But this isnt a game, this is business. And since businesses are SUPPOSED to make money, they need to make sure people continue to buy MS Office. And making an office suite that shares documents with all the various third-tier office suites just doesnt do that.
Real Life (as others have posted) is not a zero sum game. Win/Win is ideal- not Win/Lose. A closed "proprietary format" works for awhile but hopefully people will become aware that MS locks them in while other software does not. Then Microsoft will be in a bad position but for now people don't care enough.
The best scenario for them would be to license the MS Word protocal (as some module/dll) to other word procesors (even on other OS's) and make money on licensing it to kill off other developer incentive to reverse engeneer it.
I am not saying they should not continue to sell MS Word but if they make it difficult for other products to interact with it, users of alternative products will encourage others to abandon Word.
Best to make the format usable by all (but your product be the default standard) than to force others to reverse engineer your product to comunicate with others.
Eventually a program will come out that is compatable enough with MS Word and be open enough (in file format) for most (maybe Open Office) and will eventually get enough momentum to kill MS Office as a standard.
MS plays the game of "all or nothing". That game is very profitable until it isn't. When it isn't, it is almost imposible to recover, because people and companies that play that way, build up a lot of ill will (or as they say on slashdot: "bad karma").
It's funny that Microsoft gets a lot of shit for bundling software with Windows when just about every Linux distro you find at the local Best Buy comes with 10x more user applications... everything from web browsers to graphic editing tools to compilers to word processors... etc... etc...
Everything in RedHat is removable and you can choose never to install almost any package provided.
You can not remove IE or Media Player from a Windows system (through normal means).
One is choice and the other is force. Choice is good and forcing is oppression.
And that's why the only appropriate remedy for this or any of the other illegal anti-trust actions is to fine Microsoft *heavily*. This will serve as a powerfull more anti-competitive actions and it is decidedly in the interest of consumers. The key really is making the fines large enough for the shareholders to demand accountability from Microsoft.
And who does the money go to?
The government is the worst and least efficient monopoly around.
I thought Judge Jackson had it right- Break up the company. It would have really woken up the computer industry and made "Microsoft's children" less arrogant but the Bush administration did not care. Sad.
Theory has it that 2.6 will come out around the end of June 2003. Well, this is theory, of course, but there aren't really many show-stoppers left in 2.5 nowadays. I think "by the end of the year" might be a reasonable release expectation for 2.6.0 barring major problems cropping up in the next couple of months. If this is the case, I bet it would be stable enough to use in production by mid-2004.
Developers of software always think they are close but usually software gets delayed much longer than expected. "Linus and gang" wanted the 2.5 series to be done in something like 9 months. When I was reading that, I thought the idea was rediculous. 2.5 was started 11/2001 and it is now 3/2003. A two year development cycle is really as fast as can be expected in such a sophisticated system (if fundamental changes are made) and a three year cycle (like the time given to 2.4) is probably even better. Nobody really needs a new kernel sooner (or they are using the wrong tool for the job) and the time could be used to make the new system better. Distibutions, developers and users should spend more time USING an OS than UPGRADING it. I would be shocked if Linus was actually able to release 2.6 this year and servers should not start deploying it for another year after that.
This is a real question not flame bait. Why would you keep 2.2? What is there in 2.4 that makes it so bad? It seems like it's pretty mature now so what's wrong with it?
Another good question is why upgrade?
2.2 is a good system and has served many of us well. Linux 2.4 really only became stable and available in 2002. For people who don't live on the bleeding edge (and there is a reason it is called "bleeding"), 2.4 is just starting to be deployed. When a server runs well, upgrading it is often just a pain. I am guessing that 2.6 will come out in 2004, be stable and available in 2005 and many servers will only start migrating to it in 2006 and on slashdot some simmiliar story will be posted and somebody (maybe you) will post a simmiliar comment/question.
Each static library you use in your code adds to the overall program size, as you've stated. Thus increasing load time when you run the app. A 4MB exe loads a lot faster than a 400MB exe. (At least when the bulk of the difference is actual code/runtime-data, rather than generic data tacked on to the end of the file.) When you have DLLs, the OS will reuse already loaded DLLs for your app, and will keep newly loaded DLLs in memory for a while even after the app shuts down. This tremendously speeds up application loading.
But if the DLL's really only apply to your program and are not likely to be used by anyone else, then you have a DLL in memory longer than it should (and thus bloat) along with no other real benefits (whether your program is five pieces or one piece, it is still the same size- just not as apparent). Now that is not a big deal as long as the DLL's are in the same directory as your program and don't get loaded up when the system is turned on (like many MS DLL's)
And IBM is guiltless? The possiblity that they've tainted the Linux codebase isn't relevant too?
Let's see what SCO is claiming before jumping to conclusions. There might be some code for the Debian people to rip out and replace.
Actually I think IBM is squeeky clean on this one. I have been following what IBM have been providing to the Linux community and it has not been all that big concerning design and features (almost zilch). They mostly provide device drivers and hardware support. I read that Caldera was sueing on behalf of something to do with SMP and i386 stuff which Linus & company did way before IBM even heard what Linux was all about and quite frankly IBM has not even touched.
A company like IBM has money, but suing them for 1 billion is really throwing down the gauntlet. They could've settled for a couple of million, but IBM will make an example of Caldera for this insolence.
IBM might "make an example" of Caldera but more likely if the cost of settling is cheaper than the cost of the lawsuit, they will settle. Hopefully IBM will say "this is worth $1,000,000" and Caldera will say "that does not even pay for the bill of retaining deBois [the big lawyer they hired]. NO!" and IBM will be forced to grind Caldera into a forgotten memory.
I suspect in fact that this lawsuit is SCO's exit strategy. They know aren't going to make it much longer as an independent company. If their current market value is 100 million (say), they sue IBM for 1 billion, then get bought by IBM for 400 million, they will have successfully shut down their firm and gotten the best possible deal for their stockholders. Management will probably get a sweet payoff out of the deal too of course.
The thing is that I am sure IBM (for a few million) can pay lawyers to win this case and get rid of SCO permanently. SCO is dying. IBM won't want them because they would be "dead weight". Your scenario is a "pipe dream".
Agreed. Windows XP gobbles up about 110 megabytes of RAM when it's just booted, without any background images, screensavers, system tray apps running etc.
Dropping the fancy XP theme frees up about 5 megs of RAM, but if your system only has 128 or 256 megs of RAM you don't have a lot of room to load apps.
Actually I think the reason XP takes up so much ram is because it is loading up a ton of USELESS DLL's and COM objects into ram so that IE will load faster and Word XYZ will open immediately,.NET Framework, VB Framework and the list goes on. A whole bunch of junk that really should not reside in RAM just so that MS's stuff loads faster than the competitors products. DLL's are a great idea but Microsoft has found that they have too many DLL's and they are disorganized.
The idea that an opperating system has a standard core set of DLL's that all programs can use to add functionality to programs is a WONDERFULL IDEA! Microsoft is only finding out that there is such thing as too much of a wonderfull thing. They have been writing DLL's and COM components for windows for almost ten years and they need to keep backward compatibility with all of them no matter how ugly or badly implemented an original DLL was done. This method will allow them to stop having to keep backward compatibilty (but leads to other problems such as bloat). They will still have too many DLL's that are only usefull to only one or two programs (and this solution won't make it better) and really should be statically linked or put in a private directory of the XYZ program (and uninstalled when the program is) but this is a good step in the future management of DLL cruft because they can at least start the process of breaking backward compatibility of badly designed libraries.
50% Stability, efficiency 33% Form, structure 17% Ease of build
You must be a clueless programmer: Usability should be number one. If the code is ugly but the user is happy, the program is a success. If the code is beutifull but hard to use or functionless, then the user will look for alternative software. My list would be:
It is not that stability and the rest are not good and important but programs are meant to help make life easier for users. Computers/programs are tools (and entertainment)- If the user does not get what they want, you are not doing your job right no matter how well designed and debuged your programs are.
"Old School" UNIX traditionally runs on a small set of proprietary hardware. Less support means more bandwidth for features and hardware-specific implementations. Also, this means fewer hardware configurations need to be tested for reliability.
Actually I think it is both an advatage and disadvantage for Linux. The advantage of having such a varied body of supported hardware is that the code is stress tested in many ways that normally other OS's would never touch and developers have to design Linux to be VERY flexible. The disadvantage is that some really cool specific hardware features will not be implemented because it is too specific to a single platform. I actually think the flexibility outway the minuses but then I tend to do most stuff on x86 (which is fast but cheap junk)- YMMV.
You've nailed it on the head. The current sales scheme relies on the ignorance of the customer at the time of purchase ("Cheap printer? OK!"). That's almost as bad as an outright bait and switch.
What next? Is Nabisco going to start telling me which brand of milk I have to use on my cereal? Will Windows require me to own a Microsoft mouse? Will my amplifier require their brand of speakers? Will my GE lamp only work with their light bulbs (don't get any ideas, GE)?
You nailed the issue on the head! When I go into the store, it bothers me that I have to look for HP model ink for xyz printer. All the ink jet printers should have the same size slot (like all lamps [with some minor variations] have the same size bulbs). Some on slashdot argue that printer companies use ink revenues to offset the price of printers. My solution is raise the prices of the printers and leave the damn ink alone! Interoperability should have been a priority (of buyers) in the printer industry and now Lexmark not only wants to enjoy inflated profitability of a non-standard ink market but ALSO wants to be the only one capable of selling ink in thier printers (ie: a monopoly). My solution is to fuck 'em- I will never buy a printer from them.
One Fast CPU is always going to have an advantage over multiple slower CPUs. It takes a lot of bookkeeping in the background to assign different tasks to different CPUs. Not to mention programs need to be written multi-threaded to take advantage of another processor.
Sure One fast CPU will often outperform a slow smp system when running ONE program (that is not multithreaded) but most people don't run just one program and the cpu's can run different programs on different cpu's. It may still be slower do xyz but xyz can be run in the background while you play doom 3 in the forground without the two tasks slowing each other down on an smp system.
Try compiling a program in the background, while playing mp3 songs, playing chess against the computer (while waiting for programs to compile) and having a few other misclaneous stuff running in the background with a one cpu system. The system starts to feel and sound CHOPPY no matter how fast the CPU.
On a slower SMP system, the compiles may take a little longer, and the chess program may not have the same depth search but the system will run SMOOTHER.
I can't deal with it anymore that people piss and moan and grumble about how OEMs bundle Windows with their systems, at a cost that everybody seems to agree is about $30-50, yet consistenly bandy around the top-shelf retail box price of Windows as if people pay that much for it.
You think like an American. These people don't go to DELL and buy a PC. They buy used or they assemble it themselves or they get it mail-order at one of those OS-less websites and pay much less for a computer.
...if the company does not gain money through this country, these localizations will not be worked on anymore, and then the whole country/area would lose.
Seems MS however, in this case, have thoughtfully considered the issue and found out that reducing prices and wining the user is worth more than otherwise, but would this always be the case? I really doubt so!
Microsoft would issue an Asian version even if they knew they would never make a profit on it -PERIOD-.
Why?
Because Microsoft would hate to see competition evolve anywhere in the world. Imagine if China/Taiwan/Wherever HAD to go over to a new operating system because MS refused to support the region. All those people writing software for another OS would cut into the monopoly hold they have over the desktop. MS would NEVER RISK it. PERIOD. When countries start talking about alternative OS's, Microsoft starts discounting and giving away software.
More to the point -- what are they supposed when someone sends them.doc files?
From what I understand MS Word is not nearly as popular in Asia as in America. I think it is Hancom (or something like it) that is the word processor of choice in Asia. As another poster said when given a file in a unreadable format, one tends to complain.
It is just that in America, it is assumed you SHOULD have MS Word instead of it being OPTIONAL like it really SHOULD BE. Companies in the US should have made it a priority of changing the default save mode in Word to.rtf (which is simple to do) but "Corporate America" is lazy and stupid.
Er... you think a worker that only makes $1200 a year needs an operating system? I hate to break it to you but I doubt he has a computer.
Agreed but the previous poster has a point. The people who can afford a computer (those making 10 to 20 thousand a year USD) will find that 300+ dollars for software (or 2% of their income) is very expensive.
I'd far rather an Best-Tool-For-The-Job evangelist....
...impartial decision, you haven't got clouded vision, you actually do make a difference, you don't waste money going down pointless changes but rather migrate because there are solid facts that tell you that you should and, best of all, you do actually save money for the company.
I remember 5 years ago when many corporations said they would standardize around NT 4 (OS/2 was dead and corporations wanted a "standard") and were justifying the expense by suggesting that they would stick with NT 4 for something like 10+ years.
For the last 2 years Microsoft has been "pushing" for everybody to upgrade (for obvious reason$) to 2000 or XP. I used to be a "best tool for the job" kind of guy and I really have nothing against commercial software but what I do find is that over time, only open solutions provide true standards and all the "goodness" that it encompasses. Imagine if tcp/ip was a proprietary product:
The world will need to "upgrade" to "TCP/IP 8" because "Internet Corp" has added new and improved stack changes and many new features will only be accessible in "TCP/IP 8".
As for pointlessly going down alleys- well that is the cost of doing business (everybody/company makes mistakes and nobody is impartial). An interesting note though is that when a person/corporation spends a fortune down a blind alley, how vehemenently they tend to defend the mistake despite solid facts showing how stupid the change was.
If Linux gets to a point where it is better than Solaris at the things Solaris is supposed to be good at, then I think Sun might think about using it instead, but I see no indication of things going in that direction. Not to mention that Solaris is extremely well documented.
Every new version of the Linux kernel shows more and more promise. 2.6 (probably next year) will have a really robust/optimised posix threading system, Better I/O and scale to far more CPU's in an smp configuration while still doing simple things simply fast. Solaris does scale better and contain other features that Linux does not have but Linux is catching up very fast without sacrificing performance on "smaller" machines. I am sure Sun is aware of these developments and Sun's top management is probably wondering how to shift their bussines model so that Linux will help them sell products and not the reverse.
Maybe most people (most of the time) will not have a need for the advantages of a 64 bit CPU but it could come in handy and even be critical for some select users AND THERE IS NO REAL DOWNSIDE to 64 bit CPU's. Program footprints and cache/memory usage may become higher but computers have bigger and cheaper harddrive/RAM/(L1/L2 caches) that more than compensate for it. Once at 64 bits, there is nobody who could claim a need for MORE but people have found that 32 bits is not always enough. It just makes sense that all future CPU's be 64 bit as a standard and I am disappointed that Intel has draged thier butt for so long (and I mean before Itanium and something more "backward" compatable) and really happy that AMD is filling the gap that Intel ignored.
If you REALLY want 4-way, old (as in really old) platforms you can usually get for pretty cheap. We obtained a PPro 4-way board with the chips for something like 200 bux total - this was about two / three years ago - so nowaways you might get P2 Xeon boards for that much or slightly more. But really now; go with Athlon SMPs.
I have been looking on ebay recently (due to your and others comments) and I am now fishing around. Thanks.
Twenty gigabytes is enough for a casual PC user, barely. I'd say 60-100 is a better bet for today's 'power user', at a minimum.
I have more than three opperating systems on my machine and I can tell you that 120 + gigs is not enough! (Don't all power users have multiple operating systems and VM's?);)
I really think that the 4-way system niche is so small that even AMD went to try to fill it, it would not be worth their investment.
I would snap up a four cpu motherboard if I could buy the board for less than 300 dollars and cpu's in the 100-200 dollar range. Since I can't, I don't. However, the Manufacturers of motherboards and cpus are looking to get a big premium out of me when I want more than a one cpu board, I don't go buying. Believe me when I say I am not alone in the desire for affordable smp because every once in awhile, you hear how people used uni processor chips in smp configurations with success. People would not try silly stuff like that if many did not think the prices on smp stuff was not rediculous.
I can't count the number of times I had to hunt around the school floors for bits of my magnetic chess board because some idiot couldn't stand the fact that we were doing something they couldn't get and found boring and felt an extreme need to interupt the game by knocking the board over.
I also play chess (USCF member and played in quite a few tournaments) but I almost NEVER took my chessboard to school (or cards and other "paraphanalia"). Some idiot is going to just ruin it because they "feel like it". It has nothing to do with being popular either. Popular kids learn also not to bring "hobbies" to school for the same reasons.
Slashdot Mirror
Real Life (as others have posted) is not a zero sum game. Win/Win is ideal- not Win/Lose. A closed "proprietary format" works for awhile but hopefully people will become aware that MS locks them in while other software does not. Then Microsoft will be in a bad position but for now people don't care enough.
The best scenario for them would be to license the MS Word protocal (as some module/dll) to other word procesors (even on other OS's) and make money on licensing it to kill off other developer incentive to reverse engeneer it.
I am not saying they should not continue to sell MS Word but if they make it difficult for other products to interact with it, users of alternative products will encourage others to abandon Word.
Best to make the format usable by all (but your product be the default standard) than to force others to reverse engineer your product to comunicate with others.
Eventually a program will come out that is compatable enough with MS Word and be open enough (in file format) for most (maybe Open Office) and will eventually get enough momentum to kill MS Office as a standard.
MS plays the game of "all or nothing". That game is very profitable until it isn't. When it isn't, it is almost imposible to recover, because people and companies that play that way, build up a lot of ill will (or as they say on slashdot: "bad karma").
Everything in RedHat is removable and you can choose never to install almost any package provided.
You can not remove IE or Media Player from a Windows system (through normal means).
One is choice and the other is force. Choice is good and forcing is oppression.
And who does the money go to?
The government is the worst and least efficient monopoly around.
I thought Judge Jackson had it right- Break up the company. It would have really woken up the computer industry and made "Microsoft's children" less arrogant but the Bush administration did not care. Sad.
Developers of software always think they are close but usually software gets delayed much longer than expected. "Linus and gang" wanted the 2.5 series to be done in something like 9 months. When I was reading that, I thought the idea was rediculous. 2.5 was started 11/2001 and it is now 3/2003. A two year development cycle is really as fast as can be expected in such a sophisticated system (if fundamental changes are made) and a three year cycle (like the time given to 2.4) is probably even better. Nobody really needs a new kernel sooner (or they are using the wrong tool for the job) and the time could be used to make the new system better. Distibutions, developers and users should spend more time USING an OS than UPGRADING it. I would be shocked if Linus was actually able to release 2.6 this year and servers should not start deploying it for another year after that.
Another good question is why upgrade?
2.2 is a good system and has served many of us well. Linux 2.4 really only became stable and available in 2002. For people who don't live on the bleeding edge (and there is a reason it is called "bleeding"), 2.4 is just starting to be deployed. When a server runs well, upgrading it is often just a pain. I am guessing that 2.6 will come out in 2004, be stable and available in 2005 and many servers will only start migrating to it in 2006 and on slashdot some simmiliar story will be posted and somebody (maybe you) will post a simmiliar comment/question.
But if the DLL's really only apply to your program and are not likely to be used by anyone else, then you have a DLL in memory longer than it should (and thus bloat) along with no other real benefits (whether your program is five pieces or one piece, it is still the same size- just not as apparent). Now that is not a big deal as long as the DLL's are in the same directory as your program and don't get loaded up when the system is turned on (like many MS DLL's)
Actually I think IBM is squeeky clean on this one. I have been following what IBM have been providing to the Linux community and it has not been all that big concerning design and features (almost zilch). They mostly provide device drivers and hardware support. I read that Caldera was sueing on behalf of something to do with SMP and i386 stuff which Linus & company did way before IBM even heard what Linux was all about and quite frankly IBM has not even touched.
IBM might "make an example" of Caldera but more likely if the cost of settling is cheaper than the cost of the lawsuit, they will settle. Hopefully IBM will say "this is worth $1,000,000" and Caldera will say "that does not even pay for the bill of retaining deBois [the big lawyer they hired]. NO!" and IBM will be forced to grind Caldera into a forgotten memory.
The thing is that I am sure IBM (for a few million) can pay lawyers to win this case and get rid of SCO permanently. SCO is dying. IBM won't want them because they would be "dead weight". Your scenario is a "pipe dream".
Actually I think the reason XP takes up so much ram is because it is loading up a ton of USELESS DLL's and COM objects into ram so that IE will load faster and Word XYZ will open immediately, .NET Framework, VB Framework and the list goes on. A whole bunch of junk that really should not reside in RAM just so that MS's stuff loads faster than the competitors products. DLL's are a great idea but Microsoft has found that they have too many DLL's and they are disorganized.
The idea that an opperating system has a standard core set of DLL's that all programs can use to add functionality to programs is a WONDERFULL IDEA! Microsoft is only finding out that there is such thing as too much of a wonderfull thing. They have been writing DLL's and COM components for windows for almost ten years and they need to keep backward compatibility with all of them no matter how ugly or badly implemented an original DLL was done. This method will allow them to stop having to keep backward compatibilty (but leads to other problems such as bloat). They will still have too many DLL's that are only usefull to only one or two programs (and this solution won't make it better) and really should be statically linked or put in a private directory of the XYZ program (and uninstalled when the program is) but this is a good step in the future management of DLL cruft because they can at least start the process of breaking backward compatibility of badly designed libraries.
In my book, quality is broken down as:
50% Stability, efficiency
33% Form, structure
17% Ease of build
You must be a clueless programmer:
Usability should be number one. If the code is ugly but the user is happy, the program is a success. If the code is beutifull but hard to use or functionless, then the user will look for alternative software. My list would be:
60% Usabilty
25% Stability
15% Form, Structure, Design, etc...
It is not that stability and the rest are not good and important but programs are meant to help make life easier for users. Computers/programs are tools (and entertainment)- If the user does not get what they want, you are not doing your job right no matter how well designed and debuged your programs are.
Actually I think it is both an advatage and disadvantage for Linux. The advantage of having such a varied body of supported hardware is that the code is stress tested in many ways that normally other OS's would never touch and developers have to design Linux to be VERY flexible. The disadvantage is that some really cool specific hardware features will not be implemented because it is too specific to a single platform. I actually think the flexibility outway the minuses but then I tend to do most stuff on x86 (which is fast but cheap junk)- YMMV.
You nailed the issue on the head! When I go into the store, it bothers me that I have to look for HP model ink for xyz printer. All the ink jet printers should have the same size slot (like all lamps [with some minor variations] have the same size bulbs). Some on slashdot argue that printer companies use ink revenues to offset the price of printers. My solution is raise the prices of the printers and leave the damn ink alone! Interoperability should have been a priority (of buyers) in the printer industry and now Lexmark not only wants to enjoy inflated profitability of a non-standard ink market but ALSO wants to be the only one capable of selling ink in thier printers (ie: a monopoly). My solution is to fuck 'em- I will never buy a printer from them.
Sure One fast CPU will often outperform a slow smp system when running ONE program (that is not multithreaded) but most people don't run just one program and the cpu's can run different programs on different cpu's. It may still be slower do xyz but xyz can be run in the background while you play doom 3 in the forground without the two tasks slowing each other down on an smp system.
Try compiling a program in the background, while playing mp3 songs, playing chess against the computer (while waiting for programs to compile) and having a few other misclaneous stuff running in the background with a one cpu system. The system starts to feel and sound CHOPPY no matter how fast the CPU.
On a slower SMP system, the compiles may take a little longer, and the chess program may not have the same depth search but the system will run SMOOTHER.
You think like an American. These people don't go to DELL and buy a PC. They buy used or they assemble it themselves or they get it mail-order at one of those OS-less websites and pay much less for a computer.
Microsoft would issue an Asian version even if they knew they would never make a profit on it -PERIOD-.
Why?
Because Microsoft would hate to see competition evolve anywhere in the world. Imagine if China/Taiwan/Wherever HAD to go over to a new operating system because MS refused to support the region. All those people writing software for another OS would cut into the monopoly hold they have over the desktop. MS would NEVER RISK it. PERIOD. When countries start talking about alternative OS's, Microsoft starts discounting and giving away software.
From what I understand MS Word is not nearly as popular in Asia as in America. I think it is Hancom (or something like it) that is the word processor of choice in Asia. As another poster said when given a file in a unreadable format, one tends to complain.
It is just that in America, it is assumed you SHOULD have MS Word instead of it being OPTIONAL like it really SHOULD BE. Companies in the US should have made it a priority of changing the default save mode in Word to .rtf (which is simple to do) but "Corporate America" is lazy and stupid.
Agreed but the previous poster has a point. The people who can afford a computer (those making 10 to 20 thousand a year USD) will find that 300+ dollars for software (or 2% of their income) is very expensive.
I remember 5 years ago when many corporations said they would standardize around NT 4 (OS/2 was dead and corporations wanted a "standard") and were justifying the expense by suggesting that they would stick with NT 4 for something like 10+ years.
For the last 2 years Microsoft has been "pushing" for everybody to upgrade (for obvious reason$) to 2000 or XP. I used to be a "best tool for the job" kind of guy and I really have nothing against commercial software but what I do find is that over time, only open solutions provide true standards and all the "goodness" that it encompasses. Imagine if tcp/ip was a proprietary product:
As for pointlessly going down alleys- well that is the cost of doing business (everybody/company makes mistakes and nobody is impartial). An interesting note though is that when a person/corporation spends a fortune down a blind alley, how vehemenently they tend to defend the mistake despite solid facts showing how stupid the change was.
Every new version of the Linux kernel shows more and more promise. 2.6 (probably next year) will have a really robust/optimised posix threading system, Better I/O and scale to far more CPU's in an smp configuration while still doing simple things simply fast. Solaris does scale better and contain other features that Linux does not have but Linux is catching up very fast without sacrificing performance on "smaller" machines. I am sure Sun is aware of these developments and Sun's top management is probably wondering how to shift their bussines model so that Linux will help them sell products and not the reverse.
Maybe most people (most of the time) will not have a need for the advantages of a 64 bit CPU but it could come in handy and even be critical for some select users AND THERE IS NO REAL DOWNSIDE to 64 bit CPU's. Program footprints and cache/memory usage may become higher but computers have bigger and cheaper harddrive/RAM/(L1/L2 caches) that more than compensate for it. Once at 64 bits, there is nobody who could claim a need for MORE but people have found that 32 bits is not always enough. It just makes sense that all future CPU's be 64 bit as a standard and I am disappointed that Intel has draged thier butt for so long (and I mean before Itanium and something more "backward" compatable) and really happy that AMD is filling the gap that Intel ignored.
I have been looking on ebay recently (due to your and others comments) and I am now fishing around.
Thanks.
I have more than three opperating systems on my machine and I can tell you that 120 + gigs is not enough! (Don't all power users have multiple operating systems and VM's?) ;)
I would snap up a four cpu motherboard if I could buy the board for less than 300 dollars and cpu's in the 100-200 dollar range. Since I can't, I don't. However, the Manufacturers of motherboards and cpus are looking to get a big premium out of me when I want more than a one cpu board, I don't go buying. Believe me when I say I am not alone in the desire for affordable smp because every once in awhile, you hear how people used uni processor chips in smp configurations with success. People would not try silly stuff like that if many did not think the prices on smp stuff was not rediculous.
I also play chess (USCF member and played in quite a few tournaments) but I almost NEVER took my chessboard to school (or cards and other "paraphanalia"). Some idiot is going to just ruin it because they "feel like it". It has nothing to do with being popular either. Popular kids learn also not to bring "hobbies" to school for the same reasons.