That's interesting... The numbers pretty much match other figures I've seen.
Perhaps proteus hosts some Mac dedicated sites, but I would have expected the Mac at 5%, so it's really not that unsurprising. It's too bad they don't break that out by Mac OS version, as I'd be curious to see how OS X is doing... reports I read say not very well.
The Linux number is still at around a.25%, which has been consistent since I first saw Linux mentioned in browser stats about 3 years ago so there hasn't been any growth there.
What I think is most interesting is Netscape 6 stats. Despite Netscape 4 still having a small loyal following, they have been completely unable to convince their fanbase to upgrade to 6. I've had some arguments with Netscape fans in the past, pleading with them to upgrade to 6 so they'd finally have CSS support. They all claim 6 is buggy and slow. I'm hoping the AOL commitment to using it will drive development faster.
It's interesting how you don't think the Samba developers ought to relicense their code, but yet you feel completely justified in demanding Microsoft relicense their code. Do you see the disparity there? Obviously Microsoft also has a healthy respect for their EULA and will not happily give them up as the same fear of Samba taking over their market is true as well.
Anyway, I just think it's interesting how your selfishness is a one way street, and yet you complain about Microsoft behaving similarly again in your second paragraph.
A large part of the concept behind the BSD especially in use with University created research is to help promote it as a standard reference implementation. Said implementation done using the GPL would be completely unusable. As far as Microsoft's contribution back... that's pretty obvious from reading various RFCs and the fact that their products are available on the market place.
Remember, not everybody is as selfish as yourself and doesn't expect something for nothing.
It sounds like Microsoft only has a problem with their IP being used in GPL licensed software.
Samba could be relicensed under the BSD, and there would be no issues. So you can't claim that the Samba developers have been harmed.
I also don't think you can claim that this is because GPL software offers a threat. Apache is not licensed under the GPL, and yet it is probably one of the few open source projects that has much marketshare compared to Microsoft products.
Seems to me like the issues here are a bit deeper, and I find it disappointing that nobody is addressing them.
My Windows XP box boot time from me pressing in the power button until I see the logon prompt is just under 20 seconds.
I rarely use the Hibernate feature since I leave my machine on all the time and only reboot for occasional OS patches.
Re:Poorly written summary of a poorly titled artic
on
No More Rebooting?
·
· Score: 1
Win98 is referred to as "Legacy Windows". The current version of Windows XP uses the NT kernel and doesn't exhibit the types of problems you have.
It might be helpful in the future if you are talking about problems in Win98 to use phrases like "I remember when...", or "Years ago..." to point out the fact that you were talking about the way things used to be, not the way things are.
It's simple... Take VS.Net and build a client application to utilize the google.com web service.
Now do the same with Java.
It only takes 10 minutes or so to build the entire client UI in VS.Net. How long will it take the Java developer? *That* is what Microsoft is selling...
Re:Poorly written summary of a poorly titled artic
on
No More Rebooting?
·
· Score: 2
Your first paragraph showed you at least read the article, the second paragraph is a nonsequitor. It's not clear to me why you think Windows would somehow be negatively impacted by this and no other OS would. Look at the number of times changes have had to be made to the Linux kernel in order to get it to boot on new hardware such as the Pentium 4.
Isn't it likely that if this technology came to pass, the people responsible for various OSen would test their OS in that environment, and make changes as appropriate to support it?
I would think the SQL would require a few joins against the EVIL_TABLE_IN_THE_FBI_DATABASE and the EVIL_TABLE_IN_THE_NSA_DATABASE to get all your pertinent information.
If you have a pending lawsuit over a trademark issue, and the company which is violating the trademark goes bankrupt... does the trial still continue forward?
Maybe the FSF will end up saving Microsoft some court costs.:)
The whole.Net framework completely overturns the way you developed applications for Windows. It's really quite incredible, just from a developer productivity standpoint.
IBM is leading the market, and has a substantial share for several years. Remember, IBM is the Dot in.Com.
http://serverwatch.internet.com/news/2002_03_11_ a. html
"IDC believes that the current competition for the number one spot in the Unix market will continue, and 2001 saw a positioning shift among the top players. Fourth quarter 2001 was the first time since 4Q98 that IBM took the top spot for worldwide Unix market share. Big Blue's 26.9 market share gave it a marginal edge over Sun Microsystems' 26.8 percent. Hewlett-Packard ended the quarter close behind with 25 percent market share."
The three major players in the Unix server market are IBM, Sun and HP, with SGI and Compaq(former DEC) and a few others having minor shares. But IBM and Sun have the two largest shares by far. If the two were to combine, this would unbalance the competitive landscape of that industry.
It would be like Coke and Pepsi merging against the tremendous competition of 7-Up and RC Cola. It just ain't gonna happen, the SEC or EU would block it. It's a lot easier to create a natural monopoly by simply selling a better product(ala Microsoft) than to create a monopoly by buying up all of your competitors. Sun should focus their efforts on that instead of wooing IBM.
Re:FUD through "positive assertions"
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 2
"See, you make the point for me: Microsoft is, effectively, already giving up on Windows and moving to.NET. "
I'm afraid you do not understand what.NET is, if you think this means giving up on Windows.
"Microsoft keeps changing directions radically every few years because they don't seem to be able to make good, long-term design decisions."
They are responding to consumer requests. They have to continually evolve and improve the product in order to make customers happy... happy customers buy product.
"UNIX, on the other hand, has evolved steadily and continuously over the last two decades. "
Unix hasn't evolved at all. The only meaningful change in the past 10 years has been the introduction of the web server and most recently J2EE development platform.
"UNIX was never "cool". "
Ahh, you are obviously very young and don't have much experience. Sounds to me like you are a college student parroting what you have heard and think you know it all.
That's too bad. I had hoped for a meaningful discussion.
Re:Silly people *tsk,tsk,tsk*
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 2
I'm sorry, but I think it's best if you leave emotion out of the discussion. I know that you would like to believe that Microsoft is evil and that's why nobody can compete. But the fact still remains that they have some 10,000 people committed to improving their OS fulltime, and that's a commitment of resources which is hard to compete with on volunteer time.
Re:Not dead, just unstable and insecure....
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 2
Unix had a lot of growing pains as well. If you look back at SunOS, Ultrix, SVR4 versions, Solaris, and OSF/1... they weren't particularly stable.
My memory of the early 1.x releases of OSF/1 are most fresh in my memory. Machines would spontaneously reboot, major processes would crash, corruption in the file system over extended periods of use, etc. It took several years for that to stabilize, and that was still 20 years after the initial versions of Unix were out there.
I also look back at some of the problems we used to suffer when TCP/IP was an add-on package for Unix distributions like SCO. God was that ever a mess.
Re:FUD through "positive assertions"
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 2
Hmm, aren't you making the same types of claims that you accuse the others of? Ohwell, allow me to follow the same path of FUD.
I think you could safely make a claim today that the Mainframe is dead. That doesn't mean it still isn't a vital part of the computing infrastructure, but there simply is no advancement in that realm. Not dead per se, but a deadend for your career.
Is Windows like this? I don't know, I just don't see it with all the excitement right now surrounding.Net development.
Is Unix like that? Probably moreso than Windows. I don't see the same level of excitement surrounding cool technology and Unix as I did 10 years ago. It certainly doesn't compare to what's happening right now with Windows.
Re:Silly people *tsk,tsk,tsk*
on
Unix Isn't Dead
·
· Score: 2
I think you make some good points, but you don't really lead towards the conclusion.
While there are profits to be had on the high end, there are not enough revenues to drive the R&D necessary to stay competitive in the market. So you're right, Microsoft by picking off the low and mid end and thanking Linux every day for helping with the same, hopes to drive Sun, etc. out of the race.
Eventually Sun will end up like SGI. A niche player. At which point they won't have the money to pay for the R&D to keep their business driving forward... and as such Microsoft/Intel will surpass them given time.
As far as Linux is concerned, it helps drive people to the x86 platform which is good for Intel R&D. Microsoft is clearly unconcerned with it at this point because the Open Source development methodology has proven itself incapable of scaling to handle large projects, so there is no real long term competition there. Certainly not if Microsoft continues to invest heavily in R&D which introduces technologies and such which make the creation of the infrastructure all the more complicated.
It's very much like any other industry. Automobiles today... Go try to build something as complex as a BMW 740i in your garage without substantial financial resources. It's that complexity and technological advancement which creates a barrier of entry into the marketplace.
Slashdot Mirror
That's interesting... The numbers pretty much match other figures I've seen.
.25%, which has been consistent since I first saw Linux mentioned in browser stats about 3 years ago so there hasn't been any growth there.
Perhaps proteus hosts some Mac dedicated sites, but I would have expected the Mac at 5%, so it's really not that unsurprising. It's too bad they don't break that out by Mac OS version, as I'd be curious to see how OS X is doing... reports I read say not very well.
The Linux number is still at around a
What I think is most interesting is Netscape 6 stats. Despite Netscape 4 still having a small loyal following, they have been completely unable to convince their fanbase to upgrade to 6. I've had some arguments with Netscape fans in the past, pleading with them to upgrade to 6 so they'd finally have CSS support. They all claim 6 is buggy and slow. I'm hoping the AOL commitment to using it will drive development faster.
It's interesting how you don't think the Samba developers ought to relicense their code, but yet you feel completely justified in demanding Microsoft relicense their code. Do you see the disparity there? Obviously Microsoft also has a healthy respect for their EULA and will not happily give them up as the same fear of Samba taking over their market is true as well.
Anyway, I just think it's interesting how your selfishness is a one way street, and yet you complain about Microsoft behaving similarly again in your second paragraph.
A large part of the concept behind the BSD especially in use with University created research is to help promote it as a standard reference implementation. Said implementation done using the GPL would be completely unusable. As far as Microsoft's contribution back... that's pretty obvious from reading various RFCs and the fact that their products are available on the market place.
Remember, not everybody is as selfish as yourself and doesn't expect something for nothing.
But I'm confused.
It sounds like Microsoft only has a problem with their IP being used in GPL licensed software.
Samba could be relicensed under the BSD, and there would be no issues. So you can't claim that the Samba developers have been harmed.
I also don't think you can claim that this is because GPL software offers a threat. Apache is not licensed under the GPL, and yet it is probably one of the few open source projects that has much marketshare compared to Microsoft products.
Seems to me like the issues here are a bit deeper, and I find it disappointing that nobody is addressing them.
Personally I think it's hypocritical to defend the provisions of the GPL and at the same time attack the provisions of the Microsoft license.
Didn't Linus say something like "He who writes the code get's to choose the license?"
How does PHP compare to ASP.NET?
As far as full documentation of the language and tutorials... that's what msdn.microsoft.com is all about.
Heh, because Google wrote all of the code for you. That's quite a bit more than just an API, wouldn't you say?
My Windows XP box boot time from me pressing in the power button until I see the logon prompt is just under 20 seconds.
I rarely use the Hibernate feature since I leave my machine on all the time and only reboot for occasional OS patches.
Win98 is referred to as "Legacy Windows". The current version of Windows XP uses the NT kernel and doesn't exhibit the types of problems you have.
It might be helpful in the future if you are talking about problems in Win98 to use phrases like "I remember when...", or "Years ago..." to point out the fact that you were talking about the way things used to be, not the way things are.
Why would Microsoft be pissed?
It's simple... Take VS.Net and build a client application to utilize the google.com web service.
Now do the same with Java.
It only takes 10 minutes or so to build the entire client UI in VS.Net. How long will it take the Java developer? *That* is what Microsoft is selling...
What patent fiasco?
Or is this more FUD like that ZDNet article?
Your first paragraph showed you at least read the article, the second paragraph is a nonsequitor. It's not clear to me why you think Windows would somehow be negatively impacted by this and no other OS would. Look at the number of times changes have had to be made to the Linux kernel in order to get it to boot on new hardware such as the Pentium 4.
Isn't it likely that if this technology came to pass, the people responsible for various OSen would test their OS in that environment, and make changes as appropriate to support it?
"And for god sakes, show them the difference between compiling code in windows vs unix and how much more control they have over the process."
:)
In other words, show them how it will take them 5 times longer to build an app.
"Show them how writing code yourself actually is a good idea!"
Only if you are a consultant because it drags the project out 5 times longer.
I would think the SQL would require a few joins against the EVIL_TABLE_IN_THE_FBI_DATABASE and the EVIL_TABLE_IN_THE_NSA_DATABASE to get all your pertinent information.
Which begs the question...
:)
If you have a pending lawsuit over a trademark issue, and the company which is violating the trademark goes bankrupt... does the trial still continue forward?
Maybe the FSF will end up saving Microsoft some court costs.
"The key is schools. Java is the it language now, and that matters more than people think."
That's why Pascal is so popular.
Oh, wait...
"Based on their poor analogy, logic, and reasoning skills I hope not much. Ignorance and sophistry should not be lucrative."
Well than, you shouldn't have anything to worry about then, should you?
But I'm curious, why are you so frightened?
VS.NET has been out for over a month now, and Microsoft has been doing demonstrations and handing out Beta copies for well over a year.
If you haven't seen it yet, whose fault is that?
"it is more likely than not that both Java and C# will coexist. "
.Net does.
.Net framework completely overturns the way you developed applications for Windows. It's really quite incredible, just from a developer productivity standpoint.
Agreed. Why can't we all just get along?
"but since C# doesn't drastically change the way application development is done - which is what Java did, in several ways"
C# doesn't drastically change things, but
The whole
Huh?
.Com.
_ a. html
IBM is leading the market, and has a substantial share for several years. Remember, IBM is the Dot in
http://serverwatch.internet.com/news/2002_03_11
"IDC believes that the current competition for the number one spot in the Unix market will continue, and 2001 saw a positioning shift among the top players. Fourth quarter 2001 was the first time since 4Q98 that IBM took the top spot for worldwide Unix market share. Big Blue's 26.9 market share gave it a marginal edge over Sun Microsystems' 26.8 percent. Hewlett-Packard ended the quarter close behind with 25 percent market share."
The three major players in the Unix server market are IBM, Sun and HP, with SGI and Compaq(former DEC) and a few others having minor shares. But IBM and Sun have the two largest shares by far. If the two were to combine, this would unbalance the competitive landscape of that industry.
It would be like Coke and Pepsi merging against the tremendous competition of 7-Up and RC Cola. It just ain't gonna happen, the SEC or EU would block it. It's a lot easier to create a natural monopoly by simply selling a better product(ala Microsoft) than to create a monopoly by buying up all of your competitors. Sun should focus their efforts on that instead of wooing IBM.
"See, you make the point for me: Microsoft is, effectively, already giving up on Windows and moving to .NET. "
.NET is, if you think this means giving up on Windows.
I'm afraid you do not understand what
"Microsoft keeps changing directions radically every few years because they don't seem to be able to make good, long-term design decisions."
They are responding to consumer requests. They have to continually evolve and improve the product in order to make customers happy... happy customers buy product.
"UNIX, on the other hand, has evolved steadily and continuously over the last two decades. "
Unix hasn't evolved at all. The only meaningful change in the past 10 years has been the introduction of the web server and most recently J2EE development platform.
"UNIX was never "cool". "
Ahh, you are obviously very young and don't have much experience. Sounds to me like you are a college student parroting what you have heard and think you know it all.
That's too bad. I had hoped for a meaningful discussion.
I'm sorry, but I think it's best if you leave emotion out of the discussion. I know that you would like to believe that Microsoft is evil and that's why nobody can compete. But the fact still remains that they have some 10,000 people committed to improving their OS fulltime, and that's a commitment of resources which is hard to compete with on volunteer time.
Unix had a lot of growing pains as well. If you look back at SunOS, Ultrix, SVR4 versions, Solaris, and OSF/1... they weren't particularly stable.
My memory of the early 1.x releases of OSF/1 are most fresh in my memory. Machines would spontaneously reboot, major processes would crash, corruption in the file system over extended periods of use, etc. It took several years for that to stabilize, and that was still 20 years after the initial versions of Unix were out there.
I also look back at some of the problems we used to suffer when TCP/IP was an add-on package for Unix distributions like SCO. God was that ever a mess.
Hmm, aren't you making the same types of claims that you accuse the others of? Ohwell, allow me to follow the same path of FUD.
.Net development.
I think you could safely make a claim today that the Mainframe is dead. That doesn't mean it still isn't a vital part of the computing infrastructure, but there simply is no advancement in that realm. Not dead per se, but a deadend for your career.
Is Windows like this? I don't know, I just don't see it with all the excitement right now surrounding
Is Unix like that? Probably moreso than Windows. I don't see the same level of excitement surrounding cool technology and Unix as I did 10 years ago. It certainly doesn't compare to what's happening right now with Windows.
I think you make some good points, but you don't really lead towards the conclusion.
While there are profits to be had on the high end, there are not enough revenues to drive the R&D necessary to stay competitive in the market. So you're right, Microsoft by picking off the low and mid end and thanking Linux every day for helping with the same, hopes to drive Sun, etc. out of the race.
Eventually Sun will end up like SGI. A niche player. At which point they won't have the money to pay for the R&D to keep their business driving forward... and as such Microsoft/Intel will surpass them given time.
As far as Linux is concerned, it helps drive people to the x86 platform which is good for Intel R&D. Microsoft is clearly unconcerned with it at this point because the Open Source development methodology has proven itself incapable of scaling to handle large projects, so there is no real long term competition there. Certainly not if Microsoft continues to invest heavily in R&D which introduces technologies and such which make the creation of the infrastructure all the more complicated.
It's very much like any other industry. Automobiles today... Go try to build something as complex as a BMW 740i in your garage without substantial financial resources. It's that complexity and technological advancement which creates a barrier of entry into the marketplace.
Interesting...