I don't know if you've looked at the Dell Axim, but that counts as serious engineering. Making the existing PPC architecture that small and on par with HP (who in their commercials say HP engineering) is a feat in itself. It's an amazing piece of work, and as far as your idea of engineering. You do have to do engineering in the first place to make a proprieatary motherboard although you might not see the merit, and I find proprietary stuff just a little annoying.
I'm not suggesting that it's as hard to make an album as it is to write a book but there's at least as much creative talent at work here
.99 cent song downloads aren't an album it's a song. It's like 99 cents for a chapter of a book. I won't argue the crateive talent at work (except by pop stars that don't do their own work, oh those unsung studio musicians), but I do think that 99 cents is a bit high. Although if it is actually good I would pay that. I do like how single song downloads would make artists more prone to focus on making a few good songs then a lot of bad ones.
...bitch about RIAA taking 90% of that $0.99 when all they did is market the artist in question.
Hmm suspiciously similar to my post that got modded flamebait, but anyways I totally agree with this. However, it's not the RIAA it's the record labels that are members of the RIAA just a small distinction. Anyways, here's a great site for information about how iTunes abuses artists just as badly as the old distribution systems. I wonder if the new one will work more fairly. I certainly hope so.
I don't know.. I'm not a fan of iTunes in the least, but I do like the idea of DRM free MP3s 192 Kbps and Ogg Vorbis Q6. I would like to see more of the money actually go to the artists though, instead of apple's piddly couple of cents per download. I mean that just encourages the rape of musicians (I'm not talking about pop musicians that sell millions of songs, but smaller bands that barely make do).
Re:Yes, yes, yes, Apple's dying, blah blah blah
on
Why iPod Can't Save Apple
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Contrast this to Dell. They do no R&D... they assemble.
This is a great point, but it's not longer true. It was true several years ago, however. Dell now does a good deal of in house R&D. They used to buy laptops from Sager and rebadge them as Dell. Now their laptops are designed in house and a good deal of engineering goes into them. Take this for example.
With the Dell Axim, their Ipod clone, their line of custom cases, laptops, and even proposed standards (dell is pushing for a standard port for upgradeable graphics cards in laptops, and is developing a solution in house for it). They are way past their assembler days of yore.
... as I cannot use StuidoMX or Photoshop on Linux
Yes you can use Photoshop in Linux, but I'm not sure about StudioMX.. Quanta is getting very good though you should check it. I also thought I heard something about Adobe taking Linux commitment seriously, does anyone have a link to back me up?
...No user I've ever met has the same passion for Dell, Compaq, or Microsoft..
You've clearly not been out much.. zealots come in all forms don't think Apple to have them all.
Re:Yes, yes, yes, Apple's dying, blah blah blah
on
Why iPod Can't Save Apple
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
And one year they'll be right. It's a definite that one day apple will die. Just as IBM will die, Intel will die, AMD will die, America will die, England will die. Over an infinite amount of time all these things will one day end. It's a definite and provable truth. So yes Apple is constantly about to die, but the question is on who's timeline are you talking?
You know as much as I hate to admit it. Windows XP might not be that bad of an operating system once you eliminated certain annoying components from it.
For example, if you got rid of Internet Explorer there goes over half your security vulnerabilites. I for one wouldn't mind a stripped down Windows box that I can install whatever Browser, Media Player, etc.. on. This ruling might actually make Microsoft think about opening up some controls to better associate third party programs with the Operating System. Don't get me wrong I still love my Linux:), but I'm just saying if you strip down Microsoft's OS it starts to look a lot less annoying.
Sega may not have been in as strong a financial situation as Microsoft, but the dreamcast was a great console. The only thing that really ruined it was the fact that it did not have solid piracy protection. Who's going to make games on a system that everybody can steal? Before that, we saw lots of great games on the Dreamcast.
This wasn't anywhere near the only thing that killed the dreamcast (and if you read DCEmulation.com it isn't anywhere near dead). There were tons of exclusivity deals being cut that made Sega basically have to make all the good titles for its system in house. The Dreamcast had a superior programming architecture, superior specs, and was way ahead of its time. However, when you have no third party support then you don't have much my friend. Sony used its muscle to bully a number of developers into selling only for playstation. Sony even paid retailers to not stock Sega products (*cough Circuit City).
The xbox's buzzfactor, I think is as high as it can go. While observing Microsoft's moves, I've noted that they've done PC like stuff for the console. So basically they did things such as gamespatches that had never been done before by companies such as Nintendo. Think about that 20 years 1988-2004, no patching games, and then Microsoft comes along and starts patching games that have major bugs (granted, online games don't count, but think morrowind...etc.
How is the patch idea bad? Games have always had bugs even on systems where you couldn't patch them.. a number of games bugs actually turned out to be usable as cheats, but they are bugs nonetheless. Allowing a developer to patch things is only a negative if the developer decides to release a product before it's undergone good product testing (which is bound to happen sometimes patches or not). At least with a patch you can fix the problem at a later date, add new functionality, or improve the games performance.
I still don't think it would drop this low but $119 does seem doable. The myth that Microsoft is losing money at their current price has got to end. The components they are building with are cheap enough that they are probably making money on the units now, or if they are losing money it isn't much.
US-forced UN sanctions during the last decade caused terrific damages to the Iraqi infrastructure, hospitals etc. - those millions I'm talking about!
There have been numerous studies to show that the idea of the santions was not harmful to Iraq society, but the way it was administered (not to mention corrupted) by the Iraqi government was where the real damage was done. It's very well documented that Saddam and his government manipulated the sanctions (especially oil for aid) to realize extreme profits at the suffering of the Iraqi people. It may not seem plausable at first, but it makes perfect sense. What is the fastest way to make the UN lift sanctions? Make it appear as though the sanctions are killing thousands if not millions of civilians. Do you really think the sanctions would have been that poorly designed to target people like that? It would have never passed the UN. It was in Iraq's previous government's best intereset to let the sanctions damage Iraqi society as much as possible.
I will concede that the UN and the US should have stepped in and drastically altered them to avoid the manipulations that were happening, but to say that it is the US that killed the people through sanctions, is like saying it was Einstein's fault that the people of Hiroshima died.
1.) They DO require LPI Level 1 to be eligable for your CLE. They do not accept Comptia's Linux+ as they have said that it isn't open and impartial as LPI is, and they are deciding if RHCEs will be able to waive the LPI requirement.
No they don't. From the FAQ on the linked web page from the story: Novell recommends that you take the courses that prepare you for the Linux Professional Institute Certification (LPIC) level 1 to obtain the baseline knowledge that will best ready you for the course on Novell Services.
Yes they do, the FAQ simply is stating that they recommend you take a course to pass your LPI Requirement before taking the CLE. I've been to the Novell/IBM Linux Seminar and they specifically said that they DO require the LPI Level 1 to be eligable for the CLE. If you had read more then the FAQ you would have known this.
Huh? This story *is* about the Novell Certified Linux Engineer course and certification. I think you're the confused one. It clearly states in the FAQ on the Novell website that LPI certification and classes are not required for the class or the test, but they are recommended.
I am not confused, the LPI is most definitely required for the CLE test, but not for the class (though it is recommended). It clearly states this in the link I have posted above, and Novell's staff will verify this if you inquire for additional verification.
You should check your facts before you call someone "wrong on so many levels." Again, my point is that Novell is calling someone a "Certified Linux Engineer" when all they are really testing the person on is their ability to install Novell's Linux-based products on Linux. It's kind of like Oracle teaching someone to install Oracle on Windows 2003 and calling the certification the "Oracle Certified Windows 2003 Engineer".
First off, you don't eat your feedback. Secondly, I am not wrong as I've attested to, and finally it is not synonymous with your analogy because the LPI is supposed to guarantee a base proficiency that they are adding to. If that isn't the case it's a failure on the part of the LPI and not Novell. I'd like to close by saying I'm sorry if you took offense, but I do think the Slashdot readers deserve factual information, and I tried to make the point that you had been confused between the test and the study course.
They suggest (but do not require) that you get a LPI certification first before taking the class.
The Parent poster is wrong on so many levels.
1.) They DO require LPI Level 1 to be eligable for your CLE. They do not accept Comptia's Linux+ as they have said that it isn't open and impartial as LPI is, and they are deciding if RHCEs will be able to waive the LPI requirement.
2.) You don't have to take any courses whatsoever, but you might want to if you don't think you can pass the exam with self study. The exam is just that you can sign up and take it with no course requirement.
It appears the poster has confused this with the Novell Certified Linux Engineer study course, and his general impression is that he has some kind of anger at the lack of developement behind Novell's certification proposal.
I think this is a very good start for Novell, and requiring your LPI Level 1 means that you have the basic skillset already. They don't need to be redundant in their testing, and this allows for an expected baseline of proficiency. I do think that RHCEs should definitely not have to have their LPI Level 1 as well though, and I hope they change that in the future.
.. I'd prefer they use Debian or Slackware or Gentoo or Mandrake or some other fully free Linux.
Of course! Who wouldn't prefer that? However, you have to look at it from the Vendor support level. RedHat was always first on the support level because they did extensive testing and certified hardware as being functional in Linux. This takes a huge load off of vendors, such as Gateway, because they can check off their hardware against the list then guarantee their customers when they sell them a Linux box it will be compatible with Linux.
The problem right now is that a lot of Vendors (excluding IBM) don't generally make their components. They buy a motherboard from MSI, a sound card from Creative, etc.. How are they to know if it is Linux compatible (and what degree of compatibility as some people's definitions seem different), without extensive product testing?
Vendors such as SuSe, RedHat, and Debian (to an extent) do heavy testing and certification of Hardware. Face it SuSe and RedHat are "Enterprise Grade" in their testing processes. Gentoo will likely never be supported as it is constantly evolving to bleeding edge updates maintained by tons of packagers who generally aren't directly employeed by Gentoo.
Debian is different in the size of its userbase, but Debian also does not have the resources for the kind of testing corportate Linux entities can muster. It will likely never have these facilities due to the community nature of the project, but instead relies on user testimony. Ex. "I use this it works". A vendor is going to need something a little more solid then testimony.
Mandrake might have a shot if they could ever become profitable enough to put out some rigourous testing, though you could probably use RedHat's results fairly confidently with Mandrake (or any other Linux distro).
Perhaps what is needed is a Hardware compatibility group that can test and verify hardware compatibility with various Linux distros, Kernel versions, etc..
So to close, I still do not see how being able to choose between RedHat or Suse hurts Linux more then just being stuck with RedHat or nothing. You could argue that Vendors should just carry different Linux distros and not certify that they work, but I'm sure Gateway's legal team would feel queasy at that notion. Keep in mind companies are paranoid of brand association (Gateway sold this so they obviously endorse it).
IBM is already partnered with Novell. At the Novell/IBM Linux Solutions seminar they talked quite a bit about how IBM is working with Novell to provide Linux solutions from the MDF (MCC if you prefer) to the Desktop.
Granted right now it's a 50 million dollar partnership, but I expect that to grow. Both of these companies have quite a lot to gain by seeing Microsoft take on some real competition. IBM's Linux investment is quite substantial, and I don't think they would mind Novell's involvement. After all they mesh well together, Novell makes the software IBM makes the hardware.
All in all I guess I'm saying dont' be surprised to see a lot of IBM Novell joint projects in the future.
I for one have been waiting quite awhie to see a major vendor endorse another distro besides RedHat. Variety helps everyone, as does competition, and I don't see how a choice between linux distros hurts Linux or the vendor.
Sun, the company who is now renowned for their expensive systems could use "commodity" computing to bring themselves back and Linux to the desktop. Who would have though
Great plan, but there are a few points. Sun appears to be an hour late and a dime short. They are finally doing now what they should have done two years ago. Their stock is in ruins, their founders have split with their pensions, and all that is left is the heaping ruins of a giant that moves to slow to avoid extinction.
If I were Sun I would have jumped quick when VA Linux came on the scene, but they ignored their obvious eventual competition (that being Linux replacing Unix) and focused on their cash cow. Now they seem set to pay the ultimate price (for a corporation that is). It's too late for them to focus into Linux the way they should have, and now they have Novell to contend with. Moving to Opterons is definitely a step in the right direction, but what can their systems do that others can't for less?
Java was a wonderful language (and still is), but I fear Microsoft's smear campaign and broken Java plugins have convinced enough people that Java is bad. It really appears that C#,.NET (Mono), and Virtualization layers might actually win.
I wasn't posting saying that I would pay unlimited amounts for unlimited capacity. What I was getting at is building a much higher then needed capacity, allows you to keep that infrastructure in place for a much longer time. How often do you think the tax payers in Utah want to vote on a Millage to update aging infrastructure?
It's solid infrastructure that ages very well.. they aren't buying unlimited bandwidth to the Internet from an ISP, they are talking about the speed in their intranet. They are building a high speed intranet to anticipate a higher speed Internet at a later date.
I do agree that it is a premium and they will be paying a number of companies a considerable fortune, but the one shot nature of most states current governments doesn't leave them much choice. It is better to build an ill concieved bloated project then an underbid limited project that will ultimately fail.
You have to remember this initiative has to be sufficient to move people off of their current ISPs, if it doesn't perform as well as their current ISP it is doomed to fail.
NO! We can never have too much Capacity! This is obviously a really expensive project to undertake, and when you design something for the public with tax dollars you want it to last a LONG TIME. When do you think they'll get the millage passed to rebuild it for more capacity later.
Look how the Internet is growing, it's only a matter of time before multimedia content pushes the limits of even modern broadband setups. They are building capacity for the future, as well as for increased longterm demand.
Look at the rest of the industry, are you hard drives too fast, is your printer too fast, can you ever be too fast (besides playing old games and some emulators)?
iFolder, for those that don't know, is Novell's distributed folder. Work done on any computer is synchronized with a server and automatically distributed and backed up to all other clients authenticated as the same user and running the iFolder client. A simple concept that proves decidedly valuable.
I attended a conference, today actually, about Novell's jump into Linux and iFolder was stressed again and again as an excellent cross platform synergy device. I was thinking through the whole conference that couldn't you just do this with CVS, but then I realized iFolder's true advantage.
iFolder lets you authenticate against a netware tree, access with far less hoops to hop through, and provides easier administration (through iManager or ConsoleOne).
Just something I thought you should checkout if CVS doesn't quite fill your needs.
The only thing I can figure from this statement is that He/She must be a Windows Admin. Listen carefully the GUI was a simple slap on convenience to Netware it's totally functional and does everything it needs to, but it isn't big and bloated. In fact it's based on IceWM I believe on top of X11, but don't quote me on that.
You do not need the GUI in any form to administer a Netware server, everything can be done from the console and most Netware admins I know don't even load the GUI by default (unnecessary waste of resources). In fact this ties in with most Linux servers who usually don't even have X installed. So please unless you use Netware as a Desktop stop bashing it's GUI, it is after all a very irrelevant point.
Also Novell did not need to aquire Suse for a stable base for Netware 7, as with how Linux is licensed they could have used any distro as a base and credited the original authors. I believe they purchased SuSe to actually make a linux desktop to interoperate with Netware. If you run linux with Netware currently you know how patched together it is, and I believe Novell wants to tighten that up. Ximian for Evolution as it's base for a linux groupwise client (yes connector is wonderful as well and I'm sure they are interested in Mono).
Agreed the world does SUCK enough that perhaps not even Microsoft or Apple should be very high on your list, but if you don't hold companies accountable for their bad decisions they progress.
It's a downward spiral and hopefully Novell has learned from its past. I believe they have with their new open inititatives and pledge to give back to OSS. I think they realize they aren't the big gun in town anymore and better not make people mad. It's time for them to ride the OSS wave, release code back to the community, put some money were their mouth is (already have with the acquisition of Ximian and Suse), and finally give the fat companies that need it a run for their money.
Things are set to heat up, and I for one can't wait. It's going to get interesting here real soon.
Novell didn't start Caldera, Novell's ex CEO and one of it's founders left Novell and started Caldera. They collaborated heavily with Novell (because of old business ties), but Caldera WAS NOT founded by Novell.
I think they have definitely done their fair share as a company to help the Linux community (I know you were being sarcastic).
Novell originally saved BSDs butt when they purchased Unix from ATT/Bell Labs and immediately dropped all lawsuits against companies distributing Unixish operating systems.
Novell did create SCO by giving them *certain* rights to the Unix IP name, but Novell themselves didn't intend for it to go this far, and didn't realize how much stake they initially sold SCO. In fact, Novell tried to shutdown SCO by countersuing that they did not own the right to enforce the Unix codebase.
These actions in and of themselves are more then enough to redeem a company from hostile action to the GNU/Linux community, and I can't help but feel shocked that people don't recognize the massive contriubtions Novell has made to Free Software.
Wait I guess Novell is a corporation and all corporations are evil;).
I work for a rather large school district with quite the technology initiative. We're running Linux, Netware, WinXp-95, but there's one thing we will never be able to upgrade. It's a Gateway 486 sitting in a corner downstairs running MS-Dos 4. It connects to our ISD which is the reason we have it.
Our ISD runs a Netware 3 Database that is incompatible with all newer versions of the database and is mission critical. They don't want to research alternatives and are never going to faze it out.
As a result we need this DOS box to interface. The client software is DOS only. Packets are IPX encapsulated in IP that make packet forwarding a pain (as it's incompatible with Bordermanager's forwarding mechanism's, and I haven't tried Netfilter or IPFilter on it yet). So as far as my Tech eye can see we're always going to have a DOS box in front of our firewall that makes me very squeamish.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know if you've looked at the Dell Axim, but that counts as serious engineering. Making the existing PPC architecture that small and on par with HP (who in their commercials say HP engineering) is a feat in itself. It's an amazing piece of work, and as far as your idea of engineering. You do have to do engineering in the first place to make a proprieatary motherboard although you might not see the merit, and I find proprietary stuff just a little annoying.
Hmm suspiciously similar to my post that got modded flamebait, but anyways I totally agree with this. However, it's not the RIAA it's the record labels that are members of the RIAA just a small distinction. Anyways, here's a great site for information about how iTunes abuses artists just as badly as the old distribution systems. I wonder if the new one will work more fairly. I certainly hope so.
I don't know.. I'm not a fan of iTunes in the least, but I do like the idea of DRM free MP3s 192 Kbps and Ogg Vorbis Q6. I would like to see more of the money actually go to the artists though, instead of apple's piddly couple of cents per download. I mean that just encourages the rape of musicians (I'm not talking about pop musicians that sell millions of songs, but smaller bands that barely make do).
Contrast this to Dell. They do no R&D... they assemble.
This is a great point, but it's not longer true. It was true several years ago, however. Dell now does a good deal of in house R&D. They used to buy laptops from Sager and rebadge them as Dell. Now their laptops are designed in house and a good deal of engineering goes into them. Take this for example.
With the Dell Axim, their Ipod clone, their line of custom cases, laptops, and even proposed standards (dell is pushing for a standard port for upgradeable graphics cards in laptops, and is developing a solution in house for it). They are way past their assembler days of yore.
... as I cannot use StuidoMX or Photoshop on Linux
Yes you can use Photoshop in Linux, but I'm not sure about StudioMX.. Quanta is getting very good though you should check it. I also thought I heard something about Adobe taking Linux commitment seriously, does anyone have a link to back me up?
...No user I've ever met has the same passion for Dell, Compaq, or Microsoft..
You've clearly not been out much.. zealots come in all forms don't think Apple to have them all.
And one year they'll be right. It's a definite that one day apple will die. Just as IBM will die, Intel will die, AMD will die, America will die, England will die. Over an infinite amount of time all these things will one day end. It's a definite and provable truth. So yes Apple is constantly about to die, but the question is on who's timeline are you talking?
You know as much as I hate to admit it. Windows XP might not be that bad of an operating system once you eliminated certain annoying components from it.
:), but I'm just saying if you strip down Microsoft's OS it starts to look a lot less annoying.
For example, if you got rid of Internet Explorer there goes over half your security vulnerabilites. I for one wouldn't mind a stripped down Windows box that I can install whatever Browser, Media Player, etc.. on. This ruling might actually make Microsoft think about opening up some controls to better associate third party programs with the Operating System. Don't get me wrong I still love my Linux
PCI Locking and more specifically.
Sega may not have been in as strong a financial situation as Microsoft, but the dreamcast was a great console. The only thing that really ruined it was the fact that it did not have solid piracy protection. Who's going to make games on a system that everybody can steal? Before that, we saw lots of great games on the Dreamcast.
This wasn't anywhere near the only thing that killed the dreamcast (and if you read DCEmulation.com it isn't anywhere near dead). There were tons of exclusivity deals being cut that made Sega basically have to make all the good titles for its system in house. The Dreamcast had a superior programming architecture, superior specs, and was way ahead of its time. However, when you have no third party support then you don't have much my friend. Sony used its muscle to bully a number of developers into selling only for playstation. Sony even paid retailers to not stock Sega products (*cough Circuit City).
The xbox's buzzfactor, I think is as high as it can go. While observing Microsoft's moves, I've noted that they've done PC like stuff for the console. So basically they did things such as gamespatches that had never been done before by companies such as Nintendo. Think about that 20 years 1988-2004, no patching games, and then Microsoft comes along and starts patching games that have major bugs (granted, online games don't count, but think morrowind...etc.
How is the patch idea bad? Games have always had bugs even on systems where you couldn't patch them.. a number of games bugs actually turned out to be usable as cheats, but they are bugs nonetheless. Allowing a developer to patch things is only a negative if the developer decides to release a product before it's undergone good product testing (which is bound to happen sometimes patches or not). At least with a patch you can fix the problem at a later date, add new functionality, or improve the games performance.
I still don't think it would drop this low but $119 does seem doable. The myth that Microsoft is losing money at their current price has got to end. The components they are building with are cheap enough that they are probably making money on the units now, or if they are losing money it isn't much.
US-forced UN sanctions during the last decade caused terrific damages to the Iraqi infrastructure, hospitals etc. - those millions I'm talking about!
There have been numerous studies to show that the idea of the santions was not harmful to Iraq society, but the way it was administered (not to mention corrupted) by the Iraqi government was where the real damage was done. It's very well documented that Saddam and his government manipulated the sanctions (especially oil for aid) to realize extreme profits at the suffering of the Iraqi people. It may not seem plausable at first, but it makes perfect sense. What is the fastest way to make the UN lift sanctions? Make it appear as though the sanctions are killing thousands if not millions of civilians. Do you really think the sanctions would have been that poorly designed to target people like that? It would have never passed the UN. It was in Iraq's previous government's best intereset to let the sanctions damage Iraqi society as much as possible.
I will concede that the UN and the US should have stepped in and drastically altered them to avoid the manipulations that were happening, but to say that it is the US that killed the people through sanctions, is like saying it was Einstein's fault that the people of Hiroshima died.
Yes they do, the FAQ simply is stating that they recommend you take a course to pass your LPI Requirement before taking the CLE. I've been to the Novell/IBM Linux Seminar and they specifically said that they DO require the LPI Level 1 to be eligable for the CLE. If you had read more then the FAQ you would have known this.
I am not confused, the LPI is most definitely required for the CLE test, but not for the class (though it is recommended). It clearly states this in the link I have posted above, and Novell's staff will verify this if you inquire for additional verification.
First off, you don't eat your feedback. Secondly, I am not wrong as I've attested to, and finally it is not synonymous with your analogy because the LPI is supposed to guarantee a base proficiency that they are adding to. If that isn't the case it's a failure on the part of the LPI and not Novell. I'd like to close by saying I'm sorry if you took offense, but I do think the Slashdot readers deserve factual information, and I tried to make the point that you had been confused between the test and the study course.
They suggest (but do not require) that you get a LPI certification first before taking the class.
The Parent poster is wrong on so many levels.
1.) They DO require LPI Level 1 to be eligable for your CLE. They do not accept Comptia's Linux+ as they have said that it isn't open and impartial as LPI is, and they are deciding if RHCEs will be able to waive the LPI requirement.
2.) You don't have to take any courses whatsoever, but you might want to if you don't think you can pass the exam with self study. The exam is just that you can sign up and take it with no course requirement.
It appears the poster has confused this with the Novell Certified Linux Engineer study course, and his general impression is that he has some kind of anger at the lack of developement behind Novell's certification proposal.
I think this is a very good start for Novell, and requiring your LPI Level 1 means that you have the basic skillset already. They don't need to be redundant in their testing, and this allows for an expected baseline of proficiency. I do think that RHCEs should definitely not have to have their LPI Level 1 as well though, and I hope they change that in the future.
.. I'd prefer they use Debian or Slackware or Gentoo or Mandrake or some other fully free Linux.
Of course! Who wouldn't prefer that? However, you have to look at it from the Vendor support level. RedHat was always first on the support level because they did extensive testing and certified hardware as being functional in Linux. This takes a huge load off of vendors, such as Gateway, because they can check off their hardware against the list then guarantee their customers when they sell them a Linux box it will be compatible with Linux.
The problem right now is that a lot of Vendors (excluding IBM) don't generally make their components. They buy a motherboard from MSI, a sound card from Creative, etc.. How are they to know if it is Linux compatible (and what degree of compatibility as some people's definitions seem different), without extensive product testing?
Vendors such as SuSe, RedHat, and Debian (to an extent) do heavy testing and certification of Hardware. Face it SuSe and RedHat are "Enterprise Grade" in their testing processes. Gentoo will likely never be supported as it is constantly evolving to bleeding edge updates maintained by tons of packagers who generally aren't directly employeed by Gentoo.
Debian is different in the size of its userbase, but Debian also does not have the resources for the kind of testing corportate Linux entities can muster. It will likely never have these facilities due to the community nature of the project, but instead relies on user testimony. Ex. "I use this it works". A vendor is going to need something a little more solid then testimony.
Mandrake might have a shot if they could ever become profitable enough to put out some rigourous testing, though you could probably use RedHat's results fairly confidently with Mandrake (or any other Linux distro).
Perhaps what is needed is a Hardware compatibility group that can test and verify hardware compatibility with various Linux distros, Kernel versions, etc..
So to close, I still do not see how being able to choose between RedHat or Suse hurts Linux more then just being stuck with RedHat or nothing. You could argue that Vendors should just carry different Linux distros and not certify that they work, but I'm sure Gateway's legal team would feel queasy at that notion. Keep in mind companies are paranoid of brand association (Gateway sold this so they obviously endorse it).
IBM is already partnered with Novell. At the Novell/IBM Linux Solutions seminar they talked quite a bit about how IBM is working with Novell to provide Linux solutions from the MDF (MCC if you prefer) to the Desktop.
Granted right now it's a 50 million dollar partnership, but I expect that to grow. Both of these companies have quite a lot to gain by seeing Microsoft take on some real competition. IBM's Linux investment is quite substantial, and I don't think they would mind Novell's involvement. After all they mesh well together, Novell makes the software IBM makes the hardware.
All in all I guess I'm saying dont' be surprised to see a lot of IBM Novell joint projects in the future.
I for one have been waiting quite awhie to see a major vendor endorse another distro besides RedHat. Variety helps everyone, as does competition, and I don't see how a choice between linux distros hurts Linux or the vendor.
Good Show
Sun, the company who is now renowned for their expensive systems could use "commodity" computing to bring themselves back and Linux to the desktop. Who would have though
.NET (Mono), and Virtualization layers might actually win.
Great plan, but there are a few points. Sun appears to be an hour late and a dime short. They are finally doing now what they should have done two years ago. Their stock is in ruins, their founders have split with their pensions, and all that is left is the heaping ruins of a giant that moves to slow to avoid extinction.
If I were Sun I would have jumped quick when VA Linux came on the scene, but they ignored their obvious eventual competition (that being Linux replacing Unix) and focused on their cash cow. Now they seem set to pay the ultimate price (for a corporation that is). It's too late for them to focus into Linux the way they should have, and now they have Novell to contend with. Moving to Opterons is definitely a step in the right direction, but what can their systems do that others can't for less?
Java was a wonderful language (and still is), but I fear Microsoft's smear campaign and broken Java plugins have convinced enough people that Java is bad. It really appears that C#,
A Pity
I wasn't posting saying that I would pay unlimited amounts for unlimited capacity. What I was getting at is building a much higher then needed capacity, allows you to keep that infrastructure in place for a much longer time. How often do you think the tax payers in Utah want to vote on a Millage to update aging infrastructure?
It's solid infrastructure that ages very well.. they aren't buying unlimited bandwidth to the Internet from an ISP, they are talking about the speed in their intranet. They are building a high speed intranet to anticipate a higher speed Internet at a later date.
I do agree that it is a premium and they will be paying a number of companies a considerable fortune, but the one shot nature of most states current governments doesn't leave them much choice. It is better to build an ill concieved bloated project then an underbid limited project that will ultimately fail.
You have to remember this initiative has to be sufficient to move people off of their current ISPs, if it doesn't perform as well as their current ISP it is doomed to fail.
NO! We can never have too much Capacity! This is obviously a really expensive project to undertake, and when you design something for the public with tax dollars you want it to last a LONG TIME. When do you think they'll get the millage passed to rebuild it for more capacity later.
Look how the Internet is growing, it's only a matter of time before multimedia content pushes the limits of even modern broadband setups. They are building capacity for the future, as well as for increased longterm demand.
Look at the rest of the industry, are you hard drives too fast, is your printer too fast, can you ever be too fast (besides playing old games and some emulators)?
iFolder, for those that don't know, is Novell's distributed folder. Work done on any computer is synchronized with a server and automatically distributed and backed up to all other clients authenticated as the same user and running the iFolder client. A simple concept that proves decidedly valuable.
I attended a conference, today actually, about Novell's jump into Linux and iFolder was stressed again and again as an excellent cross platform synergy device. I was thinking through the whole conference that couldn't you just do this with CVS, but then I realized iFolder's true advantage.
iFolder lets you authenticate against a netware tree, access with far less hoops to hop through, and provides easier administration (through iManager or ConsoleOne).
Just something I thought you should checkout if CVS doesn't quite fill your needs.
This is an argument I never could understand.
:)
"Have you seen how bad the Netware GUI is?".
The only thing I can figure from this statement is that He/She must be a Windows Admin. Listen carefully the GUI was a simple slap on convenience to Netware it's totally functional and does everything it needs to, but it isn't big and bloated. In fact it's based on IceWM I believe on top of X11, but don't quote me on that.
You do not need the GUI in any form to administer a Netware server, everything can be done from the console and most Netware admins I know don't even load the GUI by default (unnecessary waste of resources). In fact this ties in with most Linux servers who usually don't even have X installed. So please unless you use Netware as a Desktop stop bashing it's GUI, it is after all a very irrelevant point.
Also Novell did not need to aquire Suse for a stable base for Netware 7, as with how Linux is licensed they could have used any distro as a base and credited the original authors. I believe they purchased SuSe to actually make a linux desktop to interoperate with Netware. If you run linux with Netware currently you know how patched together it is, and I believe Novell wants to tighten that up. Ximian for Evolution as it's base for a linux groupwise client (yes connector is wonderful as well and I'm sure they are interested in Mono).
Anyways here's to hoping
Agreed the world does SUCK enough that perhaps not even Microsoft or Apple should be very high on your list, but if you don't hold companies accountable for their bad decisions they progress.
It's a downward spiral and hopefully Novell has learned from its past. I believe they have with their new open inititatives and pledge to give back to OSS. I think they realize they aren't the big gun in town anymore and better not make people mad. It's time for them to ride the OSS wave, release code back to the community, put some money were their mouth is (already have with the acquisition of Ximian and Suse), and finally give the fat companies that need it a run for their money.
Things are set to heat up, and I for one can't wait. It's going to get interesting here real soon.
Novell didn't start Caldera, Novell's ex CEO and one of it's founders left Novell and started Caldera. They collaborated heavily with Novell (because of old business ties), but Caldera WAS NOT founded by Novell.
In fact SCO now owns Caldera so go figure.
I think they have definitely done their fair share as a company to help the Linux community (I know you were being sarcastic).
;).
Novell originally saved BSDs butt when they purchased Unix from ATT/Bell Labs and immediately dropped all lawsuits against companies distributing Unixish operating systems.
Novell did create SCO by giving them *certain* rights to the Unix IP name, but Novell themselves didn't intend for it to go this far, and didn't realize how much stake they initially sold SCO. In fact, Novell tried to shutdown SCO by countersuing that they did not own the right to enforce the Unix codebase.
These actions in and of themselves are more then enough to redeem a company from hostile action to the GNU/Linux community, and I can't help but feel shocked that people don't recognize the massive contriubtions Novell has made to Free Software.
Wait I guess Novell is a corporation and all corporations are evil
I work for a rather large school district with quite the technology initiative. We're running Linux, Netware, WinXp-95, but there's one thing we will never be able to upgrade. It's a Gateway 486 sitting in a corner downstairs running MS-Dos 4. It connects to our ISD which is the reason we have it.
Our ISD runs a Netware 3 Database that is incompatible with all newer versions of the database and is mission critical. They don't want to research alternatives and are never going to faze it out.
As a result we need this DOS box to interface. The client software is DOS only. Packets are IPX encapsulated in IP that make packet forwarding a pain (as it's incompatible with Bordermanager's forwarding mechanism's, and I haven't tried Netfilter or IPFilter on it yet). So as far as my Tech eye can see we're always going to have a DOS box in front of our firewall that makes me very squeamish.