Linux is cutting deeply into Microsoft on the server side
Not really, Microsoft marketshare is still growing. In 2001 it grew by 3%.
The PC market continues to be soft, and MS Office is being replaced on the low-end models of nearly every major manufacturer with Corel's PerfectOffice.
Again, this isn't all that critical either.
Like you said, the problem is that in order for Microsoft to show rapid growth they need to be able to expand markets. That's difficult to do, Linux isn't cutting into Microsoft's server market, it's cutting into Microsoft's server growth potential markets by replacing Unix. If not for Linux, those Unix servers would be replaced by Win2k servers.
Similarly with the low priced machines. If not for Corel, chances are those machines would sell with no bundled software in order to keep prices down. It just cuts into the potential sales.
This isn't just a problem for Microsoft, it's a problem for many companies. One of the challenges the stock market gives is that there is an expectation for growth. Companies that hit a plataeu usually get hammered in the markets.
Why not just use the addusers.vbs script that comes with the Resource Kit?
This lack of knowledge about Windows really annoys me. Instead of criticizing products, why not use google.com to search for ways to solve your problem, or just ask someone else how you might do this.
mkdir thumbnail for %i in (*.jpg) do D:\imagemagick\convert -resize 128x128 %i thumbnail\%i
I used the path to the imagemagick conversion program because NT also has a convert command, and I don't wish to mistake them. You could also rename the imagemagick convert to imgconvert or something.
Now let's say you want to take 35 different bitmaps and for each one create 32 different rotational views. Now you could try to use Imagemagick, but your results will be unsatisfactory as it doesn't do rotations at other than right angles well.
So now you have something like Paintshop Pro, which is entirely GUI based. Your process is: 1. Load original bitmap 2. Rotate X degrees 3. Save bitmap
Now why on earth would you want to do this over 1,000 times? A better solution is to automate Paintshop Pro by sending keystroke events to it using a scripting tool like Winbatch. Unless of course the GUI tool already includes scripting capabilities(many if not most do).
Again, you could do the same with your image resize problem. This gives you a great deal of functionality in the event that Imagemagick doesn't produce very good results(which is unfortunately quite common).
WMI, only it's not a filesystem it's a relational database.
- a serial console capability
That's in.Net Server 2003. The purpose is really to support newer blade servers. But it requires hardware support. The reason Windows never supported this in the past is because the x86 design didn't. Try to get your POST info off the serial port with Linux on an x86 machine.
- runlevels
Hmm. Services start in order by dependency. So you just say FooService is dependent on RPC, and the OS handles the rest. That's been there for quite some time, if not from the start.
- and a package manager with dependency feature.
Windows Installer
It's not surprising to see similar solutions, because the problems are generally universal for any OS. The difference is in the way Microsoft has chosen to solve them, generally in a superior fashion to the Unix solutions.
For instance by making WMI a relational database, one can query it with SQL statements. The next step, they say, is to make the entire filesystem a relational database... That path was started when ADO was introduced and you could use it to query the filesystem.
But this is within the Windows environment, I want to know if this is available with Linux. I know that KDE and GNOME do support this type of functionality, but it's not a universal feature of the OS and as such automating one app is very different from another.
"Text files have always been easier to manipulate from third-party tools (like the *NIX commandline tools and scripts) than Microsoft's formats."
I'm not talking about text files. I want to pull in the data from Oracle, and then build a formatted table within the word processor. You know with headers, footers, titles, shading, bold, font changes, etc.
"They're still easier than Microsoft's way."
Not really. The way you appear to be suggesting is you create a document using HTML or something at a low level. To do so means you need to understand the inner workings. With the Microsoft way, you don't care... I want to change something to Bold, I just do something like
myRange.Font.Bold = 1
"Similarly, SVG has greater potential than Flash because dynamic content can be created from simple scripts (and commandline tools!) more easily, with general-purpose XML tools."
But again, to do so means understanding the basic file formats. That's not efficient.
""Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it--badly." -Henry Spencer"
Fortunately Microsoft understands Unix. They were the first to port it to the x86 platform back around 1980. As such they have taken some of the better ideas for Unix, but in Unix weak areas like process automation the design and implementation within NT is vastly superior.
If it wasn't a better way to do it, KDE and GNOME wouldn't be trying to mimmick it. This isn't new, the Amiga had ARexx to do very similar process automation.
"This is a good step, but what good does it do to have a top notch shell, when the vast majority of windows programs are gui based? "
Think outside the box...
In Windows we're not limited by piping text from one command to another. We have COM automation today which allows one to instantiate Microsoft Word as an object and issue commands to it. This new scripting/shell will apparently allow for similar automation using native.NET framework objects.
"Are they going to release command line versions of most of their administrative tools? "
command line version of administrative tools have been available since NT 3.x. For those that don't you can use WSH to automate the task.
"Any windows sysadmins out there feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but its generally not the lack of shell features that keeps me from using cmd.exe, but rather the number of programs that you can run with it."
Huh? Can you open up the word processor in Star Office and build a document based upon data you pulled from an Oracle query, complete with various layout features from a Unix shell script?
We've been able to do that from the Windows command line for several years now. I don't think you fully understand the scripting capabilities Windows offers.
"If the shell they create is complete enough, you may not even need stupid "remote control" apps, instead you could just SSH into the box and take care of things."
The existing WSH already allows for this.
However WSH uses VBScript. If this article is true, what Microsoft appears to be doing is building up a new scripting environment based upon.NET. It does appear to be taking a different direction so that rather than having a scripting host, the shell as a whole is the host.
It'll be interesting, mainly because it will provide much greater consistency which has been the big win from the.NET framework. But it doesn't appear to be providing much new in terms of functionality.
All that said, you seem pretty content with your rig, so I see no reason for you to switch at this point.
It's nice to think we all have your approval.
I think perhaps what turned me off most from the Open Source crowd is their arrogance and inability to understand customer needs. This is but one example.:(
The fact that Microsoft invested money in Sendo doesn't make this all clear cut. Especially given the reason why Microsoft invested money was nullified when Sendo dropped out of the market.
I guess I'm just wondering if Sendo intends on giving the money back? If not, could not Microsoft simply consider it payment for the disagreement?
"No, I'm not complaining about the creation of Windows 95. I'm objecting to Microsoft deliberately engineering arbitrary incompatibilities into a product. That is most definitely a question of ethics and morality. Are you afraid to answer the direct question that I posed before?"
Anyway, I think you need to go watch some Perry Mason and understand the meaning of a Leading Question and why they are frowned upon.
I did answer the question, but I didso by pointing out that your assumptions are flawed.
"Maybe that's just me, but I'd say risk management is keeping a balanced portfolio, or having a certain amount of your assets liquid. "
No, that's applying risk management practices to your portfolio. That would be an implementation of the theory.
"I don't see implementing an agressive compeditor's patent protected standard as of managed risk."
That's not. Risk management is identifying your risks as well as their probability, and then mitigating appropriately.
Let's put it this way. There is a possibility that Miguel will get hit by a bus and die. Now what's the probability of this occuring? It's not likely, but it might happen. As such it's important for your project to identify a backup person for Miguel.
Now there is also a possibility that Washington DC could be hit by an asteroid tomorrow, destabilizing the government and throwing the world into chaos. It's possible right? You can't deny that. But how probable is it? Pretty low, and the govt has risk mitigation in the event such a thing occured so we hope the world wouldn't die in chaos.
Hopefully you get the idea. I grow exceedingly tired of people running around like chicken little and claiming because a thing is possible, that it's gonna happen and if we don't react we're doomed.
"Gosh, the shared-source license the Microsoft's C# BSD source was released under even had an anti-GPL clause and was packed full of IP traps. How much more clearly can they say it?"
You know it's Microsoft's code, and from their point of view they are worried about theft. They wanted to show that it was possible, and provide a proof-of-concept to show how it might be done. Now you can use this, but they don't wish to see it used in a way that competes back against them.
The GPL zealots complain about the same thing all the time, it's why they claim they use the GPL... they don't want their code being used in a commercial project. So why should GNU have this freedom but Microsoft not?
Again, I really wish open source advocates would argue on a basis founded in reality instead of the chicken little possibilities. It'd make the debate more interesting and sound less fanatical.
"Yes true, but there's no evidence that they won't either."
There's no evidence that men from mars won't come storming through my front door and steal the Christmas goose.
Some day when you have a moment go to the dictionary and look up two words. The first is possible, the second is probable. In business you start projects all the time with "The probability of them suing us is slight", it's called risk management.
"While I know what you're saying, it's worth bearing in mind, that Wordperfect, Lotus etc complained at the time that MS apps were making API calls that were undocumented."
I've never seen any conclusive evidence to support that claim. Besides even that excuse does not explain the problems Wordperfect and Lotus had, as their programs leaked memory and were generally buggy. No amount of hidden APIs is going to fix bad coding practices.
"They were willing to try things like theft - remember (to cite one of many examples) doublespace in DOS 6.1 ? "
Theft? The Doublespace/Stacker examples is one solely of patent infringement.
"I am not deluded in thinking MS innovates or got into their current position exclusively through great code and brilliant but not illegal corporate means."
Ahh, I only speak truth. The delusion is on the part of the Microsoft detractors making excuses for their incompetencies.
Ahh, it sounds as though you are complaining about the creation of Windows 95.
Progress, my friend, is a fact of life especially in the computer industry.
I am reminded of my first experiences with Word processors back in the early 80's. I used WordStar at the time running on CP/M-80 2.2. Were you aware that Wordstar did not include a spell checker? Strange as that might sound, it's true... the spell checking functionality was part of a second program that you purchased created by another company.
Later on Wordstar and other word processors like Wordperfect included spell checking functionality in their applications.
Now let's ask another question. Since it's wrong to take a market away from a company, why is open source justified? Linux has nearly completely obliterated SCO Unix.
I think we know your answer for that one. You see, these questions are not one of ethics or morality and it is disengenuous of you to try to pose them as such.
Why do you think Java is all through out the University systems? Sun gave away class materials and set up Java Universities at various colleges to promote the language.
If you think it's less evil to use Java in a curriculuum you've got some serious morality problems.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is cutting deeply into Microsoft on the server side
Not really, Microsoft marketshare is still growing. In 2001 it grew by 3%.
The PC market continues to be soft, and MS Office is being replaced on the low-end models of nearly every major manufacturer with Corel's PerfectOffice.
Again, this isn't all that critical either.
Like you said, the problem is that in order for Microsoft to show rapid growth they need to be able to expand markets. That's difficult to do, Linux isn't cutting into Microsoft's server market, it's cutting into Microsoft's server growth potential markets by replacing Unix. If not for Linux, those Unix servers would be replaced by Win2k servers.
Similarly with the low priced machines. If not for Corel, chances are those machines would sell with no bundled software in order to keep prices down. It just cuts into the potential sales.
This isn't just a problem for Microsoft, it's a problem for many companies. One of the challenges the stock market gives is that there is an expectation for growth. Companies that hit a plataeu usually get hammered in the markets.
Why not just use the addusers.vbs script that comes with the Resource Kit?
This lack of knowledge about Windows really annoys me. Instead of criticizing products, why not use google.com to search for ways to solve your problem, or just ask someone else how you might do this.
You wrote your script wrong, it should be:
mkdir thumbnail
for %i in (*.jpg) do D:\imagemagick\convert -resize 128x128 %i thumbnail\%i
I used the path to the imagemagick conversion program because NT also has a convert command, and I don't wish to mistake them. You could also rename the imagemagick convert to imgconvert or something.
Now let's say you want to take 35 different bitmaps and for each one create 32 different rotational views. Now you could try to use Imagemagick, but your results will be unsatisfactory as it doesn't do rotations at other than right angles well.
So now you have something like Paintshop Pro, which is entirely GUI based. Your process is:
1. Load original bitmap
2. Rotate X degrees
3. Save bitmap
Now why on earth would you want to do this over 1,000 times? A better solution is to automate Paintshop Pro by sending keystroke events to it using a scripting tool like Winbatch. Unless of course the GUI tool already includes scripting capabilities(many if not most do).
Again, you could do the same with your image resize problem. This gives you a great deal of functionality in the event that Imagemagick doesn't produce very good results(which is unfortunately quite common).
- a /proc filesystem
.Net Server 2003. The purpose is really to support newer blade servers. But it requires hardware support. The reason Windows never supported this in the past is because the x86 design didn't. Try to get your POST info off the serial port with Linux on an x86 machine.
WMI, only it's not a filesystem it's a relational database.
- a serial console capability
That's in
- runlevels
Hmm. Services start in order by dependency. So you just say FooService is dependent on RPC, and the OS handles the rest. That's been there for quite some time, if not from the start.
- and a package manager with dependency feature.
Windows Installer
It's not surprising to see similar solutions, because the problems are generally universal for any OS. The difference is in the way Microsoft has chosen to solve them, generally in a superior fashion to the Unix solutions.
For instance by making WMI a relational database, one can query it with SQL statements. The next step, they say, is to make the entire filesystem a relational database... That path was started when ADO was introduced and you could use it to query the filesystem.
"Yes"
a n/tutorial/offi ce_automation.html
Ok, how? StarOffice supports automation...
http://udk.openoffice.org/common/m
But this is within the Windows environment, I want to know if this is available with Linux. I know that KDE and GNOME do support this type of functionality, but it's not a universal feature of the OS and as such automating one app is very different from another.
"Text files have always been easier to manipulate from third-party tools (like the *NIX commandline tools and scripts) than Microsoft's formats."
I'm not talking about text files. I want to pull in the data from Oracle, and then build a formatted table within the word processor. You know with headers, footers, titles, shading, bold, font changes, etc.
"They're still easier than Microsoft's way."
Not really. The way you appear to be suggesting is you create a document using HTML or something at a low level. To do so means you need to understand the inner workings. With the Microsoft way, you don't care... I want to change something to Bold, I just do something like
myRange.Font.Bold = 1
"Similarly, SVG has greater potential than Flash because dynamic content can be created from simple scripts (and commandline tools!) more easily, with general-purpose XML tools."
But again, to do so means understanding the basic file formats. That's not efficient.
""Those who do not understand Unix are doomed to reinvent it--badly." -Henry Spencer"
Fortunately Microsoft understands Unix. They were the first to port it to the x86 platform back around 1980. As such they have taken some of the better ideas for Unix, but in Unix weak areas like process automation the design and implementation within NT is vastly superior.
If it wasn't a better way to do it, KDE and GNOME wouldn't be trying to mimmick it. This isn't new, the Amiga had ARexx to do very similar process automation.
"(vi) GNOME programs are scriptable in any language with CORBA bindings."
GNOME imitates the way Windows works today. Where do you think Miguel get's his ideas from?
"This is a good step, but what good does it do to have a top notch shell, when the vast majority of windows programs are gui based? "
.NET framework objects.
Think outside the box...
In Windows we're not limited by piping text from one command to another. We have COM automation today which allows one to instantiate Microsoft Word as an object and issue commands to it. This new scripting/shell will apparently allow for similar automation using native
"Are they going to release command line versions of most of their administrative tools? "
command line version of administrative tools have been available since NT 3.x. For those that don't you can use WSH to automate the task.
"Any windows sysadmins out there feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but its generally not the lack of shell features that keeps me from using cmd.exe, but rather the number of programs that you can run with it."
Huh? Can you open up the word processor in Star Office and build a document based upon data you pulled from an Oracle query, complete with various layout features from a Unix shell script?
We've been able to do that from the Windows command line for several years now. I don't think you fully understand the scripting capabilities Windows offers.
"If the shell they create is complete enough, you may not even need stupid "remote control" apps, instead you could just SSH into the box and take care of things."
.NET. It does appear to be taking a different direction so that rather than having a scripting host, the shell as a whole is the host.
.NET framework. But it doesn't appear to be providing much new in terms of functionality.
The existing WSH already allows for this.
However WSH uses VBScript. If this article is true, what Microsoft appears to be doing is building up a new scripting environment based upon
It'll be interesting, mainly because it will provide much greater consistency which has been the big win from the
Before the advent of the Federal Reserve, eventual move to a baseless currency and the adoption of a debt-based economy, things were pretty good.
Well yeah, sure, if you were rich.
But we wouldn't have the middle class we have today.
All that said, you seem pretty content with your rig, so I see no reason for you to switch at this point.
:(
It's nice to think we all have your approval.
I think perhaps what turned me off most from the Open Source crowd is their arrogance and inability to understand customer needs. This is but one example.
"First off, GNU, code, meaning GPL, CAN be used in a commercial project."
You mean Used as in enduser, not developer.
I just thought I'd clear that up for you, given as how you've decided to take a tactic of distortion of language to make a point.
The fact that Microsoft invested money in Sendo doesn't make this all clear cut. Especially given the reason why Microsoft invested money was nullified when Sendo dropped out of the market.
I guess I'm just wondering if Sendo intends on giving the money back? If not, could not Microsoft simply consider it payment for the disagreement?
Obviously you've missed all the discussions on slashdot about Napster, open source, piracy, etc.
He was clearly being sarcastic.
Watch the movie "12 Angry Men" starring Henry Fonda...
It's about a jury that goes through the exact same thing. It's kind of shocking how it concludes and really makes you think.
"No, I'm not complaining about the creation of Windows 95. I'm objecting to Microsoft deliberately engineering arbitrary incompatibilities into a product. That is most definitely a question of ethics and morality. Are you afraid to answer the direct question that I posed before?"
Anyway, I think you need to go watch some Perry Mason and understand the meaning of a Leading Question and why they are frowned upon.
I did answer the question, but I didso by pointing out that your assumptions are flawed.
Wow, I must have hit close to the truth again and struck a nerve. I see someone wasted their moderator points on my last three posts.
It would have been more entertaining if they'd simply responded with why they thought I was wrong.
"Maybe that's just me, but I'd say risk management is keeping a balanced portfolio, or having a certain amount of your assets liquid. "
No, that's applying risk management practices to your portfolio. That would be an implementation of the theory.
"I don't see implementing an agressive compeditor's patent protected standard as of managed risk."
That's not. Risk management is identifying your risks as well as their probability, and then mitigating appropriately.
Let's put it this way. There is a possibility that Miguel will get hit by a bus and die. Now what's the probability of this occuring? It's not likely, but it might happen. As such it's important for your project to identify a backup person for Miguel.
Now there is also a possibility that Washington DC could be hit by an asteroid tomorrow, destabilizing the government and throwing the world into chaos. It's possible right? You can't deny that. But how probable is it? Pretty low, and the govt has risk mitigation in the event such a thing occured so we hope the world wouldn't die in chaos.
Hopefully you get the idea. I grow exceedingly tired of people running around like chicken little and claiming because a thing is possible, that it's gonna happen and if we don't react we're doomed.
"Gosh, the shared-source license the Microsoft's C# BSD source was released under even had an anti-GPL clause and was packed full of IP traps. How much more clearly can they say it?"
You know it's Microsoft's code, and from their point of view they are worried about theft. They wanted to show that it was possible, and provide a proof-of-concept to show how it might be done. Now you can use this, but they don't wish to see it used in a way that competes back against them.
The GPL zealots complain about the same thing all the time, it's why they claim they use the GPL... they don't want their code being used in a commercial project. So why should GNU have this freedom but Microsoft not?
Again, I really wish open source advocates would argue on a basis founded in reality instead of the chicken little possibilities. It'd make the debate more interesting and sound less fanatical.
"Yes true, but there's no evidence that they won't either."
There's no evidence that men from mars won't come storming through my front door and steal the Christmas goose.
Some day when you have a moment go to the dictionary and look up two words. The first is possible, the second is probable. In business you start projects all the time with "The probability of them suing us is slight", it's called risk management.
"That's a fairly substantial difference. "
It'd only be a substantial difference if it was true.
The fact that you have to make stuff up so that you can justify your hatred of Microsoft is the real story here.
I could sleep off Christmas dinner, or relax in my chair reading slashdot.
Sleeping would have been more intellectually stimulating than reading this nonsense. I'll remember that next year.
"While I know what you're saying, it's worth bearing in mind, that Wordperfect, Lotus etc complained at the time that MS apps were making API calls that were undocumented."
I've never seen any conclusive evidence to support that claim. Besides even that excuse does not explain the problems Wordperfect and Lotus had, as their programs leaked memory and were generally buggy. No amount of hidden APIs is going to fix bad coding practices.
"They were willing to try things like theft - remember (to cite one of many examples) doublespace in DOS 6.1 ? "
Theft? The Doublespace/Stacker examples is one solely of patent infringement.
"I am not deluded in thinking MS innovates or got into their current position exclusively through great code and brilliant but not illegal corporate means."
Ahh, I only speak truth. The delusion is on the part of the Microsoft detractors making excuses for their incompetencies.
Ahh, it sounds as though you are complaining about the creation of Windows 95.
Progress, my friend, is a fact of life especially in the computer industry.
I am reminded of my first experiences with Word processors back in the early 80's. I used WordStar at the time running on CP/M-80 2.2. Were you aware that Wordstar did not include a spell checker? Strange as that might sound, it's true... the spell checking functionality was part of a second program that you purchased created by another company.
Later on Wordstar and other word processors like Wordperfect included spell checking functionality in their applications.
Now let's ask another question. Since it's wrong to take a market away from a company, why is open source justified? Linux has nearly completely obliterated SCO Unix.
I think we know your answer for that one. You see, these questions are not one of ethics or morality and it is disengenuous of you to try to pose them as such.
So you support the injunction?
I really could care less. The injunction won't help Sun compete because it's not their problem.
Why do you think Java is all through out the University systems? Sun gave away class materials and set up Java Universities at various colleges to promote the language.
If you think it's less evil to use Java in a curriculuum you've got some serious morality problems.
"MY highly priced college tuition to support a convicted felon."
Convicted felon?
Good thing you aren't going for a law degree... You can't be convicted of a felony under civil law.