Self regulation does work, unless you as an individual do not let it work for you.
There are so many companies out there offering the same exact service as hotmail.com that there is nothing preventing you from switching. Hell, I even got a ad for a free email account from American Express.
This is what is so utterly stupid about some of these internet evaluations and mergers. For example geocities. What is it about geocities that makes them worth $5 trillion? Nothing, the technology and infrastructure can be put together for a few million in under a year.
And has been shown over and over again, people do suddenly switch from using one web site to another, from one fad to another.
The only thing keeping people at hotmail is their own stupidity. It has nothing to do with Microsoft being huge.
Microsoft is not worried, because this isn't going to cut into their sales much. Even at $500/user, MSOffice provides a more featureful set of functionality that the end users desire. The price of an Office license isn't very much by comparison.
And I see few intelligent companies who are going to evaluate these two products and go "Ok, sure StarOffice is slow and lacks features... BUT It's free!"
However the people who are going to be hurt by this are Corel and Lotus. Especially Corel, as the people using those products are doing so more because of the price point than because of the functionality offered.
Ohwell. Maybe some day Scott "Captain Ahab" McNealy will get his white whale. But it seems in the meantime he's intent on killing everybody who is trying to help his cause.
What is it with slashdot that attracts moron posters?
I've seen a few intelligent comments here, along with a whole slew of "Help me! Help me! Microsoft is out to get me, those evil dirty bastards!"
Sheesh. Assign your root DNS to your Unix machines, and delegate the Win2K DDNS to a subdomain. It's that simple...
They can coexist. How the hell do you think the internet works except for delegation of DNS duties to thousands of different machines and DNS implementations?
The Microsoft DNS implementation is compliant with BIND 8. It may or not allow dynamically allocated Unix machines, but it most certainly responds to DNS lookups from Unix machines, and it most certainly will use a Unix machine as an authorative DNS for a different domain. I'll bet it even implements some level of security to prevent a machine from overwriting the DNS record for a server... in fact I'm going to go experiment with this right now.
Sheesh, what a bunch of maroons. This is a non issue, the article was FUD, get over it.
I think you are on the right idea, but might be missing the target.
Yes a corporate desktop has dropped from around $3000-5000 to under $1500.
This had led partly to the failure of Java.
But on top of that, the problem with Java and the thin-client idea is that it relies on fat network pipes. While the costs of more powerful network hardware(gigabit ethernet, etc.) has come down... The main chunk of cost of deploying a better network primarily lies in rewiring the building. Replacing all your Cat-3 with Cat-5, bringing in fibre-optic cable, etc.
And that cost hasn't gone down. The cable costs are about the same, and the labor prices have gone up.
When you start deploying more and more computers in the organization, it doesn't make sense to place everything on your servers and then beef up your infrastructure. Not when computers are so damn cheap, and you can push and store the binaries at the client level.
ENIAC wasn't the First computer. There were mechanical computers years before this, such as Hollerith's. Mechanical calculators had been around for years... they were used in the 1890 census and was the foundation of a company called International Business Machines.(you may have heard of them?) ENIAC wasn't even the first electronic digital computer. That honor belongs to Atanasoff/Berry who built the ABC at Iowa State University. This claim was proven in court and unfortunately released the same day watergate broke into the news. What ENIAC was, was the first electronic digital computer which was useable for doing real work. The ABC was nothing more than a research project to see if it could be done. Important in history, but not necessarily the First.
Oh yeah, you're right. Microsoft has not learned anything about QC. That's why Ed Muth pointed out the efforts in QC on SP4 and SP5, as well as the efforts they are making on Windows 2000
"Microsoft realized that the released of Windows 95 and NT 4 were premature, and thus see the need to improved quality control. This is the reason for the delays of Windows 2000. Linux users are scared shitness that Microsoft is maturing as an industry leader."
There will be an RC3 shipped to Microsoft's primary customers(Compaq et al) and if everything is good to go on that, it is going to be declared Golden and ship to production.
Otherwise, they have a RC4, and so on.
The last I've heard... ship date may be late October.
I just keep thinking back to when Windows 95 was released and all the polls saying "Oh we're not going to upgrade, we're waiting for NT4"
And then when NT4 was released and all the polls saying "Oh we're not going ot upgrade, we're waiting for NT 5"
And how OS/2 did so well in the meantime waiting for Win95/NT and then how it died out suddenly after NT was released, and...
Don't pay too much attention to these polls, they're pretty meaningless. Right now everybody is saying "We're going to wait." But the day Windows 2000 is released things change... RAPIDLY!
A rollout to a new OS takes about a year for planning and final deployment, so no you aren't going to see many customers upgrading right away. But by 2001 a good chunk of the market will be Win2K with everybody else making plans.
The 1994 lawsuit against Packard Bell brought to light what most of us who had been doing computer support had known for a long time...
Packard Bell used crappy components in their computers.
The lawsuit brought this out in public, made the public aware of how crappy Packard Bell was... and as an end result I no longer immediately respond to every problem computer question with "You bought a Packard Bell didn't you?"
Unfortunately people don't learn from others mistakes, and we now have eMachines and the like. Ohwell haven't actually seen one yet, maybe they're not as bad as the previous sub-$1000 computers from CTX, Acer, Packard Bell etc.
I'm a consultant, which is different than a contractor. But frankly I am more afraid of having to support Linux because I already have more than enough work deploying solutions. I don't want to have to waste my time handholding a Linux box.
Linux's TCO is much higher than NT. I don't quite understand why people keep insisting otherwise.
Point 1. Different situation. Win98 only had great benefits if you had new hardware because of support for USB, etc. Thus not to many people upgraded existing Win95 computers with Win98. Compare this to the upgrade from Win3.1 to Win95. Win2000 is a similar leap.
Point 2. I have seen no decline in number of existing servers. I think your show your lack of understanding by pointing to netcraft. The majority of servers in this world do not exist as web servers.
Point 3. Are you saying that this is a strength of Linux? That's almost laughable as support for legacy software has never been a design criteria for Linux.
Point 4. Actually W2K is exceeding the hype. I know up until I saw Beta 3 I was pretty much of the opinion it'd be more of the same. Same with the media, but once betas began to be released the reviews have all been "Wow!".
Point 5. Win2K will likely start off with slow sales. But I don't see how you expect to leverage this into a strength for Linux.
Frankly given the lack of testing regarding Year 2000 issues which has been performed with Linux and other Open Source software I wouldn't be surprised that there won't be a huge Linux failure on 1/1/2000.
Oh, and as to your question... What's the safe bet for a platform that will thrive... Windows 2000 is your answer.
Ahh, I wish I hadn't made a student comment earlier, I could have then use my moderator points to bump this AC up to being Insightful.
It is unfortunately in a way that you speak the truth. The majority of Linux advocates I see are either still in college and have no comprehension of the way IS works, or work for really small companies and have unfortunately not experienced intelligent IS decisions being made.
I was in college once as well, and also worked for a small company. So cheer up guys, there is hope in this world!
Well that is unless your only hope is to see a 100% Linux world, in which case better get that Prozac.:(
"c) It is sort of like the old saying, 'it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.' I have seen how one Linux geek can convert a large number of MS people in the dorms. I have yet to see the opposite happen. "
Well I was a college student once myself so feel qualified to say this...:)
The reason is, because college students don't have real work to get done, and as such Linux is cool.
When I was in college it was the Amiga. After showing my Amiga 500 to various people they all thought it was cool and we had about 5 people on the floor who purchased them.
That doesn't mean the Amiga was ever practical for doing real work. I had to sell it when I graduated.;(
Point #1. - I'm not sure how important that is. If a Linux box is brought in past the so called dim-witted managers, it's likely not doing production work.
Point #2. - Uhh, no. Personally I have seen no proof indicating Linux to be more stable than NT, it's definately not on par with Solaris, HPUX, SCO, Digital Unix, etc.
Point #3. - Windows 98 was a "ho hum" event to nearly everybody. It was nothing new, just Win95 with upgraded hardware support. Windows 95 and NT was where it was at in '95/96, and at that time OS/2 was the boy wonder of the Media.
When Win95 came out, the OS/2 hype began to fade. When NT 4.0 came out OS/2 died a deserving death...
Frankly I think Linux is in the same position right now as OS/2 was in '94. The media likes to report about "new" things, and there is not much new in the Windows world.
Having worked with the Windows 2000 beta, when it is shipped the storm of publicity will be huge. Microsoft is making this off as the greatest OS every written for the PC, and I'd have to agree to a great extent. Even Solaris x86 doesn't have the features Win2K has.
Ohwell... I don't know how important Gartner group is, they jumped on the network computer a few years back as well.
Not many comments here, I guess people are more interested in bashing Microsoft and MP3 pirating.:)
Anyway, appreciated the book review. Since this is the type of stuff I work with and I have few books on the subject I placed an order with Amazon and should have it tomorrow. Also ordered another related book which will see if it's any good.
Of course since I get reimbursed by the company there isn't much risk in buying such books.:)
EMC makes a solution for what you're trying to do called the Celerra Media Server.
http://www.emc.com
Great company, we're using them for backend storage for our NT file servers, as well as our HP Oracle servers. Makes it much easier to manage your file storage, very fast, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
This story lacks much merit.
Self regulation does work, unless you as an individual do not let it work for you.
There are so many companies out there offering the same exact service as hotmail.com that there is nothing preventing you from switching. Hell, I even got a ad for a free email account from American Express.
This is what is so utterly stupid about some of these internet evaluations and mergers. For example geocities. What is it about geocities that makes them worth $5 trillion? Nothing, the technology and infrastructure can be put together for a few million in under a year.
And has been shown over and over again, people do suddenly switch from using one web site to another, from one fad to another.
The only thing keeping people at hotmail is their own stupidity. It has nothing to do with Microsoft being huge.
I especially love the MS-DOS listings of the CD contents....
:)
That says so much about his Linux abilities.
The Linux hurd yells and screams and kicks because someone mentioned that they might want to help out on their own terms.
Sheesh
Microsoft is not worried, because this isn't going to cut into their sales much. Even at $500/user, MSOffice provides a more featureful set of functionality that the end users desire. The price of an Office license isn't very much by comparison.
And I see few intelligent companies who are going to evaluate these two products and go "Ok, sure StarOffice is slow and lacks features... BUT It's free!"
However the people who are going to be hurt by this are Corel and Lotus. Especially Corel, as the people using those products are doing so more because of the price point than because of the functionality offered.
Ohwell. Maybe some day Scott "Captain Ahab" McNealy will get his white whale. But it seems in the meantime he's intent on killing everybody who is trying to help his cause.
The Amiga is dead, and has been dead since about 1993.
Any semblance between this new machine and the Amiga is in name only.
It's time to move on...
What is it with slashdot that attracts moron posters?
I've seen a few intelligent comments here, along with a whole slew of "Help me! Help me! Microsoft is out to get me, those evil dirty bastards!"
Sheesh. Assign your root DNS to your Unix machines, and delegate the Win2K DDNS to a subdomain. It's that simple...
They can coexist. How the hell do you think the internet works except for delegation of DNS duties to thousands of different machines and DNS implementations?
The Microsoft DNS implementation is compliant with BIND 8. It may or not allow dynamically allocated Unix machines, but it most certainly responds to DNS lookups from Unix machines, and it most certainly will use a Unix machine as an authorative DNS for a different domain. I'll bet it even implements some level of security to prevent a machine from overwriting the DNS record for a server... in fact I'm going to go experiment with this right now.
Sheesh, what a bunch of maroons. This is a non issue, the article was FUD, get over it.
I think you are on the right idea, but might be missing the target.
Yes a corporate desktop has dropped from around $3000-5000 to under $1500.
This had led partly to the failure of Java.
But on top of that, the problem with Java and the thin-client idea is that it relies on fat network pipes. While the costs of more powerful network hardware(gigabit ethernet, etc.) has come down... The main chunk of cost of deploying a better network primarily lies in rewiring the building. Replacing all your Cat-3 with Cat-5, bringing in fibre-optic cable, etc.
And that cost hasn't gone down. The cable costs are about the same, and the labor prices have gone up.
When you start deploying more and more computers in the organization, it doesn't make sense to place everything on your servers and then beef up your infrastructure. Not when computers are so damn cheap, and you can push and store the binaries at the client level.
ENIAC wasn't the First computer. There were mechanical computers years before this, such as Hollerith's. Mechanical calculators had been around for years... they were used in the 1890 census and was the foundation of a company called International Business Machines.(you may have heard of them?) ENIAC wasn't even the first electronic digital computer. That honor belongs to Atanasoff/Berry who built the ABC at Iowa State University. This claim was proven in court and unfortunately released the same day watergate broke into the news. What ENIAC was, was the first electronic digital computer which was useable for doing real work. The ABC was nothing more than a research project to see if it could be done. Important in history, but not necessarily the First.
What are you doing wrong that you have to reboot every 10 minutes and reinstall every 4 or 5 months?
My NT4 install at work hasn't been rebuilt in 2 years, and my uptime was 40 days before I accidentally kicked the power cable out the back.
Oh yeah, you're right. Microsoft has not learned anything about QC. That's why Ed Muth pointed out the efforts in QC on SP4 and SP5, as well as the efforts they are making on Windows 2000
Hmm...
Of course not. Like most Linux zealots he made it up and is passing it around as fact in order to discredit Microsoft.
Oh, BTW the answer is '3rd quarter 1999'
"Microsoft realized that the released of Windows 95 and NT 4 were premature, and thus see the need to improved quality control. This is the reason for the delays of Windows 2000. Linux users are scared shitness that Microsoft is maturing as an industry leader."
There is no such final ship date.
RC2 is to be released here the end of August.
There will be an RC3 shipped to Microsoft's primary customers(Compaq et al) and if everything is good to go on that, it is going to be declared Golden and ship to production.
Otherwise, they have a RC4, and so on.
The last I've heard... ship date may be late October.
I just keep thinking back to when Windows 95 was released and all the polls saying "Oh we're not going to upgrade, we're waiting for NT4"
And then when NT4 was released and all the polls saying "Oh we're not going ot upgrade, we're waiting for NT 5"
And how OS/2 did so well in the meantime waiting for Win95/NT and then how it died out suddenly after NT was released, and...
Don't pay too much attention to these polls, they're pretty meaningless. Right now everybody is saying "We're going to wait." But the day Windows 2000 is released things change... RAPIDLY!
A rollout to a new OS takes about a year for planning and final deployment, so no you aren't going to see many customers upgrading right away. But by 2001 a good chunk of the market will be Win2K with everybody else making plans.
The name of the individual who supposedly sent this email was "Phil Bucking"
Switch the syllables around and you get:
"Bill Phucking"
Read that backwards...
And now you know the rest of the story...
The 1994 lawsuit against Packard Bell brought to light what most of us who had been doing computer support had known for a long time...
Packard Bell used crappy components in their computers.
The lawsuit brought this out in public, made the public aware of how crappy Packard Bell was... and as an end result I no longer immediately respond to every problem computer question with "You bought a Packard Bell didn't you?"
Unfortunately people don't learn from others mistakes, and we now have eMachines and the like. Ohwell haven't actually seen one yet, maybe they're not as bad as the previous sub-$1000 computers from CTX, Acer, Packard Bell etc.
I'm a consultant, which is different than a contractor. But frankly I am more afraid of having to support Linux because I already have more than enough work deploying solutions. I don't want to have to waste my time handholding a Linux box.
Linux's TCO is much higher than NT. I don't quite understand why people keep insisting otherwise.
Point 1. Different situation. Win98 only had great benefits if you had new hardware because of support for USB, etc. Thus not to many people upgraded existing Win95 computers with Win98.
Compare this to the upgrade from Win3.1 to Win95. Win2000 is a similar leap.
Point 2. I have seen no decline in number of existing servers. I think your show your lack of understanding by pointing to netcraft. The majority of servers in this world do not exist as web servers.
Point 3. Are you saying that this is a strength of Linux? That's almost laughable as support for legacy software has never been a design criteria for Linux.
Point 4. Actually W2K is exceeding the hype. I know up until I saw Beta 3 I was pretty much of the opinion it'd be more of the same. Same with the media, but once betas began to be released the reviews have all been "Wow!".
Point 5. Win2K will likely start off with slow sales. But I don't see how you expect to leverage this into a strength for Linux.
Frankly given the lack of testing regarding Year 2000 issues which has been performed with Linux and other Open Source software I wouldn't be surprised that there won't be a huge Linux failure on 1/1/2000.
Oh, and as to your question... What's the safe bet for a platform that will thrive... Windows 2000 is your answer.
Ahh, I wish I hadn't made a student comment earlier, I could have then use my moderator points to bump this AC up to being Insightful.
:(
It is unfortunately in a way that you speak the truth. The majority of Linux advocates I see are either still in college and have no comprehension of the way IS works, or work for really small companies and have unfortunately not experienced intelligent IS decisions being made.
I was in college once as well, and also worked for a small company. So cheer up guys, there is hope in this world!
Well that is unless your only hope is to see a 100% Linux world, in which case better get that Prozac.
"c) It is sort of like the old saying, 'it only takes one bad apple to spoil the bunch.' I have seen how one Linux geek can convert a large number of MS people in the dorms. I have yet to see the opposite happen. "
:)
;(
Well I was a college student once myself so feel qualified to say this...
The reason is, because college students don't have real work to get done, and as such Linux is cool.
When I was in college it was the Amiga. After showing my Amiga 500 to various people they all thought it was cool and we had about 5 people on the floor who purchased them.
That doesn't mean the Amiga was ever practical for doing real work. I had to sell it when I graduated.
Point #1.
- I'm not sure how important that is. If a Linux box is brought in past the so called dim-witted managers, it's likely not doing production work.
Point #2.
- Uhh, no. Personally I have seen no proof indicating Linux to be more stable than NT, it's definately not on par with Solaris, HPUX, SCO, Digital Unix, etc.
Point #3.
- Windows 98 was a "ho hum" event to nearly everybody. It was nothing new, just Win95 with upgraded hardware support. Windows 95 and NT was where it was at in '95/96, and at that time OS/2 was the boy wonder of the Media.
When Win95 came out, the OS/2 hype began to fade. When NT 4.0 came out OS/2 died a deserving death...
Frankly I think Linux is in the same position right now as OS/2 was in '94. The media likes to report about "new" things, and there is not much new in the Windows world.
Having worked with the Windows 2000 beta, when it is shipped the storm of publicity will be huge. Microsoft is making this off as the greatest OS every written for the PC, and I'd have to agree to a great extent. Even Solaris x86 doesn't have the features Win2K has.
Ohwell... I don't know how important Gartner group is, they jumped on the network computer a few years back as well.
software should not crash just because the inputs are malformed.
And from the menu bar... select File->Save As
Choose the 'text format'
There ya go, now your data is stored in ASCII format for you to view with the tool of your choice.
Some people are just amazing... I tell ya, sheesh.
Not many comments here, I guess people are more interested in bashing Microsoft and MP3 pirating. :)
:)
Anyway, appreciated the book review. Since this is the type of stuff I work with and I have few books on the subject I placed an order with Amazon and should have it tomorrow. Also ordered another related book which will see if it's any good.
Of course since I get reimbursed by the company there isn't much risk in buying such books.
EMC makes a solution for what you're trying to do called the Celerra Media Server.
http://www.emc.com
Great company, we're using them for backend storage for our NT file servers, as well as our HP Oracle servers. Makes it much easier to manage your file storage, very fast, etc.