Ok, I can't help myself, now to respond to what was either gross incompetence or a simple twisting of my words to suit your agenda.
The question is not about how similar Linux is to UNIX; the question is, How odd is your statement that you think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as Linux? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better all along?
Where the hell did I ever say that I think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as linux? I think that both have certain qualities and both lack certain qualities, however Windows is more of what I need and less of what I don't.
was started in 1999, therefore linux still has a full eight year head start, not the fifteen year gap favoring Microsoft that you would prefer to have us believe. Why quibble? Let's say that Microsoft has only a 5-year head start! Does that change the question I posed earlier? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better than Linux all along? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Here is a company with $100 billion in assets, several hundreds of full-time, highly-paid programers working under the guidance of a man who has been programming since 1968, bested by another man who wasn't even born until 1969.
Wow! You either did'nt read that or you are just plain making things up... How in the hell did you get a five year head start for microsoft? I'm saying that Unix had a full 20 year headstart over windows, or linux had a full 8 year headstart over Windows XP.
You refuse to admit that micrsoft does actually make good software. That wasn't the question; the question was, Who invents the technology that Microsoft sells?
But you do refuse to admit that don't you? You see, you avoid my questions when I answer yours, please answer my questions in the way that they are asked instead of carefully avoiding them.
How many developers does Microsoft employ? I'm not really sure how many they have, but I am sure that it is a far smaller number than the OSS community has working on Linux alone... So using this argument why is it that many more developers working on a project can't make something far superior to Windows? In time, I'm sure they could. The question is, why would you say that Microsoft already has fallen behind? There weren't always thousands of programmers working on Linux; at the start (in 1991), there was just Linus working by himself. Microsoft was already 16 years old when Linus began his project. Now, a mere 11 years later, you tell me that a group of informal, part-time programmers have cobbled together an OS that is better than Microsoft's full-time efforts.
Once again, where the hell did you ever get the idea that I said "Microsoft already has fallen behind" I said no such thing! You are simply using lies here, and I have no idea why! My comment actually stated that they are ahead of the game with fewer developers, now can you tell me why that is? Maybe a bit more structure? If you think for one second that Microsoft has fallen behind I would invite you to take a closer look at the poll results that were mentioned in the article. Simply put, 14% use a mac, 47% use windows, and 34% use linux or solaris... Now when you consider that this is a poll taken from slashdot users who typically are a little ahead of the curve and much more likely to consider alternative operating systems how does this show Microsoft has already fallen behind? I'm confused. It looks to me that even in the slashdot crowd they're ahead!
Now please don't take what I'm saying to be bashing linux, hell, I like linux for many reasons, it's just that it does not do what I need at this point. I really dislike it when people avoid my questions, grossly misinterpret what I say and then when that won't suffice lie about what I've said! Please at least try to be fair about making your points. It's looking to me that you're doing just what you claim Microsoft has been up to for sometime... Namely if you can't win fairly then you'll just cheat and lie to win.... Shame on you.
What most people call debate is really nothing more than spin and propaganda, and I won't accept it.
Well, there you go. If I understand this correctly you're saying that you admit that you play by twisted rules, and therefore no matter how valid or potent my argument in your eyes it will always be wrong. There is obviously no point in carrying this any further, it is like trying to convince a block wall to move.
You see, your argument does not have "strength" it simply has stubborness.
You refuse to admit that many parts of linux are incredibly similar (even identical in some respects) to Unix. As a matter of a fact, since it was only roughly based on Unix (read minix for the hopelessly anal) your argument that it was actually started around 1991 (the first public announcement and availability) then obviously Windows XP (which uses only small parts of the previous software) was started in 1999, therefore linux still has a full eight year head start, not the fifteen year gap favoring Microsoft that you would prefer to have us believe.
You refuse to admit that micrsoft does actually make good software. Let me ask you this, do you really think marketing is the sole reason for Microsoft's success? If you do then you should take a marketing class, then you will realize that it takes much more than good marketing to get to the point that Microsoft has.
How many developers does Microsoft employ? I'm not really sure how many they have, but I am sure that it is a far smaller number than the OSS community has working on Linux alone... So using this argument why is it that many more developers working on a project can't make something far superior to Windows?
You see, I would gladly accept Linux as my only operating system if it had four things that it really needs:
1: Better development tools 2: Easier configuration 3: Superior graphical user interface 4: More compatibility with native windows applications.
In short you refuse to accept what normal people would call the rules of debate. It is much like trying to argue religion, when you see things so one-sidedly that you will never even consider other facts or make certain concessions there is no reason to even try to have a reasonable debate with you.
In fact this is the case with a small but highly vocal and aggressive part of the OSS community, and I really am sorry to say that your attitudes will (if allowed to) hinder the progress of OSS rather than encourage others to see the merits of OSS (yes, linux does have a great deal of things that I do like very much, it's just not the tool for the job that I'm doing)
So, as a thought for you: in the future it would serve you well to learn the commonly accepted rules of debate, perhaps a speech and debate class would be a good place to start. And one more cheapshot, get a real ISP....... I have a hard time really respecting someone so vocal about the evils of big corporations when they choose to use AOL for their internet service.
First off, I'm not arguing where their ideas / peices of source code come from, I'm only saying that they almost never take something without making significant changes to it (and these are generally very self serving, ie. make it work the way we want it to and the users want it to)
This entire thread is entitled "What's keeping you on Windows?" From reading the comments below, it seems that quality is a major player here.
Wow! I never knew that Microsoft was started around 1954! Because you do know that Linux is just another Unix (ohhhhh, gonna get flamed for that one) varient, and Unix was first created in 1969 by Ken Thompson.... Or maybe you did'nt know that and you really did think all this started in 1995......
I wouldn't take such a shitty tone, but you're attacking my intelligence and creditability here and I don't take that so very lightly.
What? What _new_ technology has M$ made? They only steal technology from others, bastardize it, then pass it off as there own. Please enlighten us to the "Technology" that M$ has contributed to the world.
If by bastardize it you mean change it to suit their needs, the needs of their users, and make several big improvements - you are very right...
You see, the problem with your comment is that it's way too left-wing to ever be completely true, while Microsoft has definately done some things that are a bit (ok, in some cases a lot) underhanded, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their software, which is getting better every release and starting to rival Linux on several very important issues.
On a different note: There are currently 1847 comments on this story, a few more and it's on the HOF list.
Where does personal use and promotional use differ, I mean, what if you really, really like "the Lemon Song" (god knows why, I like Led Zepplin, but....) so you have an endless tape of it playing at your lemonade stand for your own enjoyment...
Now, somebody who has the ability to cause you problems drives by and hears said song playing, this person decides that you ARE using this song for promotional purposes...
Who is right in a court of law? Unfortunately the person who is coming after you is going to have more money, and this would most likely result in you being found to be guilty.... In the words of Metallica, "Sad but true"... Uh, oh, was that "Fair use"???? Hope so...:)
With a minimal amount of porting I'm sure this can be used on any platform. But for use in embedded systems *nix is (IMHO) always the best choice, so it's logical they decided to shoot that direction at first.
As a side note, lan parties could get very interesting using this technology...:)
Ok, we've missed each other, I mean would it be faster then what you would normally expect from overclocking, slower than what you would normally expect from overclocking, or right in line with what you would normally expect from overclocking the chip... phew!
I've never heard of overhyped threads, would you care to expound upon that a bit further?
I wonder how well this chip would do overclocked, as it's the first chip to rely on hyperthreading.
If you overclock the chip I would assume the results would be pretty much in-line with what you could expect to see from any other chip, but I do see the possibility that the hyperthreading (which is supposed to make the chip perform roughly 25% better) could cause the overclocking to give an even larger increase in performance, or it might cause the overclocking to give a smaller performance gain that would be expected.
Either way hyperthreading is an idea whose time has come.
You really expect fledgling technology to acheive those speeds ehh? Maybe, but I'm looking at what we could really expect from the first release in real world terms. But, hopefully you're right and I'm wrong, shit 50MB/sec would be great (hint: just divide all the numbers in my previous example by 100, and that gives the proper figures for a 100GB disk, however considering this disk is actually 87 Gig just take the results from that and multiply by.87 and that'll give the correct figures...) Like I said, it's all a numbers game....
With larger hard drives becoming more common place everyday this technology is really far overdue, It's virtually impossible for some of us to really be responsible about backups the way we should be because of the prohibitive amount of data that needs to be backed up, yea it might take a while to fill up 100 gigabyte using IDE, however let's just figure.5 meg per second, that's 30 mb per minute, or 30 minutes per gig, equaling out to about 3000 minutes, that's about 50 hours for a full burn at the rather fast rate of.5 meg per second. But, consider the alternitives, swaping out 1000+ CDR's... Personally, I'll take the 100 gig disk and let it do it's thing for two days...
LOL, you really have a fine point there, it's obvious that some software may have a few issues that will cause it to work in unexpected ways/not work at all. This is not something that cannot be fixed by whomever owns/writes said software. If Microsoft is putting forth this kind of effort to ensure security through some other method than obscurity then I say GREAT! And of course Microsoft wants to keep competing software vendors products working, after all, the main reason windows has captured the market share that it has is mainly due to their large base of 3rd party software and business apps (competing or not) If they were to alienate this valueable resource they would be crazy, as it is largely due to this base that they are so successful. And yes, when you're dealing with a product that is millions of lines of code long there are always going to be problems when trying to do anything... My current project that I'm working on is only about 50,000 lines of code (one developer, namely me) and I can tell you that once in a while when I go to change something that seems fairly menial I can cause myself more headaches that you can imagine (although this doesn't happen often, it does happen). So thank Microsoft for at least showing that they DO care, thank you.:)
Well it looks like they might actually finally have the right idea as to how to compete with Linux,,, although they might have a few details a little skewed from what I would consider ideal, they seem to be heading in the right direction. Good to see that Microsoft might actually be listening to their customers finally.
Disclamer: Yes, I do love Linux, no I do not hate Microsoft, as a matter of a fact I am a.Net developer so this is of a much greater importance to me than it is to most.
A factor of 1200 better than 20/20 vision? Hmmm, wonder if there would be someway to adapt this for other (read military, then trickle to the public) purposes.... I mean, really, imagine a soldier wearing a small set of optics that are able to allow him to clearly see a tank at 100 miles, or even better, allow a tank to see a tank at 100 miles, planes could benefit too. Of course I personally would get a kick out of a nice pair of super-glasses with this tech enabled so that I could finally read those pesky road signs at a mile or two away:)
Forget how to kill it, the real question is what do you call a group of these: a pack, a flock, or a Beowulf cluster???? (Last option should possibly be renamed Beodragoon cluster?)
She's works for Microsoft(or will be soon), really, check out her bio:) Not that this is indicitave of anything really, just a little interesting, actually I wouldn't have ever thought that someone who graduated from MIT would even consider working for MS, but hey, you learn something new everyday...
PS-Note to grandparent poster, I don't blame you, as long as you're only doing it for the money anyhow.....
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I can't help myself, now to respond to what was either gross incompetence or a simple twisting of my words to suit your agenda.
The question is not about how similar Linux is to UNIX; the question is, How odd is your statement that you think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as Linux? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better all along?
Where the hell did I ever say that I think Microsoft's OSes have become almost as good as linux? I think that both have certain qualities and both lack certain qualities, however Windows is more of what I need and less of what I don't.
was started in 1999, therefore linux still has a full eight year head start, not the fifteen year gap favoring Microsoft that you would prefer to have us believe.
Why quibble? Let's say that Microsoft has only a 5-year head start! Does that change the question I posed earlier? Why wouldn't Microsoft's OSes be unquestionably better than Linux all along? Doesn't that seem odd to you? Here is a company with $100 billion in assets, several hundreds of full-time, highly-paid programers working under the guidance of a man who has been programming since 1968, bested by another man who wasn't even born until 1969.
Wow! You either did'nt read that or you are just plain making things up... How in the hell did you get a five year head start for microsoft? I'm saying that Unix had a full 20 year headstart over windows, or linux had a full 8 year headstart over Windows XP.
You refuse to admit that micrsoft does actually make good software.
That wasn't the question; the question was, Who invents the technology that Microsoft sells?
But you do refuse to admit that don't you? You see, you avoid my questions when I answer yours, please answer my questions in the way that they are asked instead of carefully avoiding them.
How many developers does Microsoft employ? I'm not really sure how many they have, but I am sure that it is a far smaller number than the OSS community has working on Linux alone... So using this argument why is it that many more developers working on a project can't make something far superior to Windows?
In time, I'm sure they could. The question is, why would you say that Microsoft already has fallen behind? There weren't always thousands of programmers working on Linux; at the start (in 1991), there was just Linus working by himself. Microsoft was already 16 years old when Linus began his project. Now, a mere 11 years later, you tell me that a group of informal, part-time programmers have cobbled together an OS that is better than Microsoft's full-time efforts.
Once again, where the hell did you ever get the idea that I said "Microsoft already has fallen behind" I said no such thing! You are simply using lies here, and I have no idea why! My comment actually stated that they are ahead of the game with fewer developers, now can you tell me why that is? Maybe a bit more structure? If you think for one second that Microsoft has fallen behind I would invite you to take a closer look at the poll results that were mentioned in the article. Simply put, 14% use a mac, 47% use windows, and 34% use linux or solaris... Now when you consider that this is a poll taken from slashdot users who typically are a little ahead of the curve and much more likely to consider alternative operating systems how does this show Microsoft has already fallen behind? I'm confused. It looks to me that even in the slashdot crowd they're ahead!
Now please don't take what I'm saying to be bashing linux, hell, I like linux for many reasons, it's just that it does not do what I need at this point. I really dislike it when people avoid my questions, grossly misinterpret what I say and then when that won't suffice lie about what I've said! Please at least try to be fair about making your points. It's looking to me that you're doing just what you claim Microsoft has been up to for sometime... Namely if you can't win fairly then you'll just cheat and lie to win.... Shame on you.
What most people call debate is really nothing more than spin and propaganda, and I won't accept it.
Well, there you go. If I understand this correctly you're saying that you admit that you play by twisted rules, and therefore no matter how valid or potent my argument in your eyes it will always be wrong. There is obviously no point in carrying this any further, it is like trying to convince a block wall to move.
You see, your argument does not have "strength" it simply has stubborness.
You refuse to admit that many parts of linux are incredibly similar (even identical in some respects) to Unix. As a matter of a fact, since it was only roughly based on Unix (read minix for the hopelessly anal) your argument that it was actually started around 1991 (the first public announcement and availability) then obviously Windows XP (which uses only small parts of the previous software) was started in 1999, therefore linux still has a full eight year head start, not the fifteen year gap favoring Microsoft that you would prefer to have us believe.
You refuse to admit that micrsoft does actually make good software. Let me ask you this, do you really think marketing is the sole reason for Microsoft's success? If you do then you should take a marketing class, then you will realize that it takes much more than good marketing to get to the point that Microsoft has.
How many developers does Microsoft employ? I'm not really sure how many they have, but I am sure that it is a far smaller number than the OSS community has working on Linux alone... So using this argument why is it that many more developers working on a project can't make something far superior to Windows?
You see, I would gladly accept Linux as my only operating system if it had four things that it really needs:
1: Better development tools
2: Easier configuration
3: Superior graphical user interface
4: More compatibility with native windows applications.
In short you refuse to accept what normal people would call the rules of debate. It is much like trying to argue religion, when you see things so one-sidedly that you will never even consider other facts or make certain concessions there is no reason to even try to have a reasonable debate with you.
In fact this is the case with a small but highly vocal and aggressive part of the OSS community, and I really am sorry to say that your attitudes will (if allowed to) hinder the progress of OSS rather than encourage others to see the merits of OSS (yes, linux does have a great deal of things that I do like very much, it's just not the tool for the job that I'm doing)
So, as a thought for you: in the future it would serve you well to learn the commonly accepted rules of debate, perhaps a speech and debate class would be a good place to start. And one more cheapshot, get a real ISP....... I have a hard time really respecting someone so vocal about the evils of big corporations when they choose to use AOL for their internet service.
Well, this is comment 2776, so what does that mean exactly? It means that this has just become the most active story that has ever been on /.
Pretty cool ehh?
Why do I even bother arguing with an AOL user?
Ok, where do I start...
First off, I'm not arguing where their ideas / peices of source code come from, I'm only saying that they almost never take something without making significant changes to it (and these are generally very self serving, ie. make it work the way we want it to and the users want it to)
This entire thread is entitled "What's keeping you on Windows?" From reading the comments below, it seems that quality is a major player here.
Wow! I never knew that Microsoft was started around 1954! Because you do know that Linux is just another Unix (ohhhhh, gonna get flamed for that one) varient, and Unix was first created in 1969 by Ken Thompson.... Or maybe you did'nt know that and you really did think all this started in 1995......
I wouldn't take such a shitty tone, but you're attacking my intelligence and creditability here and I don't take that so very lightly.
What? What _new_ technology has M$ made? They
only steal technology from others, bastardize it,
then pass it off as there own. Please enlighten us
to the "Technology" that M$ has contributed to the
world.
If by bastardize it you mean change it to suit their needs, the needs of their users, and make several big improvements - you are very right...
You see, the problem with your comment is that it's way too left-wing to ever be completely true, while Microsoft has definately done some things that are a bit (ok, in some cases a lot) underhanded, that doesn't have anything to do with the quality of their software, which is getting better every release and starting to rival Linux on several very important issues.
On a different note: There are currently 1847 comments on this story, a few more and it's on the HOF list.
Yeah but then everything in space would start to look like a soda can.... wait,, it already does! :)
Your comment has caused an interesting thought...
:)
Where does personal use and promotional use differ, I mean, what if you really, really like "the Lemon Song" (god knows why, I like Led Zepplin, but....) so you have an endless tape of it playing at your lemonade stand for your own enjoyment...
Now, somebody who has the ability to cause you problems drives by and hears said song playing, this person decides that you ARE using this song for promotional purposes...
Who is right in a court of law? Unfortunately the person who is coming after you is going to have more money, and this would most likely result in you being found to be guilty.... In the words of Metallica, "Sad but true"... Uh, oh, was that "Fair use"???? Hope so...
With a minimal amount of porting I'm sure this can be used on any platform. But for use in embedded systems *nix is (IMHO) always the best choice, so it's logical they decided to shoot that direction at first.
:)
As a side note, lan parties could get very interesting using this technology...
Ok, we've missed each other, I mean would it be faster then what you would normally expect from overclocking, slower than what you would normally expect from overclocking, or right in line with what you would normally expect from overclocking the chip... phew!
I've never heard of overhyped threads, would you care to expound upon that a bit further?
I think I speak for us all when I say "Yay!". That's it, nothing more insightful,interesting,or funny, just that and nothing more....
yes, except on a something that looks like a cd-rom and the holes are much smaller and closer together.... :)
Yes, but which one would it be? I was asking for speculation, not presenting speculation :)
Ha! Poke a hole for every byte... that's just a funny image..... :)
:)
Moderators: The parent is what the Funny +1 moderation was invented for....
I wonder how well this chip would do overclocked, as it's the first chip to rely on hyperthreading.
If you overclock the chip I would assume the results would be pretty much in-line with what you could expect to see from any other chip, but I do see the possibility that the hyperthreading (which is supposed to make the chip perform roughly 25% better) could cause the overclocking to give an even larger increase in performance, or it might cause the overclocking to give a smaller performance gain that would be expected.
Either way hyperthreading is an idea whose time has come.
You really expect fledgling technology to acheive those speeds ehh? Maybe, but I'm looking at what we could really expect from the first release in real world terms. But, hopefully you're right and I'm wrong, shit 50MB/sec would be great (hint: just divide all the numbers in my previous example by 100, and that gives the proper figures for a 100GB disk, however considering this disk is actually 87 Gig just take the results from that and multiply by .87 and that'll give the correct figures...) Like I said, it's all a numbers game....
With larger hard drives becoming more common place everyday this technology is really far overdue, It's virtually impossible for some of us to really be responsible about backups the way we should be because of the prohibitive amount of data that needs to be backed up, yea it might take a while to fill up 100 gigabyte using IDE, however let's just figure .5 meg per second, that's 30 mb per minute, or 30 minutes per gig, equaling out to about 3000 minutes, that's about 50 hours for a full burn at the rather fast rate of .5 meg per second. But, consider the alternitives, swaping out 1000+ CDR's... Personally, I'll take the 100 gig disk and let it do it's thing for two days...
Print it, then OCR it, then post your results here, well, that is IF you have the time to spend....
Coward :)
LOL, you really have a fine point there, it's obvious that some software may have a few issues that will cause it to work in unexpected ways/not work at all. This is not something that cannot be fixed by whomever owns/writes said software. If Microsoft is putting forth this kind of effort to ensure security through some other method than obscurity then I say GREAT! And of course Microsoft wants to keep competing software vendors products working, after all, the main reason windows has captured the market share that it has is mainly due to their large base of 3rd party software and business apps (competing or not) If they were to alienate this valueable resource they would be crazy, as it is largely due to this base that they are so successful. And yes, when you're dealing with a product that is millions of lines of code long there are always going to be problems when trying to do anything... My current project that I'm working on is only about 50,000 lines of code (one developer, namely me) and I can tell you that once in a while when I go to change something that seems fairly menial I can cause myself more headaches that you can imagine (although this doesn't happen often, it does happen). So thank Microsoft for at least showing that they DO care, thank you. :)
Well it looks like they might actually finally have the right idea as to how to compete with Linux,,, although they might have a few details a little skewed from what I would consider ideal, they seem to be heading in the right direction. Good to see that Microsoft might actually be listening to their customers finally.
.Net developer so this is of a much greater importance to me than it is to most.
Disclamer: Yes, I do love Linux, no I do not hate Microsoft, as a matter of a fact I am a
A factor of 1200 better than 20/20 vision? Hmmm, wonder if there would be someway to adapt this for other (read military, then trickle to the public) purposes.... I mean, really, imagine a soldier wearing a small set of optics that are able to allow him to clearly see a tank at 100 miles, or even better, allow a tank to see a tank at 100 miles, planes could benefit too. Of course I personally would get a kick out of a nice pair of super-glasses with this tech enabled so that I could finally read those pesky road signs at a mile or two away :)
Forget how to kill it, the real question is what do you call a group of these: a pack, a flock, or a Beowulf cluster???? (Last option should possibly be renamed Beodragoon cluster?)
She's works for Microsoft(or will be soon), really, check out her bio :) Not that this is indicitave of anything really, just a little interesting, actually I wouldn't have ever thought that someone who graduated from MIT would even consider working for MS, but hey, you learn something new everyday...
PS-Note to grandparent poster, I don't blame you, as long as you're only doing it for the money anyhow.....