and it was recognised and instantly accessible (just works) on her KDE desktop. Now it came with a CDROM and a installation manual. The Windows installation says to NOT plug it before installing some software on the CDROM, and talked about reboots, OMG ! And I don't understand the 'just works' argument for pirated software. Surely it is much harder to install than the real thing.
Your differences of functionality between FOSS apps and their commercial counterparts smells of FUD. Sorry to tell you that in fact, the pirated stuff is FAR MORE work. Let me correct you please: Pirated software: 1. Search for an app that does what you want 2. Run P2P (I'm kind here, assuming that the hassle for installing this is cleared) program and search for app 2. Download several ZIP, RAR, or other compressed version of app, because you are NOT sure of what you will get 3. Wait for days 4. Expand archives of apps that you downloaded, once you found a good one, delete the rest (beware that you have an antivirus running) 5a. If it's self contained, just create a shortcut and run the main application EXE. 5b. If it's an installer, just run it. 5c. If it's an ISO, just burn it and then uh... 5... 5 finally. Well, you will have to read the instructions coming with the warez when there are some, you will have to know so much thing actually, that you will be unable to install it unless it has an installer. Actually, I never saw a newbie able to install a warez unless it came with an installer, so you will be stuck without one anyway. 6. If it's not cracked (I assume most pirated stuff is cracked) then you might need to look for a crack or regcode generator. How to know if it is cracked : the newbie won't know, he is stuck way before anyway. How to crack ? You have to read the instructions (well, it has defeated the just works and "newbies can't read" argument way before anyway) 7. Run app and be on your way...
To acquire a FOSS app (assuming you're using a really dumbed down version of Linux): 1. Launch package manager and search for an app that does what you want (you will automagically get the latest version for your distro) 2. Click install. It will download all dependancies, check, and install the software, and fast, because it comes from dedicated FTP servers 3. Run app and be on your way...
Which way do you think Joe Average Mainstream is going to go ?
I know already. My brothers hard disk drive started to crash four weeks ago. Apart from games that they BOUGHT, everything on the Windows partition was warez (my fault), the system and data partitions were separated. Now I made them reinstall the latest Mandriva on their new hard disk drive (with my help to keep some place for Windows), and I let them install the Windows XP on the same machine. This was 2 weeks ago, XP is still not installed, and everything they had warez for is available free on Linux. They actually discovered installing Windows XP was too hard for them, compared to installing Mandriva. And I guess that installing a commercial app (Windows XP) is easier than installing warez.
I'm french and I never heard about this guy, the world's authority you quote. I did not even know there could be something like a world's authority on something as subjective as rating a movie. I'm fed up with this SW trilogy, and I'm sure I will NOT go see episode III in theater. They are showing them on TV in France, one every monday, starting with I, II (already screened), we're supposed to go see III today, and next monday, they will show IV,... Well, even on TV, episode I and II are pretty boring (I and my wife actually slept before middle of episode II, and we are NOT eager to watch the rest), even the action is boring, but these films are better suited for TV, it is less boring than what I remember I endured in theaters.
Anyway, I can see most people feeling compelled to go see this try all they can to reassure themselves that it will not be a waste of money and time like I and II.
This really has nothing to do with the business model of Red Hat. The model of Red Hat is to sell services mostly. Red Hat does not sell you the apps really (you can make them for free, or rebuild some Red Hat clone for free, cf. CentOS), nor does it sell the softwares (surely not an anti spyware or anti virus). You do not pay for security patches or software upgrades either in Red Hat. You pay only for a service that automate the process = convenience.
You say open source projects do not focus a lot on user experience in your vision, OK. So it is just your opinion, and it is off topic except that you talk about Apple. Because KDE started from 0 in 1996, is not a company and is still well alive and good. What was your point ?
users are more concerned with having a great UI and having apps that work together than raw speed
Huh ? Fortunately that just defines KDE. Oh my, I'm wrong !! KDE does all that with speed !! Well, to be honest, I do not know if the UI is great, but it sure is improving. KDE is the DE used by my wife. For example, when she started in 2001, I had to set up her background, but recently (since KDE 3.4 I think), she started putting our daughter's photo on the background of her desktop, and last time I checked, it was a "slideshow" of photos. She did that herself without any help, though she still had to ask me how to put the photo on her desktop at work (where thay use Windows 2000). Actually, I never saw her do anything by herself with computers, except since I switched entirely to Linux in 2001. So I think the UI must be great (and full of eye candy too, but she doesn't give a damn to that).
The funniest part of this is that KDE's developers are finally discovering the fact that forks do happen
Stupid troll, that is why the libraries they used where LGPL in the first place. People have not repeated it enough, KDE developers do not bitch on Apple, but on slashbots like you.
Why is it OK for X.Org to fork and go off in one direction, but not OK for Apple to do the same thing?
Because you have access to the changelogs of X.Org related to the patches. Not so for Apple. Have you any clue on what is really happening here ?
They give the patches back
But not the purpose of the patches, which, when patches come as big packages, is not useful to developers.
Can anyone honestly say that GNOME is faster than Windows XP's desktop these days? Same for KDE and MacOS X
Honestly ? Of course ! Are you kidding or what ? Actually, it is faster with way more functionality. Every time I forget the misery I had to put on on Windows, launching Windows XP reminds me of it. I just have to launch it and launch my Gnome session and it is obvious already. For example, all my apps on Gnome are already launched, on their virtual desktop, with the last document loaded. In Windows, I have to remember all my apps to launch them, then remember all the docs I was working on. What is simple and straightforward in Gnome (basic desktop handling) is TEDIOUS in Windows XP. I'm WAY more productive on Windows. I was using 3/4 of my time fixing problems in Windows XP !!! Oh boy I still remember the last burns of WinXP, when my wife said "let's look at a movie tonight" at 20h, and at 24h I was finished fixing the damn thing (which worked the day before), and of course, wife angry, me too, and no movie (fortunately, since I got Geexbox instead, no more problem of this kind). I need a huge number of third party apps (not integrated, not working well together) to do things I take for granted and are integrated in Gnome (IM, writing japanese and french mixed in same document or on the FS, having the directories I work with already opened in the state they were before quitting session, changing my background regularly, RSS feed, browser with tabs and session, looking good and readable on my 1600x1200 monitor, watching and navigating even broken videos, switching desktop user fast with hotkeys, no antivirus, no anti spyware, no defrag, virtual desktops that work, camera handling, no fear of everything crashing and rebooting, no fear of long big lock up which can last several minutes,...). I don't know Mac OS X, but KDE is even faster than Gnome, mostly for the launch time of. As I rarely launch apps on these desktops (they are already up when I log in, which happens once every big desktop version release), it makes no real
OMG a blatantly false affirmation like that get modded +5 Informative ?!!!! Of course most games are on consoles, PCs are far from having 99 % games, in number of titles or sells.
Recently, there is an assault of MS-shills mods and posters, it started with the assault of anti-Linux ads. This story is a perfect example, a lot of FUD, pro-MS crap is modded "+5 sth" in the talkbacks. I've never seen that before on Slashdot.
"Reboot X" does not mean anything, you do not reboot X or any other app, you just restart it.
The nonsense of all this impress me. You are saying that someone would update his graphics driver while working on a graphics app ? Then, if the user can disrupt his work by updating his driver, where is the problem in restarting X ?
We don't NEED anything that you say. What you propose is just a convenience, to follow fantasies of MS. We do not actually need this 'feature'. Anyway, due to the fact that binary drivers talk directly to the hardware, and that XOrg maps the hardware memory, I think the "server migration" could be too much hassle for very small gain, if it is even possible.
Love it or hate it, Microsoft deserves at least a little credit for getting the boot process done relatively quickly. I can't wait to see a nice implementation of Redhat's early login efforts.
No, MS doesn't deserve any credit for that. You talk like the fact that the boot speed is the most important thing. Of course it is not. The most important thing in a boot process is a standard dependancy scheme. Windows has none that works, even in WinXP, and I think not even in Win2003, but not sure. We are in 2005 for christ sake, and MS is still unable to produce a boot process that works, and yes they try, it just still does not work right. Linux distro do that AND can be fast too. simpleinit-msb that I use do all of that fast since several years, and it just works. I could also move X start in an earlier runlevel (I did once), but it just has no sense other than prove that you can start a Linux GUI fast too...
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how someone who admits he doesn't know anything about the benefits of LFS can be modded informative, that's truely insane.
If you had used LFS, you would have known that it is a book, and a book tailored to teach you specifically how "Linux the OS" works. And it works pretty well, so you are completely off-base. You thought it was a way to spend time tinkering your computer, and did not try anything, and now come saying nonsense out of hot air : this can't be serious.
It shows you do not understand LFS a bit. Gentoo or Sorcerer gives you NO benefit of LFS, because LFS is a book that TEACHES you (go read it dammit !), when Gentoo and Sorcerer are source-based distro, which do NOT teach you ANYTHING.
My god, you really thought LFS benefit was custom compilation ? I still wonder how someone so clueless could be modded informative, that does not bode well for moderators.
Fact is, the best, more universal packages are tarballs, but you have to know how to handle them (it is not rocket science). Once you know how to handle a tarball, and how a Linux OS works (and LFS has tremendous lessons on these), you are ready to tackle anything in Linux, you have control, and never have a dependancy problem.
I have an LFS based system since 2001, completely automated (nALFS) and with package management (paco). I have complete control over it (it works on my bi-AMD 2200+ and on my P75 200 @133 too with the latest packages !!) and I NEVER had a dependancy problem. And this is because of LFS and what it learned to me. And this was not even LFS 6.0, it was years before now. LFS is way better nowadays. It explains most errors to you too, that is how you learn.
The irony is that you have more chances of getting dependancy problems on a distro than on a LFS based system (again, I never got one).
Dependancy problems are caused by package systems that try to think like a human knowing what he is doing would do.
It is obvious to me that if you are such a human (one that know what he is doing), it works FAR BETTER (until we get powerful human AI that is more intelligent than the user) than a limited AI.
I'm amazed, really, by people who are fooled constantly by MS, despite History.
: ... as simple as an XSLT transformation". Completely wrong, so much that it is amazing.
...
People told me the same thing about open MS Office XML formats in 2003, I assured them they were wrong, and that MS was making a fool of them, and that they were too stupid to learn from history.
MS was sued in Europe partly because of their format which should have been so open. So I was right, and I knew I would be right. What disturbs me, is that I'm not a genius, but MS behaviour is obvious to me.
I wonder why it is not to most people. Is the brainwash working ?
Anyway, when I see the headline, and when I look at the reality (in the real world), there's a chasm between the two : how can someone be so clueless ?
The openness of their format was announced in 2003 for christ sake, the specs are still not usable by every developers in 2005 !
And the answers of brainwashed people like you ? Amazing things like
- "whether it's patented or not, I don't know". So STFU, you are not qualified to talk
- "But this is a _VERY_ big step for Microsoft". What this have to do with the end of closed MS file formats ?
- "It's going to make translating between this and OASIS
Really, I pity you fools
I disagree that MS has become a better company, it has become a worse company in my eyes. But they do some products better, of course, as there are open source programs kicking the butt of some of their 'best' expensive ones (Apache against IIS for example).p ), this is the major reason, not Windows 95/NT.
: ...) ...), no disappearing menus, no reverse order selection, no different behaviours between reboots, no 1-3 minutes locks, sessions that work, no slowing after 5 days of running, ...
I don't know what you mean when you say that MS has boosted ease of use and a good office suite, I hope you are kidding.
KDE came because of the availability of Qt for free, and because the Qt API was so great, look at the initial KDE announcement (http://www.kde.org/announcements/announcement.ph
MS Office Suite arguably was not the better office suite at the time (or today), and was not even good, until Mac developers made it better, and then MS killed all competitors.
Gnome followed because of KDE, which was not Free Software, not because of MS.
And OpenOffice is there because it is Open Source, I don't know what would have been the fate of StarOffice, but given the fate of Word Perfect, I bet it would not have lasted long.
MS surely boosted some things in Linux desktops (KParts, Bonobo), but surely not usability. Most of the most powerful usability features of Linux desktop are not even available in Windows (but MS is quickly trying to add them) !!!
- Powerful out-of-the-box (and sometimes on-the-fly) i18n and l10n
- Powerful integrated accessibility
- Virtual desktops (that work) !
- Lots of integrated apps, for nearly any day to day task (that was one of the initial goals of KDE and Gnome 2)
- Looks good (with optional anti-aliasing, adapts to your monitor, themes, SVG icons, translucency,
- Reliable and consistent (the main goal of KDE and Gnome 2): no 3 different printer dialogs, no 4 different widget sets, no 3 mix of icon sets (4 bits, 256 bits,
Of course you're completely wrong :
... Then, you are surely not force to update to the latest Linux driver, and it is even discouraged on consumer grade distros. To finish destroy your stupid FUD, there is one driver per architecture for Linux, I see several one for each of the two architectures Windows support.
1) Package managers on Linux have perfectly good installers. Distribution tailored for non-techie like Mandriva commercial PowerPacks include the packages necessary to auto-install NVidia or ATI drivers. And NVidia did not have to write an installer, they used an old one created by a game company.
2) Your problem is in the "almost" all 2000 drivers work as is in XP. In Linux, ALL drivers coming with the kernel that worked in 2.6.10 works in 2.6.11. If you were not biased, you would know that the NVidia kernel driver is NOT SUPPORTED by kernel developers, it SAYS IT LOUD when you load it, and this is NO fault of Linux developers, it is caused by the choice of licencing of NVidia. That is also why free distro can't include the driver out of the box, same for ATI and Java and
3) And that is why every time there is a problem in Windows, people like you come whining that it is caused by bad drivers ? When I used Windows, the NVidia certified drivers were utter crap, only the non certified ones coming from NVidia were good. Please ! Even the certified SCSI driver blue screened XP, and it was a known problem in Windows problems base (which is HUGE).
4) I wonder what is this nonsense you're talking about. Learn what is XOrg compared to XFree before saying such nonsense. And everyone mattering in Linux world has already switched to XOrg.
I can tell you that the peopke I switched to Linux are unable to install any NVidia driver on Windows, they stay with crappy Windows ones.
Now in Windows the problem was a simple fix. Download a driver, click install. Everything else was handled and it works superbly. In Linux, I've gone through quite a lengthy process and it STILL doesn't work. I'm sure I'll solve the problem on Tuesday, however I can gaurentee a non-techie would have given up long ago
...
And that is why no non-techie would do something as stupid as getting a geek OS like Fedora Core 3, but a mainstream one designed for him, like a Mandriva PowerPack (and I'm NOT talking about the download edition there), where these drivers installation are prepackaged in the distribution, and where then, it becomes way simpler than on Windows, as you don't even have to go get the drivers, it automagically installes them
The fact that Linux comes preinstalled or not with the hardware doesn't matter IMHO.
:
That is where you are completely wrong, as this is the only difficult part.
But once Linux is installed, the difficult part is to *use* it
Explain please !
IMHO it is a LOT easier to use Linux than Windows. One single example : configure the antivirus. Most users do not even understand the concept of an antivirus. At least in Linux you do not need one.
Installing new software and making it work properly is not trivial
Example please !
Installing software in a distro makes it work automatically. I wonder what you meant.
Even with GUIs like Synaptic, using any Linux distribution requires Unix knowledge
The lot of people I converted to Linux have exactly 0 Unix knowledge and use Linux pretty well.
You can't use (upgrade/customize/etc) a Linux workstation without using a terminal for instance
Several stupid FUD in one sentence
- You can use (upgrade/customize) a Linux workstation with the tools of your distribution (to upgrade) + a text editor (to customize), or with a Web interface like Webmin.
- Using a terminal does not require Unix knowledge, see Easy URPMI on the web before saying such clueless thing. Copy/pasting some instructions in a terminal is not Unix knowledge to me.
So for a newbie or for my parents, I'd never recommend a laptop running Linux (preinstalled or not).
That is your choice.
In contrast, I will recommend it, it is so much more powerful than Windows XP.
Well, let's start with Firefox. Exactly what great, utterly innovative features did it come up with? No, seriously?
...
...
Instant search with keyboard ?
The fact that the functionalities you describe are all in one package, not provided by myriad of plugins to IE, lots of them full of spyware, or badly crashing the browser ?
The fact that it had all of this before plugins started to get implemented for IE ?
The fact that it supports CSS better than IE ?
The fact that it supports PNG better than IE ?
I thought the _whole_ idea of Firefox was to [...] render HTML, something that they did _not_ pioneer or invent.
No, another open source program (Mosaic) did that
Well, ok, maybe Firefox was the wrong example.
Finally you admit it.
BitTorrent? Need I point out that file sharing was pioneered by Napster? Yep, another app that copied a closed source product.
Are you really so clueless ? You just prove that people having the same convictions than you are all clueless morons.
FYI BitTorrent has NOTHING to do with Napster, and file sharing started wway before Napster. Does (X)DCC means something to you. I was using its ancestor in 1991 on IRC.
OpenOffice? Need I point out that the vast majority of work was originally called StarOffice and was a closed source product?
You mean, the pretty unusable thing on Linux that was StarOffice 6 (or was it 5 ?) ?
And its innovations are...?
Exporting to PDF ? Starting the OASIS standard (though under RAND) ?
MS Office still can't do it BTW, before you tell me it does.
The more I read you, the more I think you are clueless beyond all recognition.
PHP? Yet another clone of MS's ASP. Yes, MS did invent that kind of server-side inline scripting. (Yes, I know they're supposed to never have invented anything. Sorry 'bout letting reality get in the way of that.)
Others have corrected you, you are beyond hope.
And you are drawing blanks already for you moronic stupidity and lies ?
Poor you, the very Internet you use right now to diss FOSS is mostly made thanks to FOSS.
I use open source software on a daily basis, and I love the freedom it provides, but McVoy is right that it is very hard to monetize
Perhaps because most Free Softwares are still the property of their authors, and that they chose to offer their program for free ?
GPL violators and enterprises like Red Hat, MySQL, Qt would disagree with you I think.
Perhaps you meant : McVoy is right that it is very hard to get RICH and alienate people like I did with FOSS.
I'm sick of this guy. He consistently contradicts itself, it is amazing ! :
: ... So now we know he doesn't get it ... Yes, just not in a positive sense ... That's because OSS advocates do it without investing lots of money. Instead, they invest lots of time and cooperation ... That is 5 very well paid engineers full time for a year.
He is a true enemy of Free Software, and really full of himself. Some amazing pieces of contradiction
- "if you give [customers] software that works, what is the point of service?" VS "I'd rather pay someone to take care of me"
- "One problem with the services model is that it is based on the idea that you are giving customers crap" VS "But I'm not evil"
Some funny ones
- "'You're an evil corporate guy, and you don't get it.' But I'm not evil"
- "I'm well-known in the open source community"
- "McVoy says open source advocates fail to recognize that building new software requires lots of trial and error, which means investing lots of money"
- "McVoy says the cost of offering free support to Linux developers has grown to more than $500,000 a year"
Yes, there are plenty of OSS projects that do go full cycle but they're often the popular-closed-source clones that Larry's complaining about. The ones you cite all are, arguably.
What ? Because you think BitKeeper is innovative ?
BitKeeper is a clear counter example of what you are saying, the original ideas comes from several products like CVS you know.
And I really hate the FUD spin that you put i nyour sentence. Closed source have nothing to do with the fact that a "clone" is available on Linux. Popularity is the only reason, because if a lot of Linux users want a popular functionality, they will implement it, be it closed or open.
Surely Gnome, KDE, Gnumeric are more than clones, they innovate.
Your way of thinking reminds me of the 80s, when western people said Japan was copying everything, whereas they were truly innovating, and when people realized it, it was already too late : all your electronics was japanese or asian, and it would have been the same for things like car, if west governments did not take draconian protectionist measures. I see Free Software as the same kind.
One thing that I've always admired about Apple is that (like Google) they seem to have a corporate culture which heavily encourages new features to be integrated ELEGANTLY into existing frameworks. They really seem to spend time, thought, money, and even passion on finding a "clean" way to do things
I don't know to what extent you think Apple is elegant or to what you meant by "clean" way to do things, but I think the KDE, and specifically, the Konqui developers would not agree with you.
The few facts about what happened between Apple and KDE developers clearly contradicts what you just said.
At least he knows more than you, I will explain in a moment.
...
I think inertia is a big reason why this guy (and others) suffered this long with Windows. Because I'm younger than him, but realised the pain Windows gave me in 1999 (after 6 months of use), and finished switching entirely to Linux in 2001, switching one app at a time. Deciding which app to switch was simple : each time one Windows app failed badly on me (like Outlook loosing more than a year of my emails), I switched it to the Linux desktop (and never had such big problems since !). Which means that by 2001, EVERY app on Windows failed badly on me, no wonder I suffered so much.
Well, where are you wrong ? Simple, in your "simple" steps of securing Windows. They will not secure you much I'm afraid, there's a good chance you are a zombie without even knewing it, if you applied only these.
1 : Avoid fishy sites
Sorry, but my wife goes wherever she wants on the net, and me too. We NEVER had ANY problem on Linux when doing that. The Internet may not be a safe place, but at least, Linux is a safe boat for it. Could say the same for email. You just showed the hassle it is to use Windows : you have to be alert, on your toe, whatever you do on Windows. No such thing with Linux. And my wife is a standard clueless user
2 : Get updates every couple of months
In two months time, you have plenty of time to become the next internet zombie on Windows. No such thing on Linux. On Linux distro, the few servers that run by default are protected by a firewall set up for you at install time. So you have nearly zero chance of being eaten by a worm or virus. If you put a server visible to the internet on a Linux box, you have to know what you are doing (though it is simple to do), and then, yes, has then to update your server regularly.
Your sophistic sentence of course is FUD : yes Linux can be compromised, even when well updated. But not as fast, not as often as a Windows box, and most of the time, not automatically (need of a black hat to crack the box with a rootkit).
3 : Use a Firewall of some sort
Stupid to rely on this. No firewall will protect you if there are flaws in one server of your box accessible to the internet, especially if the flaw allows an attacker to get remote access to the machine. You are all wrong really : even the most powerful firewall will NOT prevent that access then.
You have a lot of facts wrong actually, that is the problem : ...). Even if you take all of them, they do not work on everything. Linux does not either, but it runs on a lot more hardware than Windows and Mac OS combined. ... that was in 2000 (or end 1999). We still have not seen anything. And Linux has correct privilege separation, which Windows does with badly implemented hacks, with ACL so complicated that no developer nor user dare to use them, and those who do are burnt by it fast. There is a howto on how to create viruses for Linux. You see, the OSS community even helps you create viruses. And yet, there are NO (0, ZERO) Linux viruses in the wild, in 2005. Contrast that with Windows ... Even if you scale Windows boxes to the amount of Linux boxes, basic math tells you there is a BIG problem with Windows. Yes it is harder to write viruses for Linux (theoretically impossible, because at any one time, the virus would be visible, unable to spread, or unable to execute). You could write spyware for Linux (though the GNU OS makes it more difficult), and the only effective attacks against Linux are worms and rootkits (which need human intervention).
- Windows does NOT works on everything, and you forgot to say which Windows (9x ? NT ? 2000 ? XP ? 2003 ?
- The popularity of Windows is not what has caused all these exploits. The FLAWS of Windows are what have caused all these exploits. The fact that they are design flaws explains why they are present in the OS to this day.
- "how do you know they won't happen under Mac OSX, Linux" ? : both theoretical and empirical evidences. IIRC Kapersky head said that Linux would be full of virus soon
What is your agenda ? : ... is called a democracy because power is in the hands not of a minority but of the greatest number". Strangely enough, in a LOT of EU country, the approbation was NOT decided by the "greatest number", but by ONE (i.e. "a minority") man, the representant (president) of the country. This is why you have to put your lie that this is a constitution. It is NOT, that is why they call it "constitutional treaty" and not "constitution". It would not be a "legal" constitution, as the people would have to have created it in the first place. It was actually made by a minority of wealthy or poweful people who have nothing in common with standard citizens. And the citizens would have to agree with it. I'm fortunate to be able to do this in France, all countries did not have the same opportunity.
People like you are dangerous, I see where you come from.
Several BIG contradictions in what you say
- You found a "200 pages" document (and that is with very fine print, otherwise it took 480 pages) to be "inspiring" and "clear" ?!!! OMG, but most people in France do not even have the courage to read it, most people do not even understand the first page for christ sake. Even specialist lawyers cannot agree on the meaning of a lot of very important parts of this "constitution", but yet, you understand all of it very clearly ?
- "Our constitution
- Worse, there is no separation of powers in this "constitution". It doesn't seem to bother you, but then, it has nothing to do with a democracy anymore. Or perhaps you lost that part, which is buried in several pages and references, in the lot of obscure legalese you find so clear to everyone.
- Perhaps the worst part, is that this "constituion" defines the economic regime. This is the worst thing you could find in a constitution (we can see the effects with the software patents episode), but it does not seem to be a big deal to you.
Accepting this thing will surely do no good to someone like me, I will fight for my rights.
You can get 10k SATA drives now. There are 15k SCSI drives, but they have small capaciticies and are very expensive. There are a small number of applications that actually want to use them. For most uses, a 300 GB 7200 RPM drive is better than a 73 GB 10,000 RPM drive that costs four times as much.
...
...
Nonsense !
In no way a 300 GB 7200 RPM drive is better than a 73 GB 10 000 RPM drive, except in one way : the ability to lose 300 GB worth of data in one go when the disk crashes.
I have 36 Go SCSI 15 000 RPM drives. I paid them 170 euros (that is what you call really expensive I guess). Spindle speed is not even the best performance factor, the access time is. These "low cost" SCSI drives mops the floor of any SATA disk you put against them in REAL situation, on a REAL filesystem.
I have a small number of situation for you where the SCSI drives have no equivalent : swap, file transfers, system partition. When you have a machine that swaps like crazy without you noticing (except for the sudden noise the disk make), you will understand the difference with a SATA (or IDE) drive where everything just freezes several seconds.
Secondly, you can't connect 15 drives to a single SCSI bus and run at ultra-160 or ultra-320 speed. You're only allowed to connect something like 4 drives to remain in spec at those speeds.
Huh ? Perhaps that is because you will saturate the SCSI bus at full speed before being able to add other disks
A 3ware 12 port SATA card and a three port U320 SCSI card with four drives on each port both support the same number of drives. Except the SATA card will probably be 1/3 the price, the SATA drives will be 1/10 the cost per GB, and have higher transfer rates.
And I bet anything that the transfer rate of the SCSI disks will be much better. And you have strange facts too.
Because here in France, the Adaptec SCSI RAID card is 400-450 euros, the 3ware card you talk about is not available, but a 8 port 3ware SATA card is already 600 euros !!! And we're not even at the performance level of the SCSI card or disks. Even with 10k RPM SCSI disks, we are at a higher performance level than SATA. And we are talking of less than 2 times the price in favor of the SATA drives here (290 VS 165 ) !! So stop saying nonsense please !
SATA does have real command queuing. There are real hotswap SATA drive bays. It's true the cables can't be as long, but since you only need to connect once device per cable instead of 4 or more, it's usually easier to connect. And believe me, I know my way around a SCSI cable.distributions.
I agree with you, except on the easier to connect part I don't understand. Anyway, I agree that SCSI is more expensive, but don't tell me SATA is higher perf, that is just a lie. We did not even get into the reliability realm (though I don't think my low cost SCSI U320 drives can last more than 5 years working 24/24 7/7, one of my low cost U2W disk died after 4,5 years of this regime)
Patching open source is always easy and does not need to be done as often.
...
You didn't prove the contrary:
1. You start with an if, which, of course, is completely stupid. Because "if" you intend to work with a patched version of a OSS product, you do the obvious : get the original product or patches, apply all of that, and THEN apply your patches. It is still easier to do than the MS part where you can't even patch the product, and so, lose time and money everytime, because of lack of functionality or bug.
2. You are NOT obliged to apply the patches when they come. You describe the patching coming willy nilly like it is a flaw, are you a MS shill ? You can plan to apply the patches every second tuesday of every month if you want. With MS, you have no choice, you have to adapt to their planning. With OSS, you have choice to do your planning like you want.
3. Same stupid thing than in 2. "Product in heavy development" : and you use that in production ? Please ! You talk about your Win2k servers still on the same OS install like it is a prowess (no SP installed ?!!). And then you say your RH 5.x have been upgraded a number of times. Of course they have, patching and upgrading are far easier on OSS distro, and cost far less, so why would you stay on RH 5 ? Now, why haven't you gone to Win2003 ? BTW, where I work at the moment, they still use RH 6 customised packages for some app servers, I think this is pretty stupid, because hey, it was released in April 1999, but as long as it works
4. This is all wrong. I admin several production servers running on my own custom system built entirely from source, and I can update any server without any problem. And I'm so confident in OSS patches that I NEVER test patches. I know I should, but I have a 2 hours time frame to correct any problem, and I actually RARELY had any problem with OSS patches (I did ONCE, with OpenSSL). I just pass basic tests once the new version is up, and it always works. I have NO uncertainty with OSS. For example, I regularly update the Apache servers this way. I then restart the services, and watch any strange thing in the log : there never are any !!
OSS does the good thing, release as soon as a flaw is doscovered, then, you decide when to apply, but you can't blame OSS for leaving you the choice. You are not supposed to be a clueless newbie, but a professional admin.
I'm sick of this MS nonsense reports. It is not even accessible (or slashdotted ?) for me to check it.
But knowing that a Linux distro allows you to update any program you have, and hey, even third parties can add their repository for the package manager, I don't understand how Windows patching can be cheaper, really.
Do they imply that getting patches by hand and applying them is cheaper than what a package manager with automatic notification does ?
Did they compare patching Windows with patching an entire Linux distro ? I just don't understand this nonsense.
Except that X is far more low-level than RDP, and the fact that it is "backwards" from the perspective of accessing a server.
... As you are comparing apples and oranges, I don't see your point.
:
Of course, and X is also a lot more than RDP
To get X working over NAT, you need something like X-forwarding with SSH. Not to mention that you *need* SSH or an equivelent because X doesn't have built-in encryption.
And what was your point again ? Do you mean X should reinvent the wheel and should integrate all the security of OpenSSH ?
Not to mention that GTK+ and QT both backbuffer their drawing, so you effectively are transmitting large bitmaps accross the link, in some cases without any encryption.
And all of this works efficiently and encrypted with FreeNX, which, oh shock, uses a patched OpenSSH for encryption.
No, RDP isn't "new", but it's far better implemented than X. RDP is usable over 1xRTT. Try that with X.
RDP is new compared to X, sorry. Far better implemented I don't know, I wonder how you came with that, you work for MS ?
I ask because of the facts that
- The XFree code is available, still did not see the code of the RDP servers
- X (and VNC) is cross-platform, AFAIK RDP is not, it is only available on Windows
- FreeNX (a forked XFree with efficient compression) is usable on 1xRTT, and it works
Sadly, I disagree with nearly everything you say. I don't even understand the logic of what you write, or your strange facts.
: : ...
...
I agree only on the fact that usually, "people associate 'no name brand' = inferior".
But I still wonder why the mainstream would bite a freeOpenOffice.org, when OpenOffice.org is already free : this is just stupid.
It could only smell of bootlegs.
People don't want to think perhaps, but I know that in computing, most people depend on some people opinion to choose for them and install things for them. Because sure enough it does not "just works" like so many people with brain damage want us (or me) to believe. I know Windows cause a way of thinking similar to amnesia (because there are so many problems, most people forget they had a problem, even 2 minutes after having dealt with it !!!), but this is too much !
For example, I bought a Creative MuVo N200 device as a gift for my wife, the sort of "just works" device you talk about. I plugged it in the USB port, and it was recognised and instantly accessible (just works) on her KDE desktop. Now it came with a CDROM and a installation manual. The Windows installation says to NOT plug it before installing some software on the CDROM, and talked about reboots, OMG !
And I don't understand the 'just works' argument for pirated software. Surely it is much harder to install than the real thing.
Your differences of functionality between FOSS apps and their commercial counterparts smells of FUD.
Sorry to tell you that in fact, the pirated stuff is FAR MORE work. Let me correct you please
Pirated software
1. Search for an app that does what you want
2. Run P2P (I'm kind here, assuming that the hassle for installing this is cleared) program and search for app
2. Download several ZIP, RAR, or other compressed version of app, because you are NOT sure of what you will get
3. Wait for days
4. Expand archives of apps that you downloaded, once you found a good one, delete the rest (beware that you have an antivirus running)
5a. If it's self contained, just create a shortcut and run the main application EXE.
5b. If it's an installer, just run it.
5c. If it's an ISO, just burn it and then uh
5...
5 finally. Well, you will have to read the instructions coming with the warez when there are some, you will have to know so much thing actually, that you will be unable to install it unless it has an installer. Actually, I never saw a newbie able to install a warez unless it came with an installer, so you will be stuck without one anyway.
6. If it's not cracked (I assume most pirated stuff is cracked) then you might need to look for a crack or regcode generator. How to know if it is cracked : the newbie won't know, he is stuck way before anyway. How to crack ? You have to read the instructions (well, it has defeated the just works and "newbies can't read" argument way before anyway)
7. Run app and be on your way...
To acquire a FOSS app (assuming you're using a really dumbed down version of Linux):
1. Launch package manager and search for an app that does what you want (you will automagically get the latest version for your distro)
2. Click install. It will download all dependancies, check, and install the software, and fast, because it comes from dedicated FTP servers
3. Run app and be on your way
Which way do you think Joe Average Mainstream is going to go ?
I know already. My brothers hard disk drive started to crash four weeks ago. Apart from games that they BOUGHT, everything on the Windows partition was warez (my fault), the system and data partitions were separated. Now I made them reinstall the latest Mandriva on their new hard disk drive (with my help to keep some place for Windows), and I let them install the Windows XP on the same machine. This was 2 weeks ago, XP is still not installed, and everything they had warez for is available free on Linux.
They actually discovered installing Windows XP was too hard for them, compared to installing Mandriva.
And I guess that installing a commercial app (Windows XP) is easier than installing warez.
The world's authority on reviewing movies
...
I'm french and I never heard about this guy, the world's authority you quote.
I did not even know there could be something like a world's authority on something as subjective as rating a movie.
I'm fed up with this SW trilogy, and I'm sure I will NOT go see episode III in theater.
They are showing them on TV in France, one every monday, starting with I, II (already screened), we're supposed to go see III today, and next monday, they will show IV,
Well, even on TV, episode I and II are pretty boring (I and my wife actually slept before middle of episode II, and we are NOT eager to watch the rest), even the action is boring, but these films are better suited for TV, it is less boring than what I remember I endured in theaters.
Anyway, I can see most people feeling compelled to go see this try all they can to reassure themselves that it will not be a waste of money and time like I and II.
This really has nothing to do with the business model of Red Hat.
The model of Red Hat is to sell services mostly.
Red Hat does not sell you the apps really (you can make them for free, or rebuild some Red Hat clone for free, cf. CentOS), nor does it sell the softwares (surely not an anti spyware or anti virus).
You do not pay for security patches or software upgrades either in Red Hat. You pay only for a service that automate the process = convenience.
You say open source projects do not focus a lot on user experience in your vision, OK. So it is just your opinion, and it is off topic except that you talk about Apple. Because KDE started from 0 in 1996, is not a company and is still well alive and good. What was your point ?
...).
users are more concerned with having a great UI and having apps that work together than raw speed
Huh ? Fortunately that just defines KDE. Oh my, I'm wrong !! KDE does all that with speed !! Well, to be honest, I do not know if the UI is great, but it sure is improving. KDE is the DE used by my wife. For example, when she started in 2001, I had to set up her background, but recently (since KDE 3.4 I think), she started putting our daughter's photo on the background of her desktop, and last time I checked, it was a "slideshow" of photos. She did that herself without any help, though she still had to ask me how to put the photo on her desktop at work (where thay use Windows 2000).
Actually, I never saw her do anything by herself with computers, except since I switched entirely to Linux in 2001.
So I think the UI must be great (and full of eye candy too, but she doesn't give a damn to that).
The funniest part of this is that KDE's developers are finally discovering the fact that forks do happen
Stupid troll, that is why the libraries they used where LGPL in the first place.
People have not repeated it enough, KDE developers do not bitch on Apple, but on slashbots like you.
Why is it OK for X.Org to fork and go off in one direction, but not OK for Apple to do the same thing?
Because you have access to the changelogs of X.Org related to the patches. Not so for Apple.
Have you any clue on what is really happening here ?
They give the patches back
But not the purpose of the patches, which, when patches come as big packages, is not useful to developers.
Can anyone honestly say that GNOME is faster than Windows XP's desktop these days? Same for KDE and MacOS X
Honestly ? Of course ! Are you kidding or what ?
Actually, it is faster with way more functionality. Every time I forget the misery I had to put on on Windows, launching Windows XP reminds me of it. I just have to launch it and launch my Gnome session and it is obvious already.
For example, all my apps on Gnome are already launched, on their virtual desktop, with the last document loaded.
In Windows, I have to remember all my apps to launch them, then remember all the docs I was working on.
What is simple and straightforward in Gnome (basic desktop handling) is TEDIOUS in Windows XP.
I'm WAY more productive on Windows. I was using 3/4 of my time fixing problems in Windows XP !!!
Oh boy I still remember the last burns of WinXP, when my wife said "let's look at a movie tonight" at 20h, and at 24h I was finished fixing the damn thing (which worked the day before), and of course, wife angry, me too, and no movie (fortunately, since I got Geexbox instead, no more problem of this kind).
I need a huge number of third party apps (not integrated, not working well together) to do things I take for granted and are integrated in Gnome (IM, writing japanese and french mixed in same document or on the FS, having the directories I work with already opened in the state they were before quitting session, changing my background regularly, RSS feed, browser with tabs and session, looking good and readable on my 1600x1200 monitor, watching and navigating even broken videos, switching desktop user fast with hotkeys, no antivirus, no anti spyware, no defrag, virtual desktops that work, camera handling, no fear of everything crashing and rebooting, no fear of long big lock up which can last several minutes,
I don't know Mac OS X, but KDE is even faster than Gnome, mostly for the launch time of. As I rarely launch apps on these desktops (they are already up when I log in, which happens once every big desktop version release), it makes no real
OMG a blatantly false affirmation like that get modded +5 Informative ?!!!!
Of course most games are on consoles, PCs are far from having 99 % games, in number of titles or sells.
Recently, there is an assault of MS-shills mods and posters, it started with the assault of anti-Linux ads.
This story is a perfect example, a lot of FUD, pro-MS crap is modded "+5 sth" in the talkbacks. I've never seen that before on Slashdot.
"Reboot X" does not mean anything, you do not reboot X or any other app, you just restart it.
The nonsense of all this impress me. You are saying that someone would update his graphics driver while working on a graphics app ?
Then, if the user can disrupt his work by updating his driver, where is the problem in restarting X ?
We don't NEED anything that you say. What you propose is just a convenience, to follow fantasies of MS. We do not actually need this 'feature'.
Anyway, due to the fact that binary drivers talk directly to the hardware, and that XOrg maps the hardware memory, I think the "server migration" could be too much hassle for very small gain, if it is even possible.
Love it or hate it, Microsoft deserves at least a little credit for getting the boot process done relatively quickly. I can't wait to see a nice implementation of Redhat's early login efforts.
...
No, MS doesn't deserve any credit for that.
You talk like the fact that the boot speed is the most important thing. Of course it is not.
The most important thing in a boot process is a standard dependancy scheme. Windows has none that works, even in WinXP, and I think not even in Win2003, but not sure. We are in 2005 for christ sake, and MS is still unable to produce a boot process that works, and yes they try, it just still does not work right.
Linux distro do that AND can be fast too.
simpleinit-msb that I use do all of that fast since several years, and it just works. I could also move X start in an earlier runlevel (I did once), but it just has no sense other than prove that you can start a Linux GUI fast too