How on earth would we know to trust a report when we have no direct information on the item being reported on?
Without that piece of information, all we have available to make a judgement with are impressions on the circumstances surrounding the report. (And of course, whether or not the final report agrees with what we all think.;) )
This may sound better than Mindcraft to us, but what about a reverse perspective?
Imagine the following scenario.
A couple big companies that have using Linux as their mainstream OS for a while have started to embrace an alternate OS. (Not too big a deal)
Now, these companies partner up with some vendors of this alternative OS to form a nonbiased testing platform? I say nonbiased because that seems to be our major complaint about Mindcraft. Would this scenario seem nonbiased to you folks? It doesn't to me... it would sound like the odds were being stacked in favor of this other OS...
I know the company I worked for used to do this. We were working on a software product that related to a particular industry. Because we were small and thought we had a fantastic idea, we didn't want it broadcast what we were working on until it was ready for fear of being scooped by a bigger corporation with more coders, etc.
Because we wanted to be able to explain the project to perspective new employees, we would ask them to sign a NDA in regards to what we were working on.
There is a difference here in that a DVD is purchased goods whereas a ticket is admission to an event.
A more apt analogy might be that if I were to purchase a lawn mower and be told that it was illegal to manufacture my own gas or to use any gas but that which was "certified" by the lawn mower manufacturer.
The problem with this philosophy, and indeed the philosophy of censorship in the first place, is that I know better than you do as to what is appropriate for you.
As you put it, Software can't "know" and judge an idea as well as people can.
I would argue that in that at least the software has a defined set of rules and isn't arbitrary about it's enforcement.
What it really comes down to is, why can't we let people regulate what they see themselves?
Domain names in the.com,.net, and.org domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
If you're going to use this philosophy, you must continue on to say that Linux has never addressed the issue and hence must be doing an even worse job.
People, people, people. This program does not point out a single flaw with Microsoft, as much as I would like it to. A program like this could just as easily be written for linux, sco, hell - even openbsd.
About all this program does point out is the gullibility of the Windows user base.
You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo, and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of your Content, your use of the Service, your connection to the Service, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another.
I've heard a fair number of arguments here claiming the test to be unfair due to the fact that the "hardware was chosen for an NT advantage".
I'll neither agree nor disagree with that as I have no knowledge in the subject. What I will do is to offer this thought:
If this hardware really was where NT shines, what happens when linux gets tweaked to take better advantage of it? The Microsoft folks have nowhere else to go.
So, I say to you folks, take heart. Accept this setback for it is not defeat. Remember, that which does not kill us...
Whether or not it is "fair" to test SMB between the two platforms is irrelevant. This test was to find out which was better in a business environment, most of whom use smb - not nfs.
You make the argument that while NT has it built into the kernel, linux has it as a separate program which makes NT run it inherently faster. Do you think businesses care about this? Unfortunately, I find it likely that they don't. They want results. Internals aren't important to them.
Overall though, I have to say that I'm fairly impressed with the attitude of the linux community this time around (at least so far). The general attitude seems to be that this test pointed out a couple performance problems in our favorite OS and that they'll now get tweaked. This is the kind of attitude that is going to help linux to gain acceptance.
I find it rather curious that the article claims that CIOs seem to think that linux has not proven itself in the reliability/stability field. We're (at least in theory) talking about folks that "should" have some tech knowledge... aren't they used to BSOD's? Rebooting?
Perhaps somebody should organize a contest to test reliability. Anybody wanna bribe^H^H^H^H^H er... pay off^H^H^H^H... uh... I meant, ask Mindcraft to do it?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the "I wish I wasn't a US Citizen" option?
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
--
Give a man a match, you keep him warm for an evening.
How on earth would we know to trust a report when we have no direct information on the item being reported on?
;) )
Without that piece of information, all we have available to make a judgement with are impressions on the circumstances surrounding the report. (And of course, whether or not the final report agrees with what we all think.
This may sound better than Mindcraft to us, but what about a reverse perspective?
... it would sound like the odds were being stacked in favor of this other OS...
Imagine the following scenario.
A couple big companies that have using Linux as their mainstream OS for a while have started to embrace an alternate OS. (Not too big a deal)
Now, these companies partner up with some vendors of this alternative OS to form a nonbiased testing platform? I say nonbiased because that seems to be our major complaint about Mindcraft. Would this scenario seem nonbiased to you folks? It doesn't to me
Just my $.02. 8)
Out of curiosity, would you have another suggestion on how we could protect our idea from being stolen in this manner?
This is not a sarcastic question, I'd be quite curious to hear an alternative.
I know the company I worked for used to do this. We were working on a software product that related to a particular industry. Because we were small and thought we had a fantastic idea, we didn't want it broadcast what we were working on until it was ready for fear of being scooped by a bigger corporation with more coders, etc.
...
Because we wanted to be able to explain the project to perspective new employees, we would ask them to sign a NDA in regards to what we were working on.
I guess I don't understand the big deal?
Granted, we were not sue happy folks
I'm afraid you're a little confused.
There is a difference here in that a DVD is purchased goods whereas a ticket is admission to an event.
A more apt analogy might be that if I were to purchase a lawn mower and be told that it was illegal to manufacture my own gas or to use any gas but that which was "certified" by the lawn mower manufacturer.
*Damn!* That must be record time for a /.ing.
I'd ask if anybody got a mirror, but I don't see how they could have done so that quickly...
...not exactly. Ever tried running a glibc 2 binary on a system with only v1 libraries?
Yeah, yeah, I know - we have the compat libraries but I think the point is still valid.
As you put it,
Software can't "know" and judge an idea as well as people can.
I would argue that in that at least the software has a defined set of rules and isn't arbitrary about it's enforcement.
What it really comes down to is, why can't we let people regulate what they see themselves?
*sigh*
Why can't somebody throw something like this in a handheld? I'd love to have more juice in my Palm...
Assuming you're talking about a coding project, how about a simple airline reservation system?
*laugh*
;)
Never has my signature seemed more appropriate.
|
|
V
Looking in the iso directory:
pinstripe-en-i386-cd1.iso
pinstripe-en-i386-cd2.iso
Are they finally breaking down and needing 2 CD's?
Yeah - I did. I just copied it into the form poorly. (Look at the long line *sheepish grin*)
What's up with this?
.com, .net, and .org domains can now be registered
> whois paypai.com
[rs.internic.net]
Whois Server Version 1.1
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: PAYPAI.COM
Registrar: EASYSPACE LTD
Whois Server: whois.easyspace.com
Referral URL: www.easyspace.com
Name Server: NS1.EASYPOST.COM
Name Server: NS3.EASYPOST.COM
Updated Date: 18-jul-2000
>>> Last update of whois database: Fri, 21 Jul 00 03:09:41 EDT whois paypai.com@whois.easyspace.com
[whois.easyspace.com]
No match for 'PAYPAI.COM'.
One of my problems with postgres (and this may be outdated knowledge) is the lack of ability to add a column to a running table.
Is this still the case?
Unless I'm mistaken (a very distinct possibility) it is running off of Slowlaris boxen.
I would suspect that the hack was not in the OS itself, but rather the hotmail software itself.
If you're going to use this philosophy, you must continue on to say that Linux has never addressed the issue and hence must be doing an even worse job.
People, people, people. This program does not point out a single flaw with Microsoft, as much as I would like it to. A program like this could just as easily be written for linux, sco, hell - even openbsd.
About all this program does point out is the gullibility of the Windows user base.
9. INDEMNITY
You agree to indemnify and hold Yahoo, and its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, agents, co-branders or other partners, and employees, harmless from any claim or demand, including reasonable attorneys' fees, made by any third party due to or arising out of your Content, your use of the Service, your connection to the Service, your violation of the TOS, or your violation of any rights of another.
I'll neither agree nor disagree with that as I have no knowledge in the subject. What I will do is to offer this thought:
If this hardware really was where NT shines, what happens when linux gets tweaked to take better advantage of it? The Microsoft folks have nowhere else to go.
So, I say to you folks, take heart. Accept this setback for it is not defeat. Remember, that which does not kill us...
You make the argument that while NT has it built into the kernel, linux has it as a separate program which makes NT run it inherently faster. Do you think businesses care about this? Unfortunately, I find it likely that they don't. They want results. Internals aren't important to them.
Overall though, I have to say that I'm fairly impressed with the attitude of the linux community this time around (at least so far). The general attitude seems to be that this test pointed out a couple performance problems in our favorite OS and that they'll now get tweaked. This is the kind of attitude that is going to help linux to gain acceptance.
Firecracker control drives can be found at: http://mlug.missouri.edu/~tymm/
4dwm would be nice, but I'm still waiting for fsn to go open source!
I find it rather curious that the article claims that CIOs seem to think that linux has not proven itself in the reliability/stability field. We're (at least in theory) talking about folks that "should" have some tech knowledge ... aren't they used to BSOD's? Rebooting?
... uh ... I meant, ask Mindcraft to do it? ;)
Perhaps somebody should organize a contest to test reliability. Anybody wanna bribe^H^H^H^H^H er... pay off^H^H^H^H