"The Department of Defense has four classes of operating system...but Windows NT...are at level C2"
This is a common misconception, promulgated by marketing droids. Operating systems are not given security classifications, particular hardware and software installations are.
To use NT as an example, 3.51 was given a C2 classification, provided it did not have a floppy drive or network card installed.
>> Let's assume all your facts are correct--I have no way of (or interest in) verifying them.
> Of course not - it might challenge your small-minded view of the world and force you to accept that everything is not surrounded by a confortable glow.
Challenged your libertarian sentiments did he? And all you can do is produce and ad hominem attack. I would say you just lost the arguement.
Not quite true from what I understand. The MS RPC is a re-implementation of the DCE RPC, something about MS not being prepared to pay licence fees to OSF.
It sort of interworks with the DCE RPC, in the same way as MS Kerberos interworks with the MIT Kerberos.
How did these companies arrive at their decision to promote GTK and Gnome? Did they do a technical evaluation? Was it the fact that the licencing of GTK is different to QT? Or was it the fact that Gnome/GTK development is mainly done in the States, while KDE/QT is mainly developed in Europe.
This is not a troll, I really would be interested in the reasons.
Remember that IBM, HP and DEC (as it was then) were the companies that formed the OSF, largely to kill Sun.
They were going to produce a whole stack of software standardised across all their hardware platforms. This included
A kernel (OSF/1): only partially delivered and implemented only on DEC.
A complete distributed computing environment (DCE): the RPC was delivered and a few services, largely ignored by the industry and essentially dead.
A common user interface (CDE, based on Motif): unfortunately delivered, and implemented on all proprietary UNIX systems, including Sun. However, completely stagnant, not to say ugly.
A common binary format (ANDF): never delivered, even though the technology already existed.
Given the success of the OSF I can't see this initiative going anywhere. If the aim was to improve the computing environment then it might, but a short term alliance to kill a competitor has little chance of success.
"I read a piece 3-4 years ago that predicted that in 5-6 years (from the date of the article) there would be 2 main OS's in the market: Microsoft's offerings (Windows and derrived), and Linux."
Even with IBMs support for Linux this is simply not going to happen. There simply isn't an operating system about that can handle the workload that OS/390 can. Look at the major financial companies, handling millions of accounts using 25 year old software - all of it on mainframes. These are not going to go away in a hurry.
As for MS, it will survive as a media and investment company. I can't see it surviving as a software company.
But the total cost of ownership isn't. What you have to include in the figure are the costs of managing them, which isn't trivial when you have tens of thousands in yourorganisation.
There are a number of ways of reducing the TCO, including:
Making systems more stable, less vulnerable to viruses.
Reduce the software distribution effort by only sending software to a set of servers, rather than individual workstations.
Reduce the cost of support by keeping software in strictly controlled configurations, again on servers rather than uncontrolled on users' desktops.
Now MS are probably pushing to reduce piracy and put you on an ever increasing payments plan rather than reducing your TCO. However this doesn't detract from the fact that moving to a server based application infrastructure (not necessarily an ASP) should reduce overall costs. This doesn't apply everywhere, but it does apply where you have many workstations all running the same, small set of applications.
Sugar is a new one to me. However while I was doing my Ph. D. (in microwave spectroscopy, so I do know something about the subject) there were reports of methanol and ethanol being detected within dust clouds. Estimates of up to about 0.25 million metric tons or so of it.
A whole host of other molecules have been discovered in space using microwave and infrared spectroscopy. To lower the technical requirement as far as I can, all you need is for the molecule to have a dipole or quadrupole.
So what happens to the UNIX for the IA 64 that IBM and SCO were developing together. With both companies actively promoting Linux is it effectively dead?
If it is dead then what is the future of AIX? While IBM have an interesting piece of hardware, the SP frame, they are a bit player in the UNIX marketplace. It might just be easier from IBMs point of view to ditch AIX and the mainframe UNIX system services and promote Linux, making some of their value-add software open source.
"Mainframes are known for being very powerful (in IO speed, not necessarily CPU speed)"
This used to be true, with I/O devices directly connected running at channel speeds. However with the advent of cross-bar technology and SANS (12.6GB/s on a Starfire and 100MB/s full duplex disc access using fibre) it is true no longer. A big UNIX box can beat the pants off a mainframe in terms of CPU, I/O and cost.
Where UNIX doesn't come anywhere near the mainframe is in handling a complex workmix and availability. These are the major reasons why you find enterprises running online transaction processing on the mainframe and datawarehousing on a cheaper, more powerful box.
Agreed, no registry key for Linux. But how do Red Hat and Debian determine how a particular piece of software needs to be updated.
I certainly wouldn't put it past MS to argue that apt invalidates their patent.
In the wake of this weeks fiasco on "viruses", does anyone get updates to Norton Anti-virus over the Web? If so for how long? Not sure whether this invalidates the MS patent, I think a registry key is involved but I am not completely sure.
I have some worries about this speech. I had the feeling that a powerplay was being made, with the intent of "embracing, extending and extinguishing" the open source nature of Linux.
I may be maligning Mr. Love, but if he isn't following this path then you can be sure that someone else will attempt it.
I wouldn't quite go that far. However I would go as far as to say that all theories are tentative.
To use the standard example, you may have a scientific theory that says that all swans are white. This is impossible to prove since you would have to examine an infinite number of swans. However it is possible to disprove it, all you need to find is a single swan that isn't white.
Remember - scientists used to believe in phlostigon. This belief led to all sorts of anomalies, including the idea of negative mass. An unthinking belief in scientific "laws" shows a very poor understanding of the basis of science.
I work for a large UK organisation that has numerous branches in Africa. Putting cable in there is almost impossible, besides the distances the copper tends to get stolen.
So we use a VSAT service instead. For the amount of bandwidth we use it is extremely cost effective.
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK the hype on W2K has been very low compared to W95. Significantly there has been a fair amount of criticism of it in the computing press. There have also been comments from a large number of businesses that they are going to step very slowly into W2K.
I would guess that MS need to force people into conversion if they are ever to make any money out of W2K. They obviously aren't going to do this by marketing, so the obvious tactic is coerceion. Hence the pressure on MSCEs.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Department of Defense has four classes of operating system...but Windows NT...are at level C2"
This is a common misconception, promulgated by marketing droids. Operating systems are not given security classifications, particular hardware and software installations are.
To use NT as an example, 3.51 was given a C2 classification, provided it did not have a floppy drive or network card installed.
>> Let's assume all your facts are correct--I have no way of (or interest in) verifying them.
> Of course not - it might challenge your small-minded view of the world and force you to accept that everything is not surrounded by a confortable glow.
Challenged your libertarian sentiments did he? And all you can do is produce and ad hominem attack. I would say you just lost the arguement.
Not quite true from what I understand. The MS RPC is a re-implementation of the DCE RPC, something about MS not being prepared to pay licence fees to OSF.
It sort of interworks with the DCE RPC, in the same way as MS Kerberos interworks with the MIT Kerberos.
How did these companies arrive at their decision to promote GTK and Gnome? Did they do a technical evaluation? Was it the fact that the licencing of GTK is different to QT? Or was it the fact that Gnome/GTK development is mainly done in the States, while KDE/QT is mainly developed in Europe.
This is not a troll, I really would be interested in the reasons.
They were going to produce a whole stack of software standardised across all their hardware platforms. This included
- A kernel (OSF/1): only partially delivered and implemented only on DEC.
- A complete distributed computing environment (DCE): the RPC was delivered and a few services, largely ignored by the industry and essentially dead.
- A common user interface (CDE, based on Motif): unfortunately delivered, and implemented on all proprietary UNIX systems, including Sun. However, completely stagnant, not to say ugly.
- A common binary format (ANDF): never delivered, even though the technology already existed.
Given the success of the OSF I can't see this initiative going anywhere. If the aim was to improve the computing environment then it might, but a short term alliance to kill a competitor has little chance of success."I read a piece 3-4 years ago that predicted that in 5-6 years (from the date of the article) there would be 2 main OS's in the market: Microsoft's offerings (Windows and derrived), and Linux."
Even with IBMs support for Linux this is simply not going to happen. There simply isn't an operating system about that can handle the workload that OS/390 can. Look at the major financial companies, handling millions of accounts using 25 year old software - all of it on mainframes. These are not going to go away in a hurry.
As for MS, it will survive as a media and investment company. I can't see it surviving as a software company.
This is old hat. Go look at what is been done in the MIT multimedia lab.
Is an oxymoron, same as Microsoft Works.
But the total cost of ownership isn't. What you have to include in the figure are the costs of managing them, which isn't trivial when you have tens of thousands in yourorganisation.
There are a number of ways of reducing the TCO, including:
- Making systems more stable, less vulnerable to viruses.
- Reduce the software distribution effort by only sending software to a set of servers, rather than individual workstations.
- Reduce the cost of support by keeping software in strictly controlled configurations, again on servers rather than uncontrolled on users' desktops.
Now MS are probably pushing to reduce piracy and put you on an ever increasing payments plan rather than reducing your TCO. However this doesn't detract from the fact that moving to a server based application infrastructure (not necessarily an ASP) should reduce overall costs. This doesn't apply everywhere, but it does apply where you have many workstations all running the same, small set of applications.Try Battling. Much more fun too, especially during freshers week (or the equivalent in the States).
Sugar is a new one to me. However while I was doing my Ph. D. (in microwave spectroscopy, so I do know something about the subject) there were reports of methanol and ethanol being detected within dust clouds. Estimates of up to about 0.25 million metric tons or so of it.
A whole host of other molecules have been discovered in space using microwave and infrared spectroscopy. To lower the technical requirement as far as I can, all you need is for the molecule to have a dipole or quadrupole.
"that've led the vast majority of West Europeans to live in abject poverty"
Which bits of Europe have you actually visited to make this sweeping statement. Needless to say it simply isn't true.
So what happens to the UNIX for the IA 64 that IBM and SCO were developing together. With both companies actively promoting Linux is it effectively dead?
If it is dead then what is the future of AIX? While IBM have an interesting piece of hardware, the SP frame, they are a bit player in the UNIX marketplace. It might just be easier from IBMs point of view to ditch AIX and the mainframe UNIX system services and promote Linux, making some of their value-add software open source.
Oh, you mean they are doing that already...
"the Register story you referenced"
I didn't reference a Register story, I referenced a Linux Today story and the comments on it.
I accept your correction on the ASF script files.
I don't spread "rabid pro-Linux FUD". I simply reported on information I saw elsewhere.
It would seem that the wonderful (patented) file format MS ASF can contain script/executables of some kind. See this article in Linux Today.
"Mainframes are known for being very powerful (in IO speed, not necessarily CPU speed)"
This used to be true, with I/O devices directly connected running at channel speeds. However with the advent of cross-bar technology and SANS (12.6GB/s on a Starfire and 100MB/s full duplex disc access using fibre) it is true no longer. A big UNIX box can beat the pants off a mainframe in terms of CPU, I/O and cost.
Where UNIX doesn't come anywhere near the mainframe is in handling a complex workmix and availability. These are the major reasons why you find enterprises running online transaction processing on the mainframe and datawarehousing on a cheaper, more powerful box.
Agreed, no registry key for Linux. But how do Red Hat and Debian determine how a particular piece of software needs to be updated.
I certainly wouldn't put it past MS to argue that apt invalidates their patent.
In the wake of this weeks fiasco on "viruses", does anyone get updates to Norton Anti-virus over the Web? If so for how long? Not sure whether this invalidates the MS patent, I think a registry key is involved but I am not completely sure.
I believe the quote is that man is a political animal, not a social one. And, yes I do realise that he meant people lived in a polis.
I have some worries about this speech. I had the feeling that a powerplay was being made, with the intent of "embracing, extending and extinguishing" the open source nature of Linux.
I may be maligning Mr. Love, but if he isn't following this path then you can be sure that someone else will attempt it.
I wouldn't quite go that far. However I would go as far as to say that all theories are tentative.
To use the standard example, you may have a scientific theory that says that all swans are white. This is impossible to prove since you would have to examine an infinite number of swans. However it is possible to disprove it, all you need to find is a single swan that isn't white.
Remember - scientists used to believe in phlostigon. This belief led to all sorts of anomalies, including the idea of negative mass. An unthinking belief in scientific "laws" shows a very poor understanding of the basis of science.
> Remember, this is the second most valuble company in America.
I think what you really meant was the second most voluble company in America.
I work for a large UK organisation that has numerous branches in Africa. Putting cable in there is almost impossible, besides the distances the copper tends to get stolen.
So we use a VSAT service instead. For the amount of bandwidth we use it is extremely cost effective.
> no, but taking it to court could stop the sale of it.
Wouldn't this count as restraint of trade? Banned under WTO rules?
This is akin to burning books, mostly done in the middle ages, by the Vatican especially. Lately done by Hitler's Germany and Khomeni's Iran.
You will note that these governments have changed, and the former is the epitomy of democracy, while the latter is at least getting there.
What element of democratic control have we got over Mattel?
I don't know about the US, but here in the UK the hype on W2K has been very low compared to W95. Significantly there has been a fair amount of criticism of it in the computing press. There have also been comments from a large number of businesses that they are going to step very slowly into W2K.
I would guess that MS need to force people into conversion if they are ever to make any money out of W2K. They obviously aren't going to do this by marketing, so the obvious tactic is coerceion. Hence the pressure on MSCEs.