You would need each node to boot an OS image and I would prefer the optomized one. either way you need a diskette in each node to boot or use special ethernet cards that boot from a central server. This would be bad because it would hurt performance on the bottlneck of the super computer which would be the speed of the ehternet. The floppies would also need to contain the special messaging software. Again the ethernet would clog everything if its from a central server. Besides you only boot once and after its booted the diskette is no longer used. The other method is to install beowolf on each harddriver. This would take too long to install.
Something is up with that link you gave. I know the k7 is superior then the p3 but if you compare the k7 vs the alpha you will find the k7 is twice as fast. hmmmm
I am also looking for speed in powerpc g3 for a new powerpc linux box and the standard p3 was alomst twoce as fast. I am a former mac guy and I use to regard anything from apple in benchmarking as fact but either apple is really lieing (probably are) or this test is biased. I think you should found out what this test was trying to prove. Something is really screwed up.
A friend of mine tried linux alpha and the performance was quite bad. After a posting at a newsgroup she found out that the gcc compilier is not optimized for alpha. She had to buy an expensive c/c++ one for the alpha box and then after a recompile the performance was great. I wonder how hard it was to get the cluster going wiht the compilier issue. I would hate to make 80 diskettes for all the machines because of licensing issues with the compilier. I heard alpha linux lacked some features of the standard intel one. Is this true or was it refering to the unoptimized compilier that comes with alpha redhat linux?
...didn't the *bsd flavors of unix had what, 20 years to get their act together and yet let windows and proprietary unix os's come in without a care in the world and now the *bsd hackers are pissed at linux users and the whole computer world for ignoring them. They screwed up bad on marketing it, selling it, creating hype about it, and giving it to users.
Again I don't want to start a flame war but people don't necessary buy OS's for technical reasons. I would like to compliment freebsd's technologies. Freebsd is technical superior to linux in many area's like tcp/ip stacks. TO help prevent a flame war between linux users and bsd users I give the credit of superior technology to freebsd and its cousins. I freely admit its superior. But politically its a disaster.
Linus invented linux because he couldn't get a unix os for his 386 pc. freebsd either couldn't run on it or it was accessible at the time. He had to use minux. IF I am correct (I could be wrong). The group of *bsd hackers bickered among themselves and fragmented and made a terrible mistake. THe mistake was it wasn't involved with the IBM pc when it first came out. The *bsd group didn't let outsiders contribute code so users who wanted a more powerful OS had to buy a separate OS more proprietary OS like sun os, irix, aix. The fragmentation in unix itself began. Businesses who standardized on DOS discovered it was crap but put up with it because it was a temporary solution until unix or OS/2 would fill the gap. Unix was crazed by the IS departments until the early 1990's when unix completely became fragmented, proprietary, expensive, and unix companies began bickering among themselves and our good old pal Bill Gates came in and introduced win32 and promised windows95 which was going to be unix like and NT which was going to be even more unix like and may or may not replace it (remember people like Jesse Berst actually believed Microsoft at the time and Bill's words were "...unix like" when referring to the upcoming 32 bit windows OS's). I believe pcmagzine called windows95 the true unix like OS (I am not joking). The *bsd crowd ignored bill totally instead of pointing out there fallacies and marketing there OS and they still haven't learned from there mistakes and the source code was still closed and the users ignored average users and were real snotty. Guess what! Windows took over everything and NT 3.51 came out next and began to steal the unix market.
Admit it how many unix workstations (not servers) are bought today? Not many. IF your an engineer which platform is your high end cad software written in? Which one would it have been 10 years ago? Unix is really a server platform now thanks to microsoft and the EA market is really the only market that still runs unix workstations. I am fully aware that unix workstations are still bought for tasks other then EA but compare today's sales of unix workstations (not servers) to the sale of unix workstations 5 years ago.
Then came linux and now the *bsd users have had it and are beginning to come around. I applaud them for selling and marketing and creating hype about there product which is what they should of done 20 years ago.
I believe the only way *bsd can survive the next 5 years is to become very active and political like linux users. I met a guy who worked at microsoft and sold windows3.1 to businesses. When they asked him why should they select his OS over others and his response was "ITs better marketed. Everyone will be switching to it and using it". I know technogeeks like us hate this but an OS's are sold more for political reasons then technical. We have NT as an example of this. Linux has buzz and its a very good OS technically. Linux has the bst of both worlds.
This is also why my boss at work refuses to look at freebsd and I agree with him. ALso linux has more programers and I believe it will catch up very soon. Linus tried to fix disk caching and tcp/ip performance in kernel 2.3 so perhaps 2.4 might begin to catch up to *bsd. I believe the *bsd group should go gnu to compete with linux. Linux said that linux is made up of 30 full time and over 1,000 part time programmers who work on the kernel while freebsd has only 15 guys. Do any of you remember the old nursery story with the rabbit and the turtle who raced together? The rabbit took a nap and the turtle was way ahead and even though he quickly ran fast, the turtle still won. I believe freebsd had the unix code already and was around over 12 years longer then linux so it had an advantage. Linux is accelerating faster then *bsd while the community scoffed and ignored linux and now like the rabbit in the story it may be too late for freebsd unless it radically changes.
These are my 2 points about freebsd coming from a linux user. Feel free to comment.
WoW! Zdnet! The same magazine company that bashed os/2 as inferior to win3.1 when microsoft paid for ads but then bahsed windows 3.1 when IBM bought a whole bunch of ads is now bashing linux EVEN THOUGH THEY SHOWED LINUX KILLING NT BY 250% on identical hardware when Microsoft WASNT PAYING ANY ADS! Yawn.
If you go to zdent.com and look in the linux section, you will find the test showing linux beating the pants off of NT by 250% in fileserving and I think 95% in webservering using identical tests with the NT machine using IIS and the linux machine using apahce and both machines using the same perl modules and dont give me trash about scalability because the machines were both dual cpu!
I can tell you from real world performance that NT SUCKS! I have a pentium2 233 with 48 megs of ram running IIS and the odler mahcine before it was a 486dx-2 66 with 16 megs of ram and the 486 can run circles around the new pentium2. MY idiot boss got into the IIS4 hype when it came out and decided to switch. THe 486 machine is the main itranent server which is used to talk to a database and display the querries in html code back to the clients browsers. The 486 is much faster then the pentium2 like 25% faster which is impressive since the hardware is hell of alot slower then that. ITs too bad I can't put linux on my pentium2. IT would fly.
SO don't give me that trash about NT untill you actually try it and take EVERYTHING ZDNET SAYS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. ALSO THE TESTS WERE NOT IDENTICAL! GO LOOK AT THE GRAPHS. The NT machines ALL HAD w95 clients while the linux machines had NT clients and the web software and all machines were different and the NT machine ran ISapi and some perl while the unix machines ran obsolete and slow CGI running on web server software designed to slow things on CGI DOWN
IT was clearly a setup paid by microsft because of those stupid ads. MY real world experience tells me what NT and linux are really like. You remind me of those anti- Os/2 guys who read pc magazine and believed Jesse Berst when He said that windows 3.0 was more stable. Do you really think windows 3.o is as stable as OS/2. I hate ignorance.
The hardware IS SELECTED BY MICROSOFT! Microsoft has a whole labe with thousands upon thousands of pieces of hardware and each one is tested on linux and the hardware the worst performance on linux is selected. Next microsoft hakcs a version of NT designed specifically for that hardware. Instead of using standard drivers, the midifed kernel communicates directly to the Hardware to spike performance results. On top of this they EVEN ADMITTED TO USING ALPHA SOFTWARE FOR THE MINDCRAFT TESTS. Microsoft used an alpha experimental multiple ethernet adapter software that assigns each ethernet to the work of each CPU. Only solaris has anything close to this. This is how Microsoft won the first test. Real workd servers use single high speed ethernets instead of multiple low speed ones. Multiple low speed ones take up I//o which is major problem with linux right now but its not too big. Mixed with raid with a BUGGY HARDWARE DRIVER SELECTED BY MICROSOFT AND NT USED SOFTWARE RAID WHICH IS MORE EFFIECENT ENDED UP CRIPLING LINUX BUT NT WAS IMMUNE. In a real server you would have software raid in linux as well as NT. Believe me when I say that software raid is faster then hardware. I have seen it with my own eyes. THis is why microsoft only supports software raid out of the box.
We need a server with 2-4cpu's and one ethernet and software raid AND OFF THE SHELF LINUX AND NT.
If you want multiple adapters then fine! Just dont use alpha software on either platform wether its the adapter to cpu binder in NT or a buggy raid hardware driver in linux. and we also need to make sure that each server runs on the same tests or perhaps same software. NO CGI vs ISAPI. How about perl vs perl or fast cgi vs fast cgi. I will even consider using IIS on the NT side vs apahce in the other as long as we can tweek the settings as well. NO CEATING!
We will prove to all microsofties that our OS is supperior once and for all.
Name one unbaised person who uses both NT and linux who happens to prefer NT and I might consider surrendering. Zdnet (which owns pc magazine) is very biased when companies pay money for ads. They showed linux BEATING NT BY 250% SO DONT CALL THEM AS RELIABLE AND UNBIASED. Count the ms ads on there site now when they started creating false tests.
Microsoft said "were going to cut your ad revunue unless you make up some false tests with linux real soon."
Lets get a few things straight. Name one unbaised source who has used both OS's and have him or her say which is better, faster and more reliable. PCmagazine (owned by zdnet) was mentioned in the microsoft article as proof as how NT rules in every situation and linux sucks in every situation but there is one problem with that source. The same magazine praised linux as supperior to NT a few months ago and another zd publication (computerReseller or something.. I forgot the name) showed LINUX BEATING NT BY OVER 250% on web sharing and ARTICLE BLAMED IIS AS MUCH AS NT FOR THE PROBLEM AND IT WAS A DUAL PROCESSOR CONFIGURATION. The same test with samba file and print sharing showed similiar results. Go look under the linux section of zdnet. How can this be since the other tests shows the exact opposite?
The answer is $$$$. Zdnet did the same thing with OS/2 in the early 1990's when microsft had a whole bunch of ad's in its magazines. They showed windows 3.0 outperforming OS/2 and on top of this they even mentioned Steve Balmer crash os/2 in fornt of IBM's both at comedex and Steve said something like.."WHy can't OS/2 be as stable as windows 3.0" or something on similiar guidlines. Also read the computer reviews for zdnet. If compaq has alot of advertising in the magazien for that particular issue then the compaq comjputers would have the highest ratings. IF Dell put alot of advertisments in another issue then Dell would recieve the reward as the best computer. My point? My point is that zdnet is not reliable and unbiased. These resutls were sponsored by microsoft and even zdnet admits this in regarding its old os/2 articles. Zdnet also admits that the mincraft tests were paid by microsoft as well.
For all you windows fanatics and ms employees reading this I have one question for you. WHy do you have to lie and have a whole army of evangelists and marketing thuds just to sell windows. Linux has 17% of new server Os's sold with any of this.
TO me this means failure and fear from microsoft. THe hardware used for the test has buggy drivers and is SELECTED BY MICROSOFT! Microsoft has a whole lab with thousands of components and this hardware was selected piece by piece to slow down linux. Even Bill Gates admits doing this sort of stuff because he believes he has to too sell his software. At least us linux guys dont because we have nothing to hide and we just care about technical supperiority. GO to zdnet$ and look at past article showing linux in a positive light and read the comments.
All the commnets from real people all prefering linux over NT. I say this again? Name one unbaised source who claims that NT is better then linux.
Everyone execpt microsoft and microsoft sponsored mindcraft and also microsoft sponsored zdnet and even zdnet says some positve things on linux.
IF an app takes down a whole os it means that the os has some serious bugs or it just plainly sucks. Q3test crashed my machine. THis means that the graphics modules aren't designed properly. THe drivers shouldn't crash an os if they are run in user space instead of kernel space. THis shows that the linux graphics drivers and kernel modules were poorly written. I know its a little faster in kernel mode but this is the main cause of NT server crahses. All the bsod's always mention a video card access problem. IT shouldnt happen and I will try to take linux off my web server at work because I now fear that a system crash is inevitable like NT and Thompson is just the tip of the iceberg. I plan to use freebsd or solaris x86.
IF linux is a clone of his work and the autrhor says it sucks then its the end of discusion. He didnt critize the opensource model. He said the code sucked and the media seems to support this. Untill linux matures years altter, I will avoid it. I plan to switch to freebsd. He did say some parts were cool. BUt linux can't handle scsi properly and the threads suck it doesn't support aync i/o's or non reemptive points. Linux=unix 85.
Sorry guys. If you wrote a better os and a programming language then c then I would acutally believe you. I trust him and independt magazines liek windows NT magazine and Dr Dobbs journal.
I am no hardware device programer but If NT can perform otpimally by writing the drivers for the hardware being used, why can't use do the same for linux or freebsd.
hmm I am considered a god if I am the one who saves the day from a downed network or bsod but if everything works I am percieved as someone wasting company resources and time.
Now lets think about this. Unix= no crashes, NT= crashes. unix admin= someone wasting resources and money, NT admin= hero who saves the company and network and makes sure that your network is safe. In other words, if the co-workers can't see me then I am not there or not needed. hmmm which side should I take:-)
I don't know about you guys but the mcse tests I have taken are very hard comapred to other exams liek cne/cna. I admit they test on wording but if you don't know how to use global/local groups, the osi model, tcp/ip, or basic NT administration work, then its impossible to pass. I bet all you/.ers would fail if you have never studied for any of the mcse exams. Computer knowledge id not good enough to pass these tests. What gets me ticked is the course material only covers 75% of the test and the new adaptive tests reask you stuuff you don't know like the other 25%. I took the iis exam and was constantly reasked questions on sql server and type 800045 errors that weren't even covered in the couruse material. WHAT THE HELL DOES SQL SERVER HAVE TO DO WITH HOSTING A WEB PAGE! If your an iis admin and you had an odbc or sql server errors, you would call the database admin and say fix this and not fix it yourself and worsen the problem if you don't know what yoru doing?
Mcse exams are nearly impossible to pass. They measure skill by how well you know mouse click on simulatoins rather then actual content. I flunked my iis exam because I was asked sql server questions and odbc questions that were not even covered on the course material. The course material is focusing less and less on actual course material and content because of cheaters getting the answers on the net. Mcse tests makes the cne tests look elementry. GO to www.cramsession.com and look at the NT enterprise and iis exams feedback and tell me all the people who called them impossible to pass are abunch of morons. Because NT has so much less conent to memorize compared to unix because of mouse clicks and menu's make ms put hard stuff in their exams. The fact that I have over ten tabs in the iis service manager in mmc and expected to know whats in all ten and if I click on the worng one, then the answer is wrong. Its rediculous. I have never taken the adaptive exam and I heard they are easier but the non-adaptive ones I have taken are tough. I had alot of trouble with networking essentials and I had no college degree so I had to memorize osi model and IBM"s calbing numbers (like your using an IBM type 4 calbe., Which one is that and how far can the signal go.). Networking essentials is rather easy if you have a cs degree but the other exams are really tough with or w/o a cs degree.
You can create a whole bunch of scripts with the at command. Its mostly boring network and system tasks but for average work stuff its ok. I admit that you won't be able to record mp3's at specific times but you can run standard bussiness tasks. Their is a windows 95 scheduler that runs apps at specific times so you can add a programing extension to the program to interact with the schedule so you could theoretically record mp3's. I believe microsoft is ading this to windows2000.
According to an ex ms employee who is alex st.John at www.maximumpc.com and www.bootmag.com, everyone lies to bill. When he worked for microsoft when windows 95 was still in alpha and beta, a pcmagazine interviewer aksed him about the windows postscript interface and he said we are working on it and it still needs some work. Bill emailed him back and said"YOU IDIOT! DONT YOU KNOW THAT TEH WINDOWS POSTSCRIPT DRIVER IS THE BEST OUT THERE AND ITS EVEN BETTER TEHN ADOBE"S!" He did a doubletake. Bill actually thought that adobe's postscript driver for the mac was infior to the one the comes with windows. He emailed him back and said its not true. YOur product manager lied to you. He emailed him back and Bill was in deisbelieve and said "THE MAC's POSTSCRIPT DRIVER IS INFIOR TO EVEN WINDOWS 3.1! GO GEt YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!". He evenutally met with Bill Gates to show him that the widnows postscript driver needed to be scraped and we need to use adobe's postscript driver instead. He agreed but the fact of the matter is Bill is paranoid because he knows everyone blows smoke up his ass. Its not Bill's fault its the fault of the ms employee's. Bill is very ignorant and I bet the NT product manager told bill this fud about linux because Bill was asking why NT crashes so much and he didn't want to admit that he fucked up. Bill is just repeating what all the NT product managers tell him and he has no clue about it.
?? which managers. Linux is like the internet.
on
MS Office for Linux
·
· Score: 1
Linux is like the net in that its publically owned. If you really worked for microsoft I would be appauled if office was being ported to linux. As a ms employee you know that the office revolution started with bundling as an attempt to squash os/2. If office was the standard and consumers couldn't even share data with the world with os/2, then it would die. Office, I admit is better but I believe ms made office as a political move to sell windows. Microsoft needs one competitor in the market so thats why office is developed for the mac. If anti-trust laws didn't exist, would you write ofice for the mac? I think not. Microsoft has behaved in many anti competitive practices and I can't think of any reason why ms would port office to the linux, other then to destroy it. You mentioned that you believe in a all-Microsoft computing enviroment but linux is a problem because everything is opened and its much easier to compete and you lose money because of windows isn't part of the office solution.
DId you know that sco was orignally microsoft xenix. The kernel might of been rewritten but it has its roots. If microsoft ever kept it linux would of never been born and xenix would urle and microsoft would own 100% of every os computing market. If NT was reliable as sco (oops I mean xenix), unix would of been history and visual studio would be the programming answer to every problem. IT would of been scary if BIll was smart enough to keep it though.
HELP! Sco keeps on crahsing when I launch Microsoft visual emacs ++,visaul qtscript and sqlserver on my xenix (oops I mean sco box.). I am sick of getting this blue screen of death and I selected reboot on error under the properties of my computer so the machine is rebooting in a loop. Can anyone help. I called microsoft tech support and they said that since BIll Gates invented unix it shouldn't crash. Help!:-)
tHANK GOD MICROSOFT SOLD XENIX TO SCO. IMAGINE THE HELL IF THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. ALso linus probably would of used and therefor linux wouldn't of been born. I love the sound of visual emacs.:-)
Unix is not an os but a standard! When will these ms loyalists relize this. I guess they are all use too the gui being intergrated into the os and even kernel and having stuff like the explorer part of the os. WIndows users see all these things in windows and the macintosh and then they think stuff like bash and xwindows is part of unix and the kernel. They also see vendor apps that come with each unix os like cad ones for irix and security ones for aix (I haven't finished my unix course yet at college so I don't know what they are) and all the windows guys say ohh no interoperability, no compadiblity, unix is hopeless. THey don't understand that many unix apps can run or be recompilied for each other or just run on each different unix. Ms is soo bad with being proprietary and the mac is right behind it, that most users think its very hard to keep things open and its impossible to even try. Can you really blame them. If every unix vendor behaved like ms, their would be 0% compadibility. To me the kernel is not important because it does stuff that the user shouldn't have to do or worry about doing. In user space all the unix's are very open and almost identical. Most ms users think they are different because the kernels are different and there for have to have different interfaces and apps. I thought this way before I installed linux because all I knew was the mac and windows. The fact is, the kernel doesn't matter because unix is standard and linux will fill in everything so it can be unified. Windows NT can be a unix if you buy the proper bash/xwindows package with support for.elf files. I believe their is a company that sells one for NT that is even unix98 branded! Any os can be a unix and the linux.elf files and libraries will be that new unified standard. Freebsd supports them, sco now supports them, the next version of solaris will support them. SGI loves linux and will probably support them as well or just give up irix and use a mips version of linux. Sgi is working on a mips version of linux. All unix programers will probably just compile their aps for linux since we own more marketshare then all the other unix's combined and it will be compidible for ever unix like solaris, freebsd and sco. We are the new standard and we all bring new innovation to the unix market like gnome, kde, gtk, etc.
IF everyone thinks NT is better, guess what! we all lose. All the innovation with linux will stop because gnu will turn into a windows thing crippled by lack of api's (thanks to microsofts deliberate attempt to break the public ones and hide the private). Come Guys no one ever gets fired for buying microsoft software. MY job and your will be gone or you can still have it if you only use ms wrpducts for everything. Oh! Guess what! Your job will be gone! why do you need to to hire consultants when you can just visit microsofts web site and buy the package for your needs. Why do you need a consultant to find out which programing suite you need or which database you need when you or any idiot can just order SQL server or Visual studio. Microsoft has a solution for every problem right!:-)
I DONT WANT TO PAY $1300 FOR VISUAL C++ AND ANOTHER 700 FOR VISUAL BASIC! MICROSOFT CRIPPLED ALL THE CHEAPER VERSOINS OF VC BY MAKING THE PROGRAMS RUN SLOWER ! ITS PRATICALLY THE SAME PROGRAM BUT WITH A CRIPPLED COMPILER! I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE VC BECAUSE ONLY VC CAN USE THE API"S OF WINDOWS! WHO THEY HELL DO THEY THINK THE ARE TO TELL ME WHAT TO BUY! I think its awefull that I am closed from the real (windows) world. I bought caldera linux out fo rage because I wanted to do some programming. I am not a unix tech guy but just a hobbyist who refuses to reward Gates for his crippling of the api's to visual studio only! I want to write high performance grahics apps with directx and opengl and microsoft has totally used my own computer agaisnt me. Why do I need to be punished by ms by not reading and sharing info with office just because I chose to buy my own os. Microsoft has ilegally and unethically abuased its power and we linux users suffer! WOuldn't it be great if office 2000 didn't have encyption technology in its.doc and.xls files so you can share data with the world or it would be greater if everyone used an open standard like html or any other txt format, so it wouldn't matter what wordprocessor you used. Everything was open before Billy Boy and Big BLue came along and changed everything. As you can tell I have a big type A personality and I can invision BIlly grining (just as he did when he told the press that Ie was part of windows)when he sees me fustrated with windows. I am tired of microsoft insulting mine and all other it profesionals intelligent's. I bet all the employees were laughing their asses off when they heard Muth bash linux. BIll just thinks he can do whatever he wants and can make all of the IT professionals think whatever he wants us to think. ITS NOT UP TO MICROSOFT TO SET STANDARDS OR TELL MY BOSS WHAT TO BUY> Its their job to try to convince us but not to call my boss directly and tell him to fire me (MS DID CALL MY BOSS TO TRY TO CONVINCE HIM THAT NT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION AND THAT GUY WHO ISNTALLED LINUX (me) SHOULD BE FIRED BECAUSE I WAS INCOMPETANT FOR NOT SELECTING NT!). I am not MAKING THIS UP! My boss never called ms but rather ms called us and threatened us. They are like the mobfia. These bull performance charts are just one small piece of the pie. I hope the DOJ SLAMS THEIR ASS!
aaah the previous poster is right. This does feel alot better.
oh and one more thing. BIll Gates on Germany radio stated that windows 98 doesn't have any bugs and that if it crahses THEN ITS YOUR FAULT! Now. How does this make all you support people feel?
Read this http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/linux/opinion/0,59 54,2216064,00.html .
This article tries to show that linux is as split up as unix. It also shows that the distributions are incompadible with each other and that its a big headache because no one company owns it.
Microsoft marketing department: Thank you! Here is your check. Good work!
I started getting into computers because the graphics and games were alot better. It was easier to develop a game in those days then a regular nintendo. IF i was born 10 years later, I would have never gotten into computers because the price of what these developers go thru to make any game run on widnows sucks. How many hoops have you all jumped to make a simple triangle that you can move around in a 360 degree enviroment in derectx. I can do this alot easier with the development version of the playstation for programers. ITs very sad. I blame this on MICROSOFT 100%! Oh and I jsut rmembered that microsoft purposely crippled visual c so only the $1300 version could be compiled tightly. Al.so microsoft's api's are secrets that only visual C can access. THis sucks! I hape to pay 1300 for a fast game and end up with a slow performer because microsoft believes in overlly engineered pc's because they can sell windows at a higher price! I hate them and intel. ALso sony has liberal licensing compared to sega and nintendo so part of the problem is with nintendo but I want my games back on my pc. I like customizable pc games. I wish those days would come back. Anyone know what happened to the performance of todays pc's and why are they so far behing consules when they are soo much more expensive? This would be unthinkable back in 93 or 94. Someone mentioned that the n64 was as fast as a 10,000$ sgi workstation and we laughed at him. Its now true:-(! what the (&&^. It seems to me that cisc is finally strangling the desktop market and having bus speed only a fith as fast as the cpu with slow memory aren't helping either. Especially if that old hardware has windows choking it and slowing it down even more.
hmm the vodoo 3 can pump 8 million polyons/sec on on a 2500 pentium3 and a 155$ ps/2 can pump 55 million polygons a second. Which is better? I feel disgusted that the stupid computer engineers can even make a system as fast a childs video game system. Thats sad. Hey! could this $399 pc even compete agaisnt the playstation1. Also their is an emotional chip that makes special effect and beautifull graphics for the graphics chip to pump out. 500 mips! OOOh I am getting a hard on just thinking about it. We need a ps2 with a hardrive and linux and a dsl modem or cable modem and pure paradise will come.
Sorry guys I just couldn't resist. I am bored. Berst is just looking for a story and nothing else so don't worry. Berst is a journalist and not a computer consultant. Go ask a few microsoft loyalists what they think of zdnet and Berst and they will tell you the same things that linux users say. Just ignore him guys. He has no crediblity in either os camps. The article mentioned that you should not select linux for emotional reasons but rather technical. He is right. Linux still has major scalability problems with 4 or more processors compared to other unix's. Also NT is great for the computer novices with tiny networks because its quick to setup and easy to administer. Linux would drive a non computer nut crazy. I use linux at home but I avoid it at work and use solaris or aix. Linux 2.2 is alot better with 2-4 processors but it is still behind solaris and aix and the performance of linux is very far behind solaris in 4-10 cpu systems. I think linux is great as a cheap alternative to home users and college students but to a bussiness the price difference between linux and solaris is peanuts. Bussiness's dont buy software but solutions that may include software. Computers earn money and dont save money to them. If i am working on a project to save 750,000$, the price of the os in the server is peanuts and solaris is my choice. Face it guys. If money was no object, would you use linux? Berst was not talking about NT but rather other unix solutions. relax!
Slashdot Mirror
I made a few spelling errors. I also meant hard drive on the second to last sentence. Sorry
You would need each node to boot an OS image and I would prefer the optomized one. either way you need a diskette in each node to boot or use special ethernet cards that boot from a central server. This would be bad because it would hurt performance on the bottlneck of the super computer which would be the speed of the ehternet. The floppies would also need to contain the special messaging software. Again the ethernet would clog everything if its from a central server. Besides you only boot once and after its booted the diskette is no longer used. The other method is to install beowolf on each harddriver. This would take too long to install.
Something is up with that link you gave. I know the k7 is superior then the p3 but if you compare the k7 vs the alpha you will find the k7 is twice as fast. hmmmm
I am also looking for speed in powerpc g3 for a new powerpc linux box and the standard p3 was alomst twoce as fast. I am a former mac guy and I use to regard anything from apple in benchmarking as fact but either apple is really lieing (probably are) or this test is biased. I think you should found out what this test was trying to prove. Something is really screwed up.
A friend of mine tried linux alpha and the performance was quite bad. After a posting at a newsgroup she found out that the gcc compilier is not optimized for alpha. She had to buy an expensive c/c++ one for the alpha box and then after a recompile the performance was great. I wonder how hard it was to get the cluster going wiht the compilier issue. I would hate to make 80 diskettes for all the machines because of licensing issues with the compilier. I heard alpha linux lacked some features of the standard intel one. Is this true or was it refering to the unoptimized compilier that comes with alpha redhat linux?
...didn't the *bsd flavors of unix had what, 20 years to get their act together and yet let windows
and proprietary unix os's come in without a care in the world and now the *bsd hackers are
pissed at linux users and the whole computer world for ignoring them. They screwed up bad on
marketing it, selling it, creating hype about it, and giving it to users.
Again I don't want to start a flame war but people don't necessary buy OS's for technical reasons.
I would like to compliment freebsd's technologies. Freebsd is technical superior to linux in many
area's like tcp/ip stacks. TO help prevent a flame war between linux users and bsd users I give the
credit of superior technology to freebsd and its cousins. I freely admit its superior. But politically
its a disaster.
Linus invented linux because he couldn't get a unix os for his 386 pc. freebsd either couldn't run
on it or it was accessible at the time. He had to use minux. IF I am correct (I could be wrong).
The group of *bsd hackers bickered among themselves and fragmented and made a terrible
mistake. THe mistake was it wasn't involved with the IBM pc when it first came out. The *bsd
group didn't let outsiders contribute code so users who wanted a more powerful OS had to buy a
separate OS more proprietary OS like sun os, irix, aix. The fragmentation in unix itself began.
Businesses who standardized on DOS discovered it was crap but put up with it because it was a
temporary solution until unix or OS/2 would fill the gap. Unix was crazed by the IS departments
until the early 1990's when unix completely became fragmented, proprietary, expensive, and unix
companies began bickering among themselves and our good old pal Bill Gates came in and
introduced win32 and promised windows95 which was going to be unix like and NT which was
going to be even more unix like and may or may not replace it (remember people like Jesse Berst
actually believed Microsoft at the time and Bill's words were "...unix like" when referring to the
upcoming 32 bit windows OS's). I believe pcmagzine called windows95 the true unix like OS (I
am not joking). The *bsd crowd ignored bill totally instead of pointing out there fallacies and
marketing there OS and they still haven't learned from there mistakes and the source code was
still closed and the users ignored average users and were real snotty. Guess what! Windows took
over everything and NT 3.51 came out next and began to steal the unix market.
Admit it how many unix workstations (not servers) are bought today? Not many. IF your an
engineer which platform is your high end cad software written in? Which one would it have been
10 years ago? Unix is really a server platform now thanks to microsoft and the EA market is really
the only market that still runs unix workstations. I am fully aware that unix workstations are still
bought for tasks other then EA but compare today's sales of unix workstations (not servers) to the
sale of unix workstations 5 years ago.
Then came linux and now the *bsd users have had it and are beginning to come around. I applaud
them for selling and marketing and creating hype about there product which is what they should of
done 20 years ago.
I believe the only way *bsd can survive the next 5 years is to become very active and political like
linux users. I met a guy who worked at microsoft and sold windows3.1 to businesses. When they
asked him why should they select his OS over others and his response was "ITs better marketed.
Everyone will be switching to it and using it". I know technogeeks like us hate this but an OS's are
sold more for political reasons then technical. We have NT as an example of this. Linux has buzz
and its a very good OS technically. Linux has the bst of both worlds.
This is also why my boss at work refuses to look at freebsd and I agree with him. ALso linux has
more programers and I believe it will catch up very soon. Linus tried to fix disk caching and tcp/ip
performance in kernel 2.3 so perhaps 2.4 might begin to catch up to *bsd. I believe the *bsd
group should go gnu to compete with linux. Linux said that linux is made up of 30 full time and
over 1,000 part time programmers who work on the kernel while freebsd has only 15 guys. Do
any of you remember the old nursery story with the rabbit and the turtle who raced together? The
rabbit took a nap and the turtle was way ahead and even though he quickly ran fast, the turtle still
won. I believe freebsd had the unix code already and was around over 12 years longer then linux
so it had an advantage. Linux is accelerating faster then *bsd while the community scoffed and
ignored linux and now like the rabbit in the story it may be too late for freebsd unless it radically
changes.
These are my 2 points about freebsd coming from a linux user. Feel free to comment.
WoW! Zdnet! The same magazine company that bashed os/2 as inferior to win3.1 when microsoft paid for ads but then bahsed windows 3.1 when IBM bought a whole bunch of ads is now bashing linux EVEN THOUGH THEY SHOWED LINUX KILLING NT BY 250% on identical hardware when Microsoft WASNT PAYING ANY ADS!
Yawn.
If you go to zdent.com and look in the linux section, you will find the test showing linux beating the pants off of NT by 250% in fileserving and I think 95% in webservering using identical tests with the NT machine using IIS and the linux machine using apahce and both machines using the same perl modules and dont give me trash about scalability because the machines were both dual cpu!
I can tell you from real world performance that NT SUCKS! I have a pentium2 233 with 48 megs of ram running IIS and the odler mahcine before it was a 486dx-2 66 with 16 megs of ram and the 486 can run circles around the new pentium2. MY idiot boss got into the IIS4 hype when it came out and decided to switch. THe 486 machine is the main itranent server which is used to talk to a database and display the querries in html code back to the clients browsers. The 486 is much faster then the pentium2 like 25% faster which is impressive since the hardware is hell of alot slower then that. ITs too bad I can't put linux on my pentium2. IT would fly.
SO don't give me that trash about NT untill you actually try it and take EVERYTHING ZDNET SAYS WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. ALSO THE TESTS WERE NOT IDENTICAL! GO LOOK AT THE GRAPHS. The NT machines ALL HAD w95 clients while the linux machines had NT clients and the web software and all machines were different and the NT machine ran ISapi and some perl while the unix machines ran obsolete and slow CGI running on web server software designed to slow things on CGI DOWN
IT was clearly a setup paid by microsft because of those stupid ads. MY real world experience tells me what NT and linux are really like. You remind me of those anti- Os/2 guys who read pc magazine and believed Jesse Berst when He said that windows 3.0 was more stable. Do you really think windows 3.o is as stable as OS/2.
I hate ignorance.
The hardware IS SELECTED BY MICROSOFT! Microsoft has a whole labe with thousands upon thousands of pieces of hardware and each one is tested on linux and the hardware the worst performance on linux is selected. Next microsoft hakcs a version of NT designed specifically for that hardware. Instead of using standard drivers, the midifed kernel communicates directly to the Hardware to spike performance results. On top of this they EVEN ADMITTED TO USING ALPHA SOFTWARE FOR THE MINDCRAFT TESTS. Microsoft used an alpha experimental multiple ethernet adapter software that assigns each ethernet to the work of each CPU. Only solaris has anything close to this. This is how Microsoft won the first test. Real workd servers use single high speed ethernets instead of multiple low speed ones. Multiple low speed ones take up I//o which is major problem with linux right now but its not too big. Mixed with raid with a BUGGY HARDWARE DRIVER SELECTED BY MICROSOFT AND NT USED SOFTWARE RAID WHICH IS MORE EFFIECENT ENDED UP CRIPLING LINUX BUT NT WAS IMMUNE. In a real server you would have software raid in linux as well as NT. Believe me when I say that software raid is faster then hardware. I have seen it with my own eyes. THis is why microsoft only supports software raid out of the box.
We need a server with 2-4cpu's and one ethernet and software raid AND OFF THE SHELF LINUX AND NT.
If you want multiple adapters then fine! Just dont use alpha software on either platform wether its the adapter to cpu binder in NT or a buggy raid hardware driver in linux. and we also need to make sure that each server runs on the same tests or perhaps same software. NO CGI vs ISAPI. How about perl vs perl or fast cgi vs fast cgi. I will even consider using IIS on the NT side vs apahce in the other as long as we can tweek the settings as well. NO CEATING!
We will prove to all microsofties that our OS is supperior once and for all.
Name one unbaised person who uses both NT and linux who happens to prefer NT and I might consider surrendering. Zdnet (which owns pc magazine) is very biased when companies pay money for ads. They showed linux BEATING NT BY 250% SO DONT CALL THEM AS RELIABLE AND UNBIASED. Count the ms ads on there site now when they started creating false tests.
Microsoft said "were going to cut your ad revunue unless you make up some false tests with linux real soon."
Everyoen I know prefers linux to NT any day.
Lets get a few things straight. Name one unbaised source who has used both OS's and have him or her say which is better, faster and more reliable. PCmagazine (owned by zdnet) was mentioned in the microsoft article as proof as how NT rules in every situation and linux sucks in every situation but there is one problem with that source. The same magazine praised linux as supperior to NT a few months ago and another zd publication (computerReseller or something.. I forgot the name) showed LINUX BEATING NT BY OVER 250% on web sharing and ARTICLE BLAMED IIS AS MUCH AS NT FOR THE PROBLEM AND IT WAS A DUAL PROCESSOR CONFIGURATION. The same test with samba file and print sharing showed similiar results. Go look under the linux section of zdnet. How can this be since the other tests shows the exact opposite?
The answer is $$$$. Zdnet did the same thing with OS/2 in the early 1990's when microsft had a whole bunch of ad's in its magazines. They showed windows 3.0 outperforming OS/2 and on top of this they even mentioned Steve Balmer crash os/2 in fornt of IBM's both at comedex and Steve said something like.."WHy can't OS/2 be as stable as windows 3.0" or something on similiar guidlines. Also read the computer reviews for zdnet. If compaq has alot of advertising in the magazien for that particular issue then the compaq comjputers would have the highest ratings. IF Dell put alot of advertisments in another issue then Dell would recieve the reward as the best computer. My point? My point is that zdnet is not reliable and unbiased. These resutls were sponsored by microsoft and even zdnet admits this in regarding its old os/2 articles. Zdnet also admits that the mincraft tests were paid by microsoft as well.
For all you windows fanatics and ms employees reading this I have one question for you. WHy do you have to lie and have a whole army of evangelists and marketing thuds just to sell windows. Linux has 17% of new server Os's sold with any of this.
TO me this means failure and fear from microsoft. THe hardware used for the test has buggy drivers and is SELECTED BY MICROSOFT! Microsoft has a whole lab with thousands of components and this hardware was selected piece by piece to slow down linux. Even Bill Gates admits doing this sort of stuff because he believes he has to too sell his software. At least us linux guys dont because we have nothing to hide and we just care about technical supperiority. GO to zdnet$ and look at past article showing linux in a positive light and read the comments.
All the commnets from real people all prefering linux over NT. I say this again? Name one unbaised source who claims that NT is better then linux.
Everyone execpt microsoft and microsoft sponsored mindcraft and also microsoft sponsored zdnet and even zdnet says some positve things on linux.
This is the truth
IF an app takes down a whole os it means that the os has some serious bugs or it just plainly sucks. Q3test crashed my machine. THis means that the graphics modules aren't designed properly. THe drivers shouldn't crash an os if they are run in user space instead of kernel space. THis shows that the linux graphics drivers and kernel modules were poorly written. I know its a little faster in kernel mode but this is the main cause of NT server crahses. All the bsod's always mention a video card access problem. IT shouldnt happen and I will try to take linux off my web server at work because I now fear that a system crash is inevitable like NT and Thompson is just the tip of the iceberg. I plan to use freebsd or solaris x86.
IF linux is a clone of his work and the autrhor says it sucks then its the end of discusion. He didnt critize the opensource model. He said the code sucked and the media seems to support this. Untill linux matures years altter, I will avoid it. I plan to switch to freebsd. He did say some parts were cool. BUt linux can't handle scsi properly and the threads suck it doesn't support aync i/o's or non reemptive points. Linux=unix 85.
Sorry guys. If you wrote a better os and a programming language then c then I would acutally believe you. I trust him and independt magazines liek windows NT magazine and Dr Dobbs journal.
I am no hardware device programer but If NT can perform otpimally by writing the drivers for the hardware being used, why can't use do the same for linux or freebsd.
hmm I am considered a god if I am the one who saves the day from a downed network or bsod but if everything works I am percieved as someone wasting company resources and time.
:-)
:-)
Now lets think about this. Unix= no crashes, NT= crashes. unix admin= someone wasting resources and money, NT admin= hero who saves the company and network and makes sure that your network is safe. In other words, if the co-workers can't see me then I am not there or not needed. hmmm which side should I take
Of course I will always use linux at home.
I don't know about you guys but the mcse tests I have taken are very hard comapred to other exams liek cne/cna. I admit they test on wording but if you don't know how to use global/local groups, the osi model, tcp/ip, or basic NT administration work, then its impossible to pass. I bet all you /.ers would fail if you have never studied for any of the mcse exams. Computer knowledge id not good enough to pass these tests. What gets me ticked is the course material only covers 75% of the test and the new adaptive tests reask you stuuff you don't know like the other 25%. I took the iis exam and was constantly reasked questions on sql server and type 800045 errors that weren't even covered in the couruse material. WHAT THE HELL DOES SQL SERVER HAVE TO DO WITH HOSTING A WEB PAGE! If your an iis admin and you had an odbc or sql server errors, you would call the database admin and say fix this and not fix it yourself and worsen the problem if you don't know what yoru doing?
Mcse exams are nearly impossible to pass. They measure skill by how well you know mouse click on simulatoins rather then actual content. I flunked my iis exam because I was asked sql server questions and odbc questions that were not even covered on the course material. The course material is focusing less and less on actual course material and content because of cheaters getting the answers on the net. Mcse tests makes the cne tests look elementry. GO to www.cramsession.com and look at the NT enterprise and iis exams feedback and tell me all the people who called them impossible to pass are abunch of morons. Because NT has so much less conent to memorize compared to unix because of mouse clicks and menu's make ms put hard stuff in their exams. The fact that I have over ten tabs in the iis service manager in mmc and expected to know whats in all ten and if I click on the worng one, then the answer is wrong. Its rediculous. I have never taken the adaptive exam and I heard they are easier but the non-adaptive ones I have taken are tough. I had alot of trouble with networking essentials and I had no college degree so I had to memorize osi model and IBM"s calbing numbers (like your using an IBM type 4 calbe., Which one is that and how far can the signal go.). Networking essentials is rather easy if you have a cs degree but the other exams are really tough with or w/o a cs degree.
You must be real pridefull
You can create a whole bunch of scripts with the at command. Its mostly boring network and system tasks but for average work stuff its ok. I admit that you won't be able to record mp3's at specific times but you can run standard bussiness tasks. Their is a windows 95 scheduler that runs apps at specific times so you can add a programing extension to the program to interact with the schedule so you could theoretically record mp3's. I believe microsoft is ading this to windows2000.
According to an ex ms employee who is alex st.John at www.maximumpc.com and www.bootmag.com, everyone lies to bill. When he worked for microsoft when windows 95 was still in alpha and beta, a pcmagazine interviewer aksed him about the windows postscript interface and he said we are working on it and it still needs some work. Bill emailed him back and said"YOU IDIOT! DONT YOU KNOW THAT TEH WINDOWS POSTSCRIPT DRIVER IS THE BEST OUT THERE AND ITS EVEN BETTER TEHN ADOBE"S!" He did a doubletake. Bill actually thought that adobe's postscript driver for the mac was infior to the one the comes with windows. He emailed him back and said its not true. YOur product manager lied to you. He emailed him back and Bill was in deisbelieve and said "THE MAC's POSTSCRIPT DRIVER IS INFIOR TO EVEN WINDOWS 3.1! GO GEt YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!". He evenutally met with Bill Gates to show him that the widnows postscript driver needed to be scraped and we need to use adobe's postscript driver instead. He agreed but the fact of the matter is Bill is paranoid because he knows everyone blows smoke up his ass. Its not Bill's fault its the fault of the ms employee's. Bill is very ignorant and I bet the NT product manager told bill this fud about linux because Bill was asking why NT crashes so much and he didn't want to admit that he fucked up. Bill is just repeating what all the NT product managers tell him and he has no clue about it.
Linux is like the net in that its publically owned. If you really worked for microsoft I would be appauled if office was being ported to linux. As a ms employee you know that the office revolution started with bundling as an attempt to squash os/2. If office was the standard and consumers couldn't even share data with the world with os/2, then it would die. Office, I admit is better but I believe ms made office as a political move to sell windows. Microsoft needs one competitor in the market so thats why office is developed for the mac. If anti-trust laws didn't exist, would you write ofice for the mac? I think not. Microsoft has behaved in many anti competitive practices and I can't think of any reason why ms would port office to the linux, other then to destroy it. You mentioned that you believe in a all-Microsoft computing enviroment but linux is a problem because everything is opened and its much easier to compete and you lose money because of windows isn't part of the office solution.
DId you know that sco was orignally microsoft xenix. The kernel might of been rewritten but it has its roots. If microsoft ever kept it linux would of never been born and xenix would urle and microsoft would own 100% of every os computing market. If NT was reliable as sco (oops I mean xenix), unix would of been history and visual studio would be the programming answer to every problem. IT would of been scary if BIll was smart enough to keep it though.
HELP! Sco keeps on crahsing when I launch Microsoft visual emacs ++ ,visaul qtscript and sqlserver on my xenix (oops I mean sco box.). I am sick of getting this blue screen of death and I selected reboot on error under the properties of my computer so the machine is rebooting in a loop. Can anyone help. I called microsoft tech support and they said that since BIll Gates invented unix it shouldn't crash. Help! :-)
:-)
tHANK GOD MICROSOFT SOLD XENIX TO SCO. IMAGINE THE HELL IF THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. ALso linus probably would of used and therefor linux wouldn't of been born. I love the sound of visual emacs.
Unix is not an os but a standard! When will these ms loyalists relize this. I guess they are all use too the gui being intergrated into the os and even kernel and having stuff like the explorer part of the os. WIndows users see all these things in windows and the macintosh and then they think stuff like bash and xwindows is part of unix and the kernel. They also see vendor apps that come with each unix os like cad ones for irix and security ones for aix (I haven't finished my unix course yet at college so I don't know what they are) and all the windows guys say ohh no interoperability, no compadiblity, unix is hopeless. THey don't understand that many unix apps can run or be recompilied for each other or just run on each different unix. Ms is soo bad with being proprietary and the mac is right behind it, that most users think its very hard to keep things open and its impossible to even try. Can you really blame them. If every unix vendor behaved like ms, their would be 0% compadibility. To me the kernel is not important because it does stuff that the user shouldn't have to do or worry about doing. In user space all the unix's are very open and almost identical. Most ms users think they are different because the kernels are different and there for have to have different interfaces and apps. I thought this way before I installed linux because all I knew was the mac and windows. The fact is, the kernel doesn't matter because unix is standard and linux will fill in everything so it can be unified. Windows NT can be a unix if you buy the proper bash/xwindows package with support for .elf files. I believe their is a company that sells one for NT that is even unix98 branded! Any os can be a unix and the linux .elf files and libraries will be that new unified standard. Freebsd supports them, sco now supports them, the next version of solaris will support them. SGI loves linux and will probably support them as well or just give up irix and use a mips version of linux. Sgi is working on a mips version of linux. All unix programers will probably just compile their aps for linux since we own more marketshare then all the other unix's combined and it will be compidible for ever unix like solaris, freebsd and sco. We are the new standard and we all bring new innovation to the unix market like gnome, kde, gtk, etc.
IF everyone thinks NT is better, guess what! we all lose. All the innovation with linux will stop because gnu will turn into a windows thing crippled by lack of api's (thanks to microsofts deliberate attempt to break the public ones and hide the private). Come Guys no one ever gets fired for buying microsoft software. MY job and your will be gone or you can still have it if you only use ms wrpducts for everything. Oh! Guess what! Your job will be gone! why do you need to to hire consultants when you can just visit microsofts web site and buy the package for your needs. Why do you need a consultant to find out which programing suite you need or which database you need when you or any idiot can just order SQL server or Visual studio. Microsoft has a solution for every problem right!:-)
.doc and .xls files so you can share data with the world or it would be greater if everyone used an open standard like html or any other txt format, so it wouldn't matter what wordprocessor you used. Everything was open before Billy Boy and Big BLue came along and changed everything. As you can tell I have a big type A personality and I can invision BIlly grining (just as he did when he told the press that Ie was part of windows)when he sees me fustrated with windows. I am tired of microsoft insulting mine and all other it profesionals intelligent's. I bet all the employees were laughing their asses off when they heard Muth bash linux. BIll just thinks he can do whatever he wants and can make all of the IT professionals think whatever he wants us to think. ITS NOT UP TO MICROSOFT TO SET STANDARDS OR TELL MY BOSS WHAT TO BUY> Its their job to try to convince us but not to call my boss directly and tell him to fire me (MS DID CALL MY BOSS TO TRY TO CONVINCE HIM THAT NT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION AND THAT GUY WHO ISNTALLED LINUX (me) SHOULD BE FIRED BECAUSE I WAS INCOMPETANT FOR NOT SELECTING NT!). I am not MAKING THIS UP! My boss never called ms but rather ms called us and threatened us. They are like the mobfia. These bull performance charts are just one small piece of the pie. I hope the DOJ SLAMS THEIR ASS!
I DONT WANT TO PAY $1300 FOR VISUAL C++ AND ANOTHER 700 FOR VISUAL BASIC! MICROSOFT CRIPPLED ALL THE CHEAPER VERSOINS OF VC BY MAKING THE PROGRAMS RUN SLOWER ! ITS PRATICALLY THE SAME PROGRAM BUT WITH A CRIPPLED COMPILER! I HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO USE VC BECAUSE ONLY VC CAN USE THE API"S OF WINDOWS! WHO THEY HELL DO THEY THINK THE ARE TO TELL ME WHAT TO BUY! I think its awefull that I am closed from the real (windows) world. I bought caldera linux out fo rage because I wanted to do some programming. I am not a unix tech guy but just a hobbyist who refuses to reward Gates for his crippling of the api's to visual studio only! I want to write high performance grahics apps with directx and opengl and microsoft has totally used my own computer agaisnt me. Why do I need to be punished by ms by not reading and sharing info with office just because I chose to buy my own os. Microsoft has ilegally and unethically abuased its power and we linux users suffer! WOuldn't it be great if office 2000 didn't have encyption technology in its
aaah the previous poster is right. This does feel alot better.
oh and one more thing. BIll Gates on Germany radio stated that windows 98 doesn't have any bugs and that if it crahses THEN ITS YOUR FAULT! Now. How does this make all you support people feel?
Read this http://www.zdnet.com/enterprise/linux/opinion/0,59 54,2216064,00.html .
This article tries to show that linux is as split up as unix. It also shows that the distributions are incompadible with each other and that its a big headache because no one company owns it.
Microsoft marketing department: Thank you! Here is your check. Good work!
I started getting into computers because the graphics and games were alot better. It was easier to develop a game in those days then a regular nintendo. IF i was born 10 years later, I would have never gotten into computers because the price of what these developers go thru to make any game run on widnows sucks. How many hoops have you all jumped to make a simple triangle that you can move around in a 360 degree enviroment in derectx. I can do this alot easier with the development version of the playstation for programers. ITs very sad. I blame this on MICROSOFT 100%! Oh and I jsut rmembered that microsoft purposely crippled visual c so only the $1300 version could be compiled tightly. Al.so microsoft's api's are secrets that only visual C can access. THis sucks! I hape to pay 1300 for a fast game and end up with a slow performer because microsoft believes in overlly engineered pc's because they can sell windows at a higher price! I hate them and intel. ALso sony has liberal licensing compared to sega and nintendo so part of the problem is with nintendo but I want my games back on my pc. I like customizable pc games. I wish those days would come back. Anyone know what happened to the performance of todays pc's and why are they so far behing consules when they are soo much more expensive? This would be unthinkable back in 93 or 94. Someone mentioned that the n64 was as fast as a 10,000$ sgi workstation and we laughed at him. Its now true :-(! what the (&&^. It seems to me that cisc is finally strangling the desktop market and having bus speed only a fith as fast as the cpu with slow memory aren't helping either. Especially if that old hardware has windows choking it and slowing it down even more.
hmm the vodoo 3 can pump 8 million polyons/sec on on a 2500 pentium3 and a 155$ ps/2 can pump 55 million polygons a second. Which is better? I feel disgusted that the stupid computer engineers can even make a system as fast a childs video game system. Thats sad. Hey! could this $399 pc even compete agaisnt the playstation1. Also their is an emotional chip that makes special effect and beautifull graphics for the graphics chip to pump out. 500 mips! OOOh I am getting a hard on just thinking about it. We need a ps2 with a hardrive and linux and a dsl modem or cable modem and pure paradise will come.
:-)
Just kidding!
Sorry guys I just couldn't resist. I am bored. Berst is just looking for a story and nothing else so don't worry. Berst is a journalist and not a computer consultant. Go ask a few microsoft loyalists what they think of zdnet and Berst and they will tell you the same things that linux users say. Just ignore him guys. He has no crediblity in either os camps. The article mentioned that you should not select linux for emotional reasons but rather technical. He is right. Linux still has major scalability problems with 4 or more processors compared to other unix's. Also NT is great for the computer novices with tiny networks because its quick to setup and easy to administer. Linux would drive a non computer nut crazy. I use linux at home but I avoid it at work and use solaris or aix. Linux 2.2 is alot better with 2-4 processors but it is still behind solaris and aix and the performance of linux is very far behind solaris in 4-10 cpu systems. I think linux is great as a cheap alternative to home users and college students but to a bussiness the price difference between linux and solaris is peanuts. Bussiness's dont buy software but solutions that may include software. Computers earn money and dont save money to them. If i am working on a project to save 750,000$, the price of the os in the server is peanuts and solaris is my choice. Face it guys. If money was no object, would you use linux? Berst was not talking about NT but rather other unix solutions. relax!