Lets be honest, I hope there are problems as it'll make things more interesting around here. But, I think there isn't much chance of that, as anyone clever enough to be using time_t to store stuff, isn't then going to whack it into a 9 character long string..... One hopes.
... there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users
Or perhaps Usenet postings are a lame way of calculating usgae. Unlike Linux, where many Unix newbies cut their teeth, and consequently post slews of Linux related Usenet questions, most NetBSD and OpenBSD users *know* what thy're doing. This doesn't mean that Linux is a less admirable operating system, just that there's more newbies out there using Linux.
You have been trolled more than you think. What our friend here is doing is using Usenet posts to work out the ratios between the BSDs, thus there are 5 times more Open posts than Net, and twice as many Net as BSDi, and that these three together are 20% of the market with Free making up the rest.
What you have ignored is the line
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD
which is undeniably bollocks. If you were to check, you would see that in fact
That is the beauty of this troll. Recalculate (and where you see those numbers multiplied by 4, use 5 to represent the 20% other + 80% freebsd), and you get a figure of between 1 and 2.5 million for all *BSD, which is far more credible.
I tried compiling up the newest drivers, but I was unable to get it mutliplexing - don't know if I missed a switch somewhere though. Symptoms were while playing a Real stream, loading xmms and pressing play - the latter froze until Real was stopped, at which point it came back to life. Am I missing something?
This maybe because of my crappy Intellistaion onboard sound (i8x0 with ac97 codec)
The Windows NT Workstation 4.0 End User License Agreement (EULA) contains the
following provision: "You may install the software product on a single computer for use as
interactive workstation software, but not as server software. However, you may permit a
maximum of ten (10) computers to connect to the Workstation Computer to access and
use services of the software product, such as file and print and peer Web services."
Yes it's a license restriction rather than limitation of the OS, and no, it doesn't mention any 3rd party server*, but if you have more than 10 concurrent connections to your machine then you are in violation of your license.
The bottom line is that you MUST NOT do it, although of course many people don't even bother paying Microsoft for their copy of windows. With Linux you don't have this problem.
* This is Microsoft, would you expect anything else?, but remember the fuss they made when Netscape recommended using workstation for there servers, back in 1995/6.
I know they're trivial. That was my point. I could have mentioned a third reason that had I switched when I had thought about it, I would have thought of myself as an elitist who only junked Linux when it started getting popular.
I could do that, yes, or I could wait for Debian/BSD to come along, but instead I think I'll just continue using Linux, which currently does everything I need, thank you very much.
If you didn't want to start a FreeBSD vs Linux battle, why on earth did you post this, which has absolutely nothing to do with the article?
I myself don't use *BSD simply because I prefer the Sys V init, and I find myself typing ps -ef far more than ps auxw. Thats all. But I am comfortable enough with my choice not to have to post off topic messages about it*
Ran into snags with programs' configure trying to enable ALSA support. Solution? Do not install the alsa libraries, just install the drivers. Works for me.
Sounds like fun, one question: Are you able to multiplex connections using the oss-compatibility mode? Another Question: Will that work with all the drivers?
The difference is that your workstation can only handle 10 connections at a time whereas a webserver running on a linux workstation can handle hundreds.
Whoever wrote that was a bit of twat, though: "The Sims is a landmark in videogame history because it has opened a Pandora's box by replacing the usual troll and sci-fi monster with plain humans."
I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone who thinks that computer games have been about trolls and sci-fi monsters, until a year or two ago.
What is even more ridiculous is that there is a paragraph of that text titled "Little computer people" without even mentioning that game, which, as dull as it was didn't seem to feature either trolls or sci-fi.
You argue your case well, so I'm going to keep at it a while longer.
a) Microsoft wants to destroy the competition. The competition wants to sell product. Sun sell (mostly) non Intel hardware. MS make (again mostly) OSs for Intel hardware. As long as there is a market for non-Intel machines, Sun is happy, but if MS use their monopoly on the client side to devalue the market of non-Intel servers, then Sun is right to complain. But thats more for point (c). MS _need_ to force users to upgrade, because there is noone left who wants to buy MS for the first time. They enforce this need by contrived obsolescence, version incompatibilites, not patching old versions etc. They can do this because they have a monopoly. And it doesn't do any good for the customers.
b) Remember, having a monopoly isn't wrong. Abusing it is. If they exploit the fact that they have a monopoly in one field (eg, Desktop OSs) to destroy a competitor in another ("internet" provision) then they have behaved illegally. Once that competitor is silenced, and no other rival can thrive in the same market, then they now have two monopolies.
c) Part of what I was talking about in (a) explains why the focus of the court was correct. MS doesn't need to have a monopoly of _all_ IT, but by having a monopoly in one area and using that to force out competitors in another is illegal, and MS done exactly that.
You need to make the distinction between BEing a monopoly, and HAVing a monopoly. When you understand that you can understand why the courts behaved as they did.
My closing point was aimed at the Windows rulez, Linsux blowz school of thought. I would like them to remember that their cool winxp owes a lot to the threat from linux.
What my closing point shows anyone over the age of 15 is that the barriers to entry of another OS are immense: it has to be given away for free, and it has to count on thousands of developpers in order to meet expectations. MS know that while they have the mindshare of developpers, there is no threat to their monopoly, but if new software gets written first for Linux, and it gets a library of all the hundreds of small applications (ie my fathers collection of WWII cdroms) then it has lost. I believe MS is more afraid of losing dev mindshare than it is of seeing Linux in the enterprise. That explains why you the companies being audited by the BSA are not the developpers, but the end users.
And the threat of Linux? Remember how massively delayed the convergence of 16bit and NT was. It won't be completed until the release of XP, but was originally scheduled for, what, 1998?. How could they get away with that? Easy. They knew they had a captive market and no matter how dissatisfied customers were, they could not easily switch platform. Of course, Win98, and ME didn't hurt the bottom line at all.
a) If your biggest competitor is another wing of your company (ie Win2k vs Win9x), it is a fairly safe bet that you are a monopoly. If despite that, you decide to retire past versions so as not to compete you are not serving customers, rather than yourself.
b) MSN started off as a proprietry system, then it adopted open standards and then when MS saw that they were losing to the competition they started tying everything down. How long before the only way to access all MSN content is by using MS products. It is starting with audio/video. Most third party broadcasters of a choice between real and MS, guess who doesn't?
c) The court case defined the market as Intel based PCs, and MS does have a monopoly. MS has decided to withdraw support from ALL alternative architectures, because they do not need to support anything else to maintain their Monopoly.
Another thing, the anti-trust case does not hinge on MS being a monopoly, which is not in itself illegal, but instead of abuse of said monopoly which is, and which has been proven.
Now my closing point to MS junkies: How good do you think your beloved Win2K/XP would be if Linux et al wasn't breathing down its neck? and how willing would you be to swap architecture/OS if it hadn't improved?
Colocation should be cheaper, because if a company is providing space on a server, that server will still need rack or shelf space, network cable, air-conditioned rooms, and overweight security guards
The savings (should) come because co-los have a far more hands off business model, not needing to employ people to make config changes etc, and they don't need to buy the machine your stuff is running on.
"What I am saying is respect somebody for what they do, not who they are."
Please tell me you have that backward. If not, should I respect someone for being an athlete, but ignore the rape conviction? Should I take my kids to watch him play to teach them respect?
I think I have it the right way round. I respect Mike Tyson because he is a good boxer, but I don't respect him as a human being because of his questionnable moral standards.
As I don't worship at the altar of celebrity, there is no need for me to try to pretend to like him. Simply forget about him.
When he was world champion he was famous. Afterwards, if he behaves badly then cut off his air supply: publicity.
If he uses his former glory to justify something, then that is the time to bring up his misbehaviour.
It's not like they are taking any risks nowadays, at least not like in the days of old.
If you want to be an astronaut, do it because you want to go to space, not to appear on the cover of Time magazine, and milk it for the rest of your life on chat shows.
Precisely there was A Crash because everybody was so used to free stuff, nobody could start charging without two replacements popping up in their place.
And another thing, people will cough up £££s, providing they think the recipient deserves it. For example: the RIAA, et al no. Steve King yes.
Patented it might be, but you can still get hold of Metapixel (for example, by looking on Google) which composes a single image out of database of thousands.
Of course, you need that database of images, but what else are 100,001 pieces of clipart CDs good for?
Slashdot Mirror
Lets be honest, I hope there are problems as it'll make things more interesting around here. But, I think there isn't much chance of that, as anyone clever enough to be using time_t to store stuff, isn't then going to whack it into a 9 character long string..... One hopes.
You have been trolled more than you think. What our friend here is doing is using Usenet posts to work out the ratios between the BSDs, thus there are 5 times more Open posts than Net, and twice as many Net as BSDi, and that these three together are 20% of the market with Free making up the rest.
What you have ignored is the line
which is undeniably bollocks. If you were to check, you would see that in factThat is the beauty of this troll. Recalculate (and where you see those numbers multiplied by 4, use 5 to represent the 20% other + 80% freebsd), and you get a figure of between 1 and 2.5 million for all *BSD, which is far more credible.
Thanks for your response.
I tried compiling up the newest drivers, but I was unable to get it mutliplexing - don't know if I missed a switch somewhere though. Symptoms were while playing a Real stream, loading xmms and pressing play - the latter froze until Real was stopped, at which point it came back to life. Am I missing something?
This maybe because of my crappy Intellistaion onboard sound (i8x0 with ac97 codec)
Cheers.
From http://www.microsoft.com/ntworkstation/ProductInfo rmation/archive/marketbulletins/ntlicensing.asp
Yes it's a license restriction rather than limitation of the OS, and no, it doesn't mention any 3rd party server*, but if you have more than 10 concurrent connections to your machine then you are in violation of your license.
The bottom line is that you MUST NOT do it, although of course many people don't even bother paying Microsoft for their copy of windows. With Linux you don't have this problem.
* This is Microsoft, would you expect anything else?, but remember the fuss they made when Netscape recommended using workstation for there servers, back in 1995/6.
Well if you do that, then you're in violation of the license. And why bother? Far better to run Apache on a unix based OS.
I know they're trivial. That was my point. I could have mentioned a third reason that had I switched when I had thought about it, I would have thought of myself as an elitist who only junked Linux when it started getting popular.
I could do that, yes, or I could wait for Debian/BSD to come along, but instead I think I'll just continue using Linux, which currently does everything I need, thank you very much.
If you didn't want to start a FreeBSD vs Linux battle, why on earth did you post this, which has absolutely nothing to do with the article?
I myself don't use *BSD simply because I prefer the Sys V init, and I find myself typing ps -ef far more than ps auxw. Thats all. But I am comfortable enough with my choice not to have to post off topic messages about it*
* Yes, the irony has been noted.
Ran into snags with programs' configure trying to enable ALSA support. Solution? Do not install the alsa libraries, just install the drivers. Works for me.
Sounds like fun, one question: Are you able to multiplex connections using the oss-compatibility mode? Another Question: Will that work with all the drivers?
Cheers.
The difference is that your workstation can only handle 10 connections at a time whereas a webserver running on a linux workstation can handle hundreds.
You're both wrong. Cee Hash, pronounced Cash.
So what's the point of writing in a peer reviewed journal which obviously isn't reviewed by anybody who has the slightest idea of the subject matter?
Whoever wrote that was a bit of twat, though: "The Sims is a landmark in videogame history because it has opened a Pandora's box by replacing the usual troll and sci-fi monster with plain humans."
I'm sorry, but I can't take seriously anyone who thinks that computer games have been about trolls and sci-fi monsters, until a year or two ago.
What is even more ridiculous is that there is a paragraph of that text titled "Little computer people" without even mentioning that game, which, as dull as it was didn't seem to feature either trolls or sci-fi.
You argue your case well, so I'm going to keep at it a while longer.
a) Microsoft wants to destroy the competition. The competition wants to sell product. Sun sell (mostly) non Intel hardware. MS make (again mostly) OSs for Intel hardware. As long as there is a market for non-Intel machines, Sun is happy, but if MS use their monopoly on the client side to devalue the market of non-Intel servers, then Sun is right to complain. But thats more for point (c). MS _need_ to force users to upgrade, because there is noone left who wants to buy MS for the first time. They enforce this need by contrived obsolescence, version incompatibilites, not patching old versions etc. They can do this because they have a monopoly. And it doesn't do any good for the customers.
b) Remember, having a monopoly isn't wrong. Abusing it is. If they exploit the fact that they have a monopoly in one field (eg, Desktop OSs) to destroy a competitor in another ("internet" provision) then they have behaved illegally. Once that competitor is silenced, and no other rival can thrive in the same market, then they now have two monopolies.
c) Part of what I was talking about in (a) explains why the focus of the court was correct. MS doesn't need to have a monopoly of _all_ IT, but by having a monopoly in one area and using that to force out competitors in another is illegal, and MS done exactly that.
You need to make the distinction between BEing a monopoly, and HAVing a monopoly. When you understand that you can understand why the courts behaved as they did.
My closing point was aimed at the Windows rulez, Linsux blowz school of thought. I would like them to remember that their cool winxp owes a lot to the threat from linux.
What my closing point shows anyone over the age of 15 is that the barriers to entry of another OS are immense: it has to be given away for free, and it has to count on thousands of developpers in order to meet expectations. MS know that while they have the mindshare of developpers, there is no threat to their monopoly, but if new software gets written first for Linux, and it gets a library of all the hundreds of small applications (ie my fathers collection of WWII cdroms) then it has lost. I believe MS is more afraid of losing dev mindshare than it is of seeing Linux in the enterprise. That explains why you the companies being audited by the BSA are not the developpers, but the end users.
And the threat of Linux? Remember how massively delayed the convergence of 16bit and NT was. It won't be completed until the release of XP, but was originally scheduled for, what, 1998?. How could they get away with that? Easy. They knew they had a captive market and no matter how dissatisfied customers were, they could not easily switch platform. Of course, Win98, and ME didn't hurt the bottom line at all.
A quick refutation of your points:
a) If your biggest competitor is another wing of your company (ie Win2k vs Win9x), it is a fairly safe bet that you are a monopoly. If despite that, you decide to retire past versions so as not to compete you are not serving customers, rather than yourself.
b) MSN started off as a proprietry system, then it adopted open standards and then when MS saw that they were losing to the competition they started tying everything down. How long before the only way to access all MSN content is by using MS products. It is starting with audio/video. Most third party broadcasters of a choice between real and MS, guess who doesn't?
c) The court case defined the market as Intel based PCs, and MS does have a monopoly. MS has decided to withdraw support from ALL alternative architectures, because they do not need to support anything else to maintain their Monopoly.
Another thing, the anti-trust case does not hinge on MS being a monopoly, which is not in itself illegal, but instead of abuse of said monopoly which is, and which has been proven.
Now my closing point to MS junkies: How good do you think your beloved Win2K/XP would be if Linux et al wasn't breathing down its neck? and how willing would you be to swap architecture/OS if it hadn't improved?
Colocation should be cheaper, because if a company is providing space on a server, that server will still need rack or shelf space, network cable, air-conditioned rooms, and overweight security guards
The savings (should) come because co-los have a far more hands off business model, not needing to employ people to make config changes etc, and they don't need to buy the machine your stuff is running on.
(A/C quoted in case he doesn't get modded up)
I think I have it the right way round. I respect Mike Tyson because he is a good boxer, but I don't respect him as a human being because of his questionnable moral standards.
As I don't worship at the altar of celebrity, there is no need for me to try to pretend to like him. Simply forget about him.
When he was world champion he was famous. Afterwards, if he behaves badly then cut off his air supply: publicity.
If he uses his former glory to justify something, then that is the time to bring up his misbehaviour.
It's not like they are taking any risks nowadays, at least not like in the days of old.
If you want to be an astronaut, do it because you want to go to space, not to appear on the cover of Time magazine, and milk it for the rest of your life on chat shows.
That is true of the North Pole, but the danger is at the South Pole where the majority of ice is overland. That melts and we're screwed.
And what do you think happens when ozone starts depleting?
Frankly, I couldn't care less the state of the world in 10,000 years time.
What I care about is what happens in the next 50 years or so.
Granted, the world will sort itself out in the long run, but I don't have that much time.
Precisely there was A Crash because everybody was so used to free stuff, nobody could start charging without two replacements popping up in their place.
And another thing, people will cough up £££s, providing they think the recipient deserves it. For example: the RIAA, et al no. Steve King yes.
You mean Mighty Morphine Flower Arrangers.
Patented it might be, but you can still get hold of Metapixel (for example, by looking on Google) which composes a single image out of database of thousands.
Of course, you need that database of images, but what else are 100,001 pieces of clipart CDs good for?
Play Xpilot then. 10 years old. Fast. Multiplayer. Great 2d graphics. Low system requirements. Old school gaming at its best.