I have been running my primary development machine on XP Service Pack 2 Beta 2 with no detectable problems whatsoever for about 2 weeks. I have also installed it on several test machines of various types and a Virtual PC instance with no issues. I wanted to make sure the project I am lead on had no issues with SP 2. The only things I have found were what I expected, firewall warnings, dynamic content warnings, and a few minor bugs that I could have left alone.
I am fairly careful about downloads, so I probably do not have the spyware program 'winserv' state earlier, so I cannot speak of a problem with it. It does not show up with my spyware detection program or in my task list of running processes.
The explanation I have heard for the delay is that they wanted to make sure ISV's had a chance to test against it so there would be no issues. This could be an excuse, but my own experience has been positive. I think the 3 out of 5 number is anti-Microsoft FUD, the kind usually spread by Linux fanatics.
Since it is still in beta, I cannot recommend it for average users. However, any technically above-competent Windows user should feel comfortable in trying it (after an appropriate back-up that should be done with all OS upgrades).
I started out using VMWare, and tried Virtual PC when Microsoft bought Connectix (we received a copy with our MSDN subscription). I would say Virtual PC is an easier tool to use, and has several nice features such as drag and drop to and from your host, etc.
The things going for VMWare are cross-platform availability for die-hard Linux users, and it is more configurable, though in my opinion it is more difficult.
I'm afraid this is clear example of monopolistic anti-competitive practice by Microsoft. They use their OS monopoly to establish their browser as the dominant product, and by default establish it as a standard. Then they port it to a competitor OS, furthering the product dominance. Then when the competitor establishes it own browser, pull the product, thus hurting the competitor.
I hope this is investigated, though I doubt the Bush administration has any stomach for this.
Not really, but I have to do development somewhere. The Mac desktop makes it easier to develop, and its exception handler is excellent for catching bugs, though I have seen it in our 10.2 install.
It seems funny to me that the generally pro-Open Source, pro-FSF Slashdot crowd is so willing to take IBM's side over SCO's. Aren't they both just huge faceless corporations? I would say IBM is even more so. I know IBM has contributed to Linux and the Apache projects, but that was more for their own benefit as opposed to any deep love for the communities.
Topic Shift: I was originally skeptical of SCO's Linux claims, butI have to admit that after reading the comments of some of the analysts who have looked at the code, I'm thinking SCO may have something. Their comments about the comments being identical are especially telling. Being a programmer myself, I can always tell when someone has borrowed something when the comments match. It's almost like a fingerprint for many developers.
If it turns out to be true, it has to be a serious black mark of Linux's ethical credibility. How can the Linux community wag its collective finger at companies for their practices when its guilty of its own immoral conduct.
Having been a Linux fan before, I personally am becoming very disenchanted, and have moved my Unix development to Mac OS X.
BTW, wasn't their some issue a while back about code from the FreeBSD network stack being put into Linux, violating the BSD License? Does any know if that was resolved one way or the other?
So what is your point? Who can afford a 256-processor machine other than a Fortune 100 company or the government?
I ported my company's application to Solaris using gcc 2.95, cons and an Ultra 5. About 90% of our code is shared across platforms. One comparison would be compile times. To completely compile our application on my off-the-shelf HP 1.6GHz PC through VS.Net (not your snappiest IDE) takes 10 minutes, up to 15 if I'm doing a lot of other work at the same time. To do the same thing on the 900MHz Ultra 5 using gcc and cons on the command line takes 40 minutes. Even compiling under Linux using gcc and cons through a VMWare virtual machine on the same Windows box take less than 20 minutes.
From practical experience the current single-processor Sun workstations pale in comparison to even the most basic current PC, running Windows XP or Linux (not Solaris Intel though, geesh that's a whole other painful story).
I have found the best way to learn something is total immersion. I have found that most "Learning" books are more suited for non-technical users, but fustrating for techies.
Next, find a friendly distribution that will allow you to get started, such as Mandrake.
Finally, use the OS. Try doing as much as possible in Linux. I'd suggest trying to connect to the internet first, the wealth of information available will help you with any later problems. But with each task you don't know how to do or problem you need to solve, look it up in the book you purchased or online. It may seem fustrating at times, but it really seems to stick in memory better if you actually have to do the task.
Seapine Software produces a product called QA Wizard that is a fully scriptable testing tool for web applications using Internet Explorer. Netscape/Java support is coming soon. A Windows application testing tool should be available by the end of the year, as well as a load testing tool.
I have long been dismayed by the excitement the Open Source/Linux commnunity has had reagarding companies such as IBM, Oracle, and HP contributing to Open Source projects. It seems to me all the Open Source developers are being willing pawns in these companies "Beat Microsoft" tactics.
A few years ago the Open Source/Linux community seemed to be much more hobbyist in nature. There were comments like "Beat Microsoft" and such, but they seemed more tongue-in-cheek that serious. However, recently the whole "Beat Microsoft" idea seems to have consumed the community, much to its own loss. And I think a lot of this has been inspired by the contributions of these other large companies. The net result seems to be a focus on simply beating Microsoft products instead of doing what you like or want to do, which leads to what I see as a lack of innovation. Is it just me, or do most recent Open Source developments/projects seem to free versions of existing proprietary products? Why haven't any truly original new ideas come out of the Open Source community? And I don't mean yet another language either. (For the record, I'm certainly haven't seen much innovation out of Microsoft either).
I would love to see the Open Source/Linux community go back to writing software for the love of writing software, not to fulfill IBM or RMS' goal of "Beating Microsoft". I think much better and innovative software would result.
I remember being exposed to OS/2 on a project I was on circa 1994. Our machines were configured to dual boot between OS/2 and DOS/WFW. My experience was that it was sluggish, non-intuitive, and did not come with a TCP/IP stack. I preferred WFW then, and Windows 95 completely blew it out of the water. The only people I remember using it were people with a serious anti-Microsoft jones.
I surprised some postings were wishing OS/2 would have won the "desktop" wars. Even if it was superior (and I don't think it was), would you really want to trade one monopoly (Microsoft) for another (IBM). Their seems to be some feeling in the Linux community that IBM is some benevolent sugar daddy. These same people obviously don't remember the IBM of the '80s and earlier. Nasty bunch. Just because Microsoft got the better of them doesn't make IBM a tragic hero. More likley just desserts.
You do have to have Gnome and Mozilla installed, but I have not had any extra problems installing Galeon once those two are installed. I would like to see the Gecko rendering engine avaible as an individual library (if it already is, then forgive my ignorance).
I would OK with this if the various content companies agreed to give their artists a fairer share of the proceeds, and then cut their prices to the consumers.
I'm not in tune with the movie industry, but I know people in the music industry who say they get practically nothing off CD sales. A CD goes for about $15. From what I understand, the artist might get $1-$2 from the CD sale. Let's say $1-$3 for producing the CD. The store itself makes a small profit, 10% or $1.50. That's still quite a lot going to the record company (by my very friendly reckoning, $8.50).
If they up waht they pay artist and cut the prices for consumer's and lower their own monstrous profits, then we can talk copy protection.
Is anyone posting really surprised by this? It is a logical extension of requiring registration for software.
Next will come registering DVD movies. Then web-enabled devices such as game stations. Eventually anything with a microchip and the potential of connecting to a network will require registration.
Imagine registering your web-enable toaster before getting your toasted Pop-Tarts.
Interesting. The company I work for is going the other direction in porting. Our server product started on Windows, was ported to Linux, and I'm now finishing a port to Solaris Intel and Sparc.
This seems a more natural progression to me. Most Linux implementations are Intel-based, so it was a clearer path to step to Linux first (porting to POSIX APIs), the Solaris Intel (relatively few changes for SunOS), then to Solaris Sparc (little-endian/big-endian changes, word boundaries).
We also seem to have more demand for the Solaris port because Linux users prefer GPL/free software.
But the article did say it was targeted for existing Solaris apps, so obviously I'm looking at it from a different angle.
One fact that seems to have been only lightly touched on is that Solaris is available free for home users. I've not used Linux for Sparc, but I feel that Solaris for SPARC outperforms comparable machines running Linux. I've recently purchased a used Ultra1 and plan to run Solaris on it.
Why does the Linux community seem to take the attitude that you should *only* use Linux? Don't get me wrong, I like Linux and use it on my Tecra laptop. But I always thought it was best to allow people to choose what they want to use, instead of locking them into *any* software, be it Windows, Linux, Solaris, BeOS, OS/2, Office, etc. If the Sparc port is lagging, it probably means more people prefer to use Solaris. Let it go.
This is great for NetBSD, which I run on my Intel Pentium laptop, but I think the emphasis should be on native ports on not using emulations. Applications running through emulations will always have one strike on them compared to native apps.
Slashdot Mirror
I have been running my primary development machine on XP Service Pack 2 Beta 2 with no detectable problems whatsoever for about 2 weeks. I have also installed it on several test machines of various types and a Virtual PC instance with no issues. I wanted to make sure the project I am lead on had no issues with SP 2. The only things I have found were what I expected, firewall warnings, dynamic content warnings, and a few minor bugs that I could have left alone.
I am fairly careful about downloads, so I probably do not have the spyware program 'winserv' state earlier, so I cannot speak of a problem with it. It does not show up with my spyware detection program or in my task list of running processes.
The explanation I have heard for the delay is that they wanted to make sure ISV's had a chance to test against it so there would be no issues. This could be an excuse, but my own experience has been positive. I think the 3 out of 5 number is anti-Microsoft FUD, the kind usually spread by Linux fanatics.
Since it is still in beta, I cannot recommend it for average users. However, any technically above-competent Windows user should feel comfortable in trying it (after an appropriate back-up that should be done with all OS upgrades).
I started out using VMWare, and tried Virtual PC when Microsoft bought Connectix (we received a copy with our MSDN subscription). I would say Virtual PC is an easier tool to use, and has several nice features such as drag and drop to and from your host, etc.
The things going for VMWare are cross-platform availability for die-hard Linux users, and it is more configurable, though in my opinion it is more difficult.
Virtual PC is far cheaper as well.
I hope this is investigated, though I doubt the Bush administration has any stomach for this.
Not really, but I have to do development somewhere. The Mac desktop makes it easier to develop, and its exception handler is excellent for catching bugs, though I have seen it in our 10.2 install.
Topic Shift: I was originally skeptical of SCO's Linux claims, butI have to admit that after reading the comments of some of the analysts who have looked at the code, I'm thinking SCO may have something. Their comments about the comments being identical are especially telling. Being a programmer myself, I can always tell when someone has borrowed something when the comments match. It's almost like a fingerprint for many developers.
If it turns out to be true, it has to be a serious black mark of Linux's ethical credibility. How can the Linux community wag its collective finger at companies for their practices when its guilty of its own immoral conduct.
Having been a Linux fan before, I personally am becoming very disenchanted, and have moved my Unix development to Mac OS X.
BTW, wasn't their some issue a while back about code from the FreeBSD network stack being put into Linux, violating the BSD License? Does any know if that was resolved one way or the other?
So what is your point? Who can afford a 256-processor machine other than a Fortune 100 company or the government?
.Net (not your snappiest IDE) takes 10 minutes, up to 15 if I'm doing a lot of other work at the same time. To do the same thing on the 900MHz Ultra 5 using gcc and cons on the command line takes 40 minutes. Even compiling under Linux using gcc and cons through a VMWare virtual machine on the same Windows box take less than 20 minutes.
I ported my company's application to Solaris using gcc 2.95, cons and an Ultra 5. About 90% of our code is shared across platforms. One comparison would be compile times. To completely compile our application on my off-the-shelf HP 1.6GHz PC through VS
From practical experience the current single-processor Sun workstations pale in comparison to even the most basic current PC, running Windows XP or Linux (not Solaris Intel though, geesh that's a whole other painful story).
Pick up one of the following books: Running Linux from O'Reilly or Linux System Administration: A User's Guide from Addison-Wesley. Browse the books to get a general idea on what to do for basic tasks.
Next, find a friendly distribution that will allow you to get started, such as Mandrake.
Finally, use the OS. Try doing as much as possible in Linux. I'd suggest trying to connect to the internet first, the wealth of information available will help you with any later problems. But with each task you don't know how to do or problem you need to solve, look it up in the book you purchased or online. It may seem fustrating at times, but it really seems to stick in memory better if you actually have to do the task.
Seapine Software produces a product called QA Wizard that is a fully scriptable testing tool for web applications using Internet Explorer. Netscape/Java support is coming soon. A Windows application testing tool should be available by the end of the year, as well as a load testing tool.
A few years ago the Open Source/Linux community seemed to be much more hobbyist in nature. There were comments like "Beat Microsoft" and such, but they seemed more tongue-in-cheek that serious. However, recently the whole "Beat Microsoft" idea seems to have consumed the community, much to its own loss. And I think a lot of this has been inspired by the contributions of these other large companies. The net result seems to be a focus on simply beating Microsoft products instead of doing what you like or want to do, which leads to what I see as a lack of innovation. Is it just me, or do most recent Open Source developments/projects seem to free versions of existing proprietary products? Why haven't any truly original new ideas come out of the Open Source community? And I don't mean yet another language either. (For the record, I'm certainly haven't seen much innovation out of Microsoft either).
I would love to see the Open Source/Linux community go back to writing software for the love of writing software, not to fulfill IBM or RMS' goal of "Beating Microsoft". I think much better and innovative software would result.
I remember being exposed to OS/2 on a project I was on circa 1994. Our machines were configured to dual boot between OS/2 and DOS/WFW. My experience was that it was sluggish, non-intuitive, and did not come with a TCP/IP stack. I preferred WFW then, and Windows 95 completely blew it out of the water. The only people I remember using it were people with a serious anti-Microsoft jones.
I surprised some postings were wishing OS/2 would have won the "desktop" wars. Even if it was superior (and I don't think it was), would you really want to trade one monopoly (Microsoft) for another (IBM). Their seems to be some feeling in the Linux community that IBM is some benevolent sugar daddy. These same people obviously don't remember the IBM of the '80s and earlier. Nasty bunch. Just because Microsoft got the better of them doesn't make IBM a tragic hero. More likley just desserts.
You do have to have Gnome and Mozilla installed, but I have not had any extra problems installing Galeon once those two are installed. I would like to see the Gecko rendering engine avaible as an individual library (if it already is, then forgive my ignorance).
I'm not in tune with the movie industry, but I know people in the music industry who say they get practically nothing off CD sales. A CD goes for about $15. From what I understand, the artist might get $1-$2 from the CD sale. Let's say $1-$3 for producing the CD. The store itself makes a small profit, 10% or $1.50. That's still quite a lot going to the record company (by my very friendly reckoning, $8.50).
If they up waht they pay artist and cut the prices for consumer's and lower their own monstrous profits, then we can talk copy protection.
What would your solution to prevent future attacks be, Mr. Stallman? Or do you feel the status quo is sufficient?
I don't.
Next will come registering DVD movies. Then web-enabled devices such as game stations. Eventually anything with a microchip and the potential of connecting to a network will require registration.
Imagine registering your web-enable toaster before getting your toasted Pop-Tarts.
Was your test sponsored by Microsoft?
This seems a more natural progression to me. Most Linux implementations are Intel-based, so it was a clearer path to step to Linux first (porting to POSIX APIs), the Solaris Intel (relatively few changes for SunOS), then to Solaris Sparc (little-endian/big-endian changes, word boundaries).
We also seem to have more demand for the Solaris port because Linux users prefer GPL/free software.
But the article did say it was targeted for existing Solaris apps, so obviously I'm looking at it from a different angle.
One fact that seems to have been only lightly touched on is that Solaris is available free for home users. I've not used Linux for Sparc, but I feel that Solaris for SPARC outperforms comparable machines running Linux. I've recently purchased a used Ultra1 and plan to run Solaris on it. Why does the Linux community seem to take the attitude that you should *only* use Linux? Don't get me wrong, I like Linux and use it on my Tecra laptop. But I always thought it was best to allow people to choose what they want to use, instead of locking them into *any* software, be it Windows, Linux, Solaris, BeOS, OS/2, Office, etc. If the Sparc port is lagging, it probably means more people prefer to use Solaris. Let it go.
This is great for NetBSD, which I run on my Intel Pentium laptop, but I think the emphasis should be on native ports on not using emulations. Applications running through emulations will always have one strike on them compared to native apps.