Napster has proven the old addage, "Give someone an inch and they will take a mile". Napster should have *never* given an inch to the RIAA. Once they did the RIAA just kept asking for more & more until Napster was effectively useless. Court orders be damned, let the US Supreme Court decide on the matter and burn up all the VC money and go out like a rock star not a punk:^)
What, you mean, the way that samba is " much more reliable" than Microsoft's implementation of SMB? (Hint: select 'bugtraq', search for 'samba': I get more than 150 hits...
You are comparing all open source initiatives to an open source project that has to reverse engineer a "standard" that another company implements as a moving target. I have my security = server so it authenticates against a BDC and it seems that everytime the NT guys install a fudge pack that I have to upgrade Samba to get the auth to work again. You seem to be construing your opinion on one project. One more issue: The last time I checked bugtraq it dealt with *security*, not reliability! I have run Samba for 5 years and I will put up my Solaris samba servers up against any NT/2K box for reliability.
Yet when their expectations of Linux and free software are set by that sort of unthinking hype - Linux is far more secure than Windows, Linux is much more reliable than Windows, you know the tune - all that happens is that when they try it out, and it dumps core, or their local MS astroturfer points out tha bugtraq carries tens of posts a DAY listing remote root exploits in all sorts of Unix software, they decide never to trust those weird communist amateur hippy types.
You really show your inexperience here! Many Linux distros maybe more insecure out of the box (this is changing especially with RH7.1), but the potential is for *much* greater security (Give me a 1/2 hour to harden a distro and it will be *more* secure than NT/2K). I also wouldn't bring in Unix as this brings in Solaris and OpenBSD. If you really want to debate this then I would be more than happy to do so, I can site many references. Linux is also much more stable than NT/2K...the firewall I setup for my friend just recently "flipped" the uptime counter. (Yeah it has more than 2 years of uptime). Before I moved, my firewall had over a year of uptime. Also thanks for sterotyping Linux||*BSD||Unix advocates you really show your silliness.
(Of course, it goes without saying that quite a lot of Free software *is* more reliable / secure / etc than the MS version... which isn't the point I'm making)
I hope you mean Open Source software and not Free software. What is the point your trying to make?
POSIX threads are *slower* and the API is a bit more kludgy, so if high performance and a slightly faster development cycle is more of an issue than portability then you code for Solaris threads.
Yeah, and paying $15-$18 dollars US for a CD is real fair...Have you ever wondered why cassettes are so cheap, yet they are more expensive to produce than CDs? GET A FUCKING CLUE. The consumers are fucking the record companies just like the record companies have been fucking the consumers year after year.
I would if I had the hardware, time, and RDBMS tuning experience! I would also have to get a seasoned Microsoft guy to tune Win2K because I wouldn't want the benchmark to be scewed. These benchmarks are *serious* business and take *lots* of time and money to setup.
True, Linux is technically a contender, but the fact that it is more than twice as expensive to run, and needs twice the amount of CPUs to out-perform its rivals shows that it's not competative in the actual marketplace
Bullshit, your basing your entire opinion on one machine, which is made by SGI and SGI's cost a shitload of money compared to Compaq, Dell, IBM, or HP. I would like to see this test done on a machine made by any of the manufacters listed above. This would improve the performance/cost ratio.
One other assumption everyone seems to be making is that Win2K would scale linearly to 16 processors, which we all know wouldn't happen.
As this excuses the use of a proprietary base library how, exactly?
I'm sorry why do I have to justify my choice for a GUI toolkit again?
...let's just use one that makes our software illegal
Strictly an opinion and not one that is based on fact. In order to find out if anything was illegal a court case would have to be created. You see there were(I say were because QT is now GPL) two interpretations of the license and both parties thought that they were right. No illegal actions were ever proven, it is just that the whole issue was dropped due to QT being GPLed.
Umm... how about not basing it on a proprietary toolkit in the first place. It was hardly a work of genius to see the problem... or perhaps they did, but ignored it on purpose for "other reasons."
Yeah, like the total lack of a well documented C++ GUI toolkit for Linux at the time!
yea, vi is symlinked to vim. and bash is symlinked to sh. so where do you get the original sh and vi if you need them?
??? Both bash and vim read how they are called(argv) and behave like bourne and vi respectively so what is your point? I have many scripts that run flawlessy with this behavior.
if you want something run on openbsd, you have to figure out how to start it (which isn't tough) but when i first ran leenuchs, i didn't know shit and had *everything* running. bind, sendmail, mars, samba, ftp, telnet, blah blah blah.
I have to admit that RH 5.[012] & RH 6.[012] did run a lot of stuff by default which didn't make sense, but RH 7 doesn't do this. But one could always pick individual packages during install if you wanted to. After all you admitted to being a beginner, you could have turned all of these services off in a couple of minutes. The same way you turn them on I might add.
I can have a NAT box setup with openbsd in 15 mins and not even need to turn the monitor on. that is good.
Great! I can do the same with Redhat. And if I want to I can run a servlet engine on my firewall using JDK 1.3, which is something I cannot do with OpenBSD.
It is incredibly insecure, bloated, and crappy. Debian is the only leenuchs i will run (smp on ss10) because it is not bloated and it is easier to secure. it makes a nice desktop OS as well.
Debian is an awesome distro. I am glad you like it. Listen a OS is only as secure as you make it. Yes, by default OpenBSD is more secure, but that doesn't mean you can't make Redhat secure, you just have to have a clue. You seem to not understand security all that much, but I would be infering a lot from just one post! Bloated? LOL. Redhat is a bloated as you make it! You *are* the one that is doing the install. Note: My home firewall has been up for 190 days, without a UPS and my friends has been up for over a year. The only period it comes down is when I have a power outage or when I have to move next week.
It just seems that the more stupified leenuchs distros become, the more morons come out of the woodwork.
Are you calling me a moron? If so then I will share a theory that I have: When a discussion occurs in a thread the first person to name call is usually the one with inferior intelligence.
But everyone on here should know...if the OS / program holds your hand while setting it up, you will not learn shit. Now go in there with vi and you will learn. BLah blah blah....
Whatever. This is such a blanket statement. Look, if you want to learn more while the OS is installing jump to a virtual terminal during a Redhat 7 install. The Redhat installer CRUSHES the stupid OpenBSD installer. You can even graphically install software RAID. As for vi, Linux has a *much* better one...it is called vim.
PS: Don't be silly and reply back that OpenBSD can run vim I know that.
Re:the thing about the console wars...
on
XBox Tidbits
·
· Score: 1
All of you guys are forgetting the *most* important fact: This is Microsoft! It doesn't matter what the hell their product is/does. It *will* eventually be the only game console in town with a 90-95% market share. This might not happen during Xbox 1.0 or even 2.0, but it will happen just like it has in every other market that they have entered. Technical superiority, robustness, stability, game play, all of this doesn't matter. In this day and age marketing is all that matters and Microsoft has the most prolific marketing machine ever seen in the private sector. Microsoft will cut deals with every retail outlet on the planet to make sure their Xbox will be the only game console in town. Imagine this scenario:
Microsoft: The Xbox will be the only game console you sell when it ships, correct?
Retailer: Well we would like to offer other game consoles as well, you know the [insert popular game console here] is very popular right now.
Microsoft: Well if you don't conform to our "requirements" then we may have to pull Windows XP from your shelves. We may also require that PC manufactuers sell you boxes without Windows XP.
Retailer: Uh, I'm sorry...sure whatever you say.
They can easily leverage the desktop to penetrate this market segment.
Slashdot Mirror
Napster has proven the old addage, "Give someone an inch and they will take a mile". Napster should have *never* given an inch to the RIAA. Once they did the RIAA just kept asking for more & more until Napster was effectively useless. Court orders be damned, let the US Supreme Court decide on the matter and burn up all the VC money and go out like a rock star not a punk :^)
This is one of the nice benefits of the G4 processor. It was designed with power consumption in mind from the earliest designs.
What, you mean, the way that samba is " much more reliable" than Microsoft's implementation of SMB? (Hint: select 'bugtraq', search for 'samba': I get more than 150 hits...
You are comparing all open source initiatives to an open source project that has to reverse engineer a "standard" that another company implements as a moving target. I have my security = server so it authenticates against a BDC and it seems that everytime the NT guys install a fudge pack that I have to upgrade Samba to get the auth to work again. You seem to be construing your opinion on one project. One more issue: The last time I checked bugtraq it dealt with *security*, not reliability! I have run Samba for 5 years and I will put up my Solaris samba servers up against any NT/2K box for reliability.
Yet when their expectations of Linux and free software are set by that sort of unthinking hype - Linux is far more secure than Windows, Linux is much more reliable than Windows, you know the tune - all that happens is that when they try it out, and it dumps core, or their local MS astroturfer points out tha bugtraq carries tens of posts a DAY listing remote root exploits in all sorts of Unix software, they decide never to trust those weird communist amateur hippy types.
You really show your inexperience here! Many Linux distros maybe more insecure out of the box (this is changing especially with RH7.1), but the potential is for *much* greater security (Give me a 1/2 hour to harden a distro and it will be *more* secure than NT/2K). I also wouldn't bring in Unix as this brings in Solaris and OpenBSD. If you really want to debate this then I would be more than happy to do so, I can site many references. Linux is also much more stable than NT/2K...the firewall I setup for my friend just recently "flipped" the uptime counter. (Yeah it has more than 2 years of uptime). Before I moved, my firewall had over a year of uptime. Also thanks for sterotyping Linux||*BSD||Unix advocates you really show your silliness.
(Of course, it goes without saying that quite a lot of Free software *is* more reliable / secure / etc than the MS version... which isn't the point I'm making)
I hope you mean Open Source software and not Free software. What is the point your trying to make?
This box would be perfect if it had a sound card for playing MP3s!
Mod this mother fucker up!
I too attended that session, it rocked!
POSIX threads are *slower* and the API is a bit more kludgy, so if high performance and a slightly faster development cycle is more of an issue than portability then you code for Solaris threads.
Moderators, mod this post *UP*!
Hmmm, 2 steps for Sun to topple Microsoft:
:^) or give them away with Sun Enterprise [3-6]500s
1.) Buy as many Xboxes as possible (loss liter, MS will loss billions)
2.) Turn those Xboxes into Cobalt cubes
1.) Using Ximian Gnome 1.4 go to Control Center -> Launch Feedback -> Settings for mouse feedback.
2.) I don't know what focus issues you are talking about.
Yeah, and paying $15-$18 dollars US for a CD is real fair...Have you ever wondered why cassettes are so cheap, yet they are more expensive to produce than CDs? GET A FUCKING CLUE. The consumers are fucking the record companies just like the record companies have been fucking the consumers year after year.
I would if I had the hardware, time, and RDBMS tuning experience! I would also have to get a seasoned Microsoft guy to tune Win2K because I wouldn't want the benchmark to be scewed. These benchmarks are *serious* business and take *lots* of time and money to setup.
True, Linux is technically a contender, but the fact that it is more than twice as expensive to run, and needs twice the amount of CPUs to out-perform its rivals shows that it's not competative in the actual marketplace
Bullshit, your basing your entire opinion on one machine, which is made by SGI and SGI's cost a shitload of money compared to Compaq, Dell, IBM, or HP. I would like to see this test done on a machine made by any of the manufacters listed above. This would improve the performance/cost ratio.
One other assumption everyone seems to be making is that Win2K would scale linearly to 16 processors, which we all know wouldn't happen.
only KDE hairsplitters could hide behind the "not proven" idea
Actually I use GNOME.As this excuses the use of a proprietary base library how, exactly?
I'm sorry why do I have to justify my choice for a GUI toolkit again?
Strictly an opinion and not one that is based on fact. In order to find out if anything was illegal a court case would have to be created. You see there were(I say were because QT is now GPL) two interpretations of the license and both parties thought that they were right. No illegal actions were ever proven, it is just that the whole issue was dropped due to QT being GPLed.
Umm... how about not basing it on a proprietary toolkit in the first place. It was hardly a work of genius to see the problem... or perhaps they did, but ignored it on purpose for "other reasons."
Yeah, like the total lack of a well documented C++ GUI toolkit for Linux at the time!
Moderators please mod up the comment made above!
You forgot Sun Cluster 3.0...
If I had to bet my life on a OS then I would bet on Solaris/SPARC!
Read the damn post he said Solaris x86!
You can't do that with FreeBSD! You have to drop down to single user mode to finish the upgrade.
Here, here, moderators mod this up, this individual makes an excellent point.
yea, vi is symlinked to vim. and bash is symlinked to sh. so where do you get the original sh and vi if you need them?
??? Both bash and vim read how they are called(argv) and behave like bourne and vi respectively so what is your point? I have many scripts that run flawlessy with this behavior.
if you want something run on openbsd, you have to figure out how to start it (which isn't tough) but when i first ran leenuchs, i didn't know shit and had *everything* running. bind, sendmail, mars, samba, ftp, telnet, blah blah blah.
I have to admit that RH 5.[012] & RH 6.[012] did run a lot of stuff by default which didn't make sense, but RH 7 doesn't do this. But one could always pick individual packages during install if you wanted to. After all you admitted to being a beginner, you could have turned all of these services off in a couple of minutes. The same way you turn them on I might add.
I can have a NAT box setup with openbsd in 15 mins and not even need to turn the monitor on. that is good.
Great! I can do the same with Redhat. And if I want to I can run a servlet engine on my firewall using JDK 1.3, which is something I cannot do with OpenBSD.
It is incredibly insecure, bloated, and crappy. Debian is the only leenuchs i will run (smp on ss10) because it is not bloated and it is easier to secure. it makes a nice desktop OS as well.
Debian is an awesome distro. I am glad you like it. Listen a OS is only as secure as you make it. Yes, by default OpenBSD is more secure, but that doesn't mean you can't make Redhat secure, you just have to have a clue. You seem to not understand security all that much, but I would be infering a lot from just one post! Bloated? LOL. Redhat is a bloated as you make it! You *are* the one that is doing the install. Note: My home firewall has been up for 190 days, without a UPS and my friends has been up for over a year. The only period it comes down is when I have a power outage or when I have to move next week.
It just seems that the more stupified leenuchs distros become, the more morons come out of the woodwork.
Are you calling me a moron? If so then I will share a theory that I have: When a discussion occurs in a thread the first person to name call is usually the one with inferior intelligence.
But everyone on here should know...if the OS / program holds your hand while setting it up, you will not learn shit. Now go in there with vi and you will learn. BLah blah blah....
Whatever. This is such a blanket statement. Look, if you want to learn more while the OS is installing jump to a virtual terminal during a Redhat 7 install. The Redhat installer CRUSHES the stupid OpenBSD installer. You can even graphically install software RAID. As for vi, Linux has a *much* better one...it is called vim.
PS: Don't be silly and reply back that OpenBSD can run vim I know that.
All of you guys are forgetting the *most* important fact: This is Microsoft! It doesn't matter what the hell their product is/does. It *will* eventually be the only game console in town with a 90-95% market share. This might not happen during Xbox 1.0 or even 2.0, but it will happen just like it has in every other market that they have entered. Technical superiority, robustness, stability, game play, all of this doesn't matter. In this day and age marketing is all that matters and Microsoft has the most prolific marketing machine ever seen in the private sector. Microsoft will cut deals with every retail outlet on the planet to make sure their Xbox will be the only game console in town. Imagine this scenario:
Microsoft: The Xbox will be the only game console you sell when it ships, correct?
Retailer: Well we would like to offer other game consoles as well, you know the [insert popular game console here] is very popular right now.
Microsoft: Well if you don't conform to our "requirements" then we may have to pull Windows XP from your shelves. We may also require that PC manufactuers sell you boxes without Windows XP.
Retailer: Uh, I'm sorry...sure whatever you say.
They can easily leverage the desktop to penetrate this market segment.