I can run, display, create, and compile X applications on Windows NT, using Interix. A few weeks ago I even telnetted into my NT box from my Linux box and ran the 'Xlogo' client and a few other of the prepackaged X apps on the NT box and displayed them on the Linux boxes X server. Interix comes bundled with Hummingbird's X server for Windows, and (the standard version, not the lite) also includes Motif. The X Window system is definitely not GPL'd. Also, (and this may prove very eye opening to many Linux users) Interix, running on top of the NT kernel simultaneously on the same machine with Win16, Win32 and OS/2 apps, is a real branded version of Unix. Not an unofficial 'clone' OS like Linux (which can't legally be referred to as Unix for that reason)
It was bloody expensive compared to Linux, though.
Sounds to me like it's similar to the first Linux book I ever bought, the Yggdrasil "Linux Bible." I spent fifty bucks on it, had it rush shipped to me, and when it arrived, I discovered that all it had in it (and I mean ALL, not just most) was printed out copies of HOWTOs and FAQs.
That was ages ago, and it was probably one of the, if not THE first published book on Linux, but I remember at the time how upset it made me that they charged me fifty bucks for it. (and that I waited in excitement for something I already had)
I believe there's a RedHat book on the market now(published by Redhat themselves) that's basically the same thing. I recall seeing it on a bookshelve at Borders this past winter.
I can remember not that long ago reading someplace a strong criticism by RMS of O'reilly and Associates. For the last decade+ O'reilly has written EXCELLENT manuals for most of the essential Unix tools, including some on various GNU tools. RMS made the criticism that because of O'reilly producing high quality, but definitely NOT free books on the subjects, it wiped out the incentive for free "open source" documentation to be created.
I personally have many many O'reilly books, and don't agree with RMS on this matter, but it does seem to stand that if "Open Source" is essential then O'reilly should put latex copies of all their books online. Or at a minimum, they should put 'binaries' (postscript images) online.
Of course, that will never happen. Let the proles eat manpages.
"Better solutions" have to exist before they can come along. Remember, the last several years have been about Microsoft's efforts to scale UP to the enterprise. If anything is questionable about the Mindcraft study, it's that Microsoft tries to make us believe the competition at the enterprise level is NT versus Linux. They know they wouldn't stand a chance comparing NT to the big iron, so they put on a dog-and-pony show by comparing it to Linux.
I as disappointed to say that even the Coin World newspaper has bought into the hype. There was a fairly long article in the latest issue about medals and numismatic items related to Star Wars. I predict it won't go down well with hardcore coin collectors (I can't wait for the outcry in the letters columns for the next few issues). Coin collectors don't even want bubblegum card collectors and other junk vendors at coin shows.
These tests are for evaluating various platforms for use in larger multi-user environments. Your personal preference has nothing to do with what large enterprise servers should be running for an OS. It's similar to the fact that your 'personal preference' for transportation may be a red Corvette convertable, but mining companies can't use it in the pit to haul iron ore.
Look out there. You're pointing out a weakness, from the point of view of commercial users, when you amplify the fact that there's no single (or even authoritative) "Linux Vendor." Business clients need a vendor they can rely on, not a ragtag bunch of Usenet readers. Commercial supprt is an area where Linux is growing. It isn't an area where Linux is mature.
Surprisingly, then, the thread hasn't ended yet. Though people are avoiding talking about any real issues by trying to turn it into a discussion of arcane Usenet folklore. The usual babble of the monitor-tanned.
To get things back on track, Mr. "Invoke Hitler" championed "consolidation and standards" and then trashed the ISO in the next sentence. And referred to Irix as a "weak oddball variant of Unix."
In cases where it's fancy math (i.e. graphics rendering) being done, the GPL can be easily defeated by anybody who studies the algorhythms behind the code and does a re-implementation after studying the GPL'd code. That's why "trade secret" protection (not releasing the source code) has been so popular for so long. It's why some interests are so much into Software Patents (which WOULD protect a disclosed algorhythm). It's why you don't find much GPL'd DSP code.
Let's try an experimental rephrasing of the above:
Linux (a low end UNIX) doesn't compete with SGI (producer of a high end UNIX). In fact, Linux is a nice cheap development platform, and a nice client for IRIX based larger systems.
By incorporating Linux as their low end offering, SGI can flatten the development model and produce a more seamless interface for integrating features into their higher end offerings. Plus, they can sell more cheap Intel hardware without having to give money to Redmond by bundling NT on it.
Linux and Irix don't compete, any more than Ford trucks and Ferrari's compete.
'What advanced features of Irix is SGI willing to give away for free?' Remember, when something is open-sourced anybody can run with the algorhythms. SGI certainly knows this.
Until that question is answered (and yes, the answer may be "all of them"- but I have my doubts) it is hard to see Irix disappearing.
Cheering for the fact that SGI may have "knuckled under" may be a premature thing to do.
Is it ever a good thing when there are fewer choices in the world? If SGI eventually throws in the towel with Irix, it just means that Linux is doing what Microsoft hopes it will do:
Killing off all the commercial Unices.
I have grown beyond an "anti-Microsoft" stance to the point where I feel that it's just silly to base your core philosopy on 'anti-' anything as the starting point. Diversity is good. That means it's bad whenever any OS is driven from the marketplace. Including OSes you can't buy from Cheapbytes for $1.99.
The "Open Source" movement isn't fascist, unless it starts claim it is the ONLY model for software development. Then it gets frighteningly similar to one-party Communism (some theorize that the only way Communism can ever succeed is if it takes over the whole world, and that this fact leads to it's defeat) I'm not trying to slam "open source" initiatives, because it can be and is a good thing at present. It's NOT EVER going to take over the entire market. Watch out for people who claim it is. They're the Lenin/Stalin types humanity always has to watch out for.
Let's face it, the whole MP3 arguement we make here doesn't hold much water unless more people start using the acutal Microphone (or synthesizer, etc.) to make real actual new music on the MP3 format. Certainly I have seen an amount of new and original music being distributed (hooray!) in the MP3 format on the net, but it seems like a lot of people think "music" is made by elves in a factory somewhere, and their job is just to move it around from one format to another. "Ripping" CDs at this point in time is illegal, and if it's all the "MP3 Movement" is up to doing, it's not a lot different from an ethical point of view from stripping the credit and license info from GPL'd software and claiming it as your own.
I'm not writing this to be flamebait here, just to get people to think. There have been Microphone jacks on the front of cassette decks for as long as they've been on the market. But what percentage of the machines out there have ever had a microphone plugged in?
MP3, if it is to take hold, has to become a two-way format. Artists, hopefully a lot of new artists, have to start using it to distribute new creations. It isn't enough for people to use a cable to move stuff from another format over to it and expect that to cause the format to take hold.
The Music Biz is what it is today (a big bloated octopus that controls and crushes what it can't control) because people are willing to just sit on the sofa punching remote control buttons. MP3 and the Net presents an opportunity to challange that, by elbowing in and having a say in how the distribution network functions. But it ain't gonna happen if all we want to do with it is steal tracks off commercially released CDs.
When was the last time YOU did something creative with music? If you can carry a tune in your head, you're capable of producing some. Think about it.
This is pretty much the typical kind of thing I would expect from the RIAA. They do a number of other things, because they "represent the interests of the musician."
If you run a tavern, or a bowling alley or supermarket, or really just about any public space, and you provide background music (records, or Muzak or even the radio) you pay a bill to the RIAA that provides "royalties" to the poor starving musicians.
The fact that the "poor starving musicians" are basically locked into an RIAA prision (the Music Biz as it exists in todays market) means nothing to these people.
The RIAA has been a monopoly for ages. It's a protection racket. And they're VERY VERY astute where it comes to the law, and lobbying.
Needless to say they are threatened by MP3, as has already been said in this thread, they've historically challanged anything that threatens to disturb the status quo that they own.
I'd say the same, that the whole item was really engineered to lead up to the "buy it at Amazon" link at the bottom. But with a musty old book like "The Third Wave" you can go into any used bookstore and pick up a copy for a few bucks.
The first 'beta' release of NT came out in October 1992. The first commercial release (curiously version numbered '3.1') came out in 1993. When did the Linux 1.0 kernel come out?
If Outlook "sucks" do more than throw insults at it. You need more, and less childish, words if you want to mean anything to anybody. If you didn't realize that was the previous posters point you're wasting bandwidth.
I don't think Microsoft is "setting the rules of the game." They've set up this performance study to sell stuff to businesses. If businesses thought it was a dog and pony show, they'd ignore it and Microsoft's credibility would suffer.
The rules of the game (and the model used in setting up the evaluation) were based on common business practice. It's not worth it to "think outside the box" when your customers are thinking "inside the box." You just find yourself boxed out.
A capitalist values private property. Contracts are just 'the bargain with the devil' (lawyers) that enforces his/her right to hold that private property.
A GPL license says that any 'capital' produced becomes a part of the 'commons,' and clearly NOT private property.
A BSD-style license is a contract which allows the capitalist to invest resources in producing more capital (derived products) without the resultant capital becoming 'common propety.'
A true 'individualist' shouldn't be using any code from anywhere else. He should be writing everything new 'his' way with each coding effort, or at a minimum basing it on 'his' prior work. Then again, he should be writing everything he does in machine code with toggle switches, since that's about the only way it will all be 'his' entirely (excpet for the problem of the microcode. So a true 'individualist' needs to get out the wire-wrap tool and the TTL gates.... no, wait! somebody else built the chips.... argh! (heh) )
Slashdot Mirror
Are you implying that professionals are thronging to CompUSA to buy RedHat and SuSE??
I can run, display, create, and compile X applications on Windows NT, using Interix. A few weeks ago I even telnetted into my NT box from my Linux box and ran the 'Xlogo' client and a few other of the prepackaged X apps on the NT box and displayed them on the Linux boxes X server. Interix comes bundled with Hummingbird's X server for Windows, and (the standard version, not the lite) also includes Motif. The X Window system is definitely not GPL'd. Also, (and this may prove very eye opening to many Linux users) Interix, running on top of the NT kernel simultaneously on the same machine with Win16, Win32 and OS/2 apps, is a real branded version of Unix. Not an unofficial 'clone' OS like Linux (which can't legally be referred to as Unix for that reason)
It was bloody expensive compared to Linux, though.
Sounds to me like it's similar to the first Linux book I ever bought, the Yggdrasil "Linux Bible." I spent fifty bucks on it, had it rush shipped to me, and when it arrived, I discovered that all it had in it (and I mean ALL, not just most) was printed out copies of HOWTOs and FAQs.
That was ages ago, and it was probably one of the, if not THE first published book on Linux, but I remember at the time how upset it made me that they charged me fifty bucks for it. (and that I waited in excitement for something I already had)
I believe there's a RedHat book on the market now(published by Redhat themselves) that's basically the same thing. I recall seeing it on a bookshelve at Borders this past winter.
I can remember not that long ago reading someplace a strong criticism by RMS of O'reilly and Associates. For the last decade+ O'reilly has written EXCELLENT manuals for most of the essential Unix tools, including some on various GNU tools. RMS made the criticism that because of O'reilly producing high quality, but definitely NOT free books on the subjects, it wiped out the incentive for free "open source" documentation to be created.
I personally have many many O'reilly books, and don't agree with RMS on this matter, but it does seem to stand that if "Open Source" is essential then O'reilly should put latex copies of all their books online. Or at a minimum, they should put 'binaries' (postscript images) online.
Of course, that will never happen. Let the proles eat manpages.
"Better solutions" have to exist before they can come along. Remember, the last several years have been about Microsoft's efforts to scale UP to the enterprise. If anything is questionable about the Mindcraft study, it's that Microsoft tries to make us believe the competition at the enterprise level is NT versus Linux. They know they wouldn't stand a chance comparing NT to the big iron, so they put on a dog-and-pony show by comparing it to Linux.
I as disappointed to say that even the Coin World newspaper has bought into the hype. There was a fairly long article in the latest issue about medals and numismatic items related to Star Wars. I predict it won't go down well with hardcore coin collectors (I can't wait for the outcry in the letters columns for the next few issues). Coin collectors don't even want bubblegum card collectors and other junk vendors at coin shows.
These tests are for evaluating various platforms for use in larger multi-user environments. Your personal preference has nothing to do with what large enterprise servers should be running for an OS. It's similar to the fact that your 'personal preference' for transportation may be a red Corvette convertable, but mining companies can't use it in the pit to haul iron ore.
Look out there. You're pointing out a weakness, from the point of view of commercial users, when you amplify the fact that there's no single (or even authoritative) "Linux Vendor." Business clients need a vendor they can rely on, not a ragtag bunch of Usenet readers. Commercial supprt is an area where Linux is growing. It isn't an area where Linux is mature.
It's even a somewhat interesting site. Presents some pros and cons.
He got a discussion thread on Slashdot. That's at least one of the things he's gotten. And probably a dozen other media references.
Surprisingly, then, the thread hasn't ended yet. Though people are avoiding talking about any real issues by trying to turn it into a discussion of arcane Usenet folklore. The usual babble of the monitor-tanned.
To get things back on track, Mr. "Invoke Hitler" championed "consolidation and standards" and then trashed the ISO in the next sentence. And referred to Irix as a "weak oddball variant of Unix."
Seems pretty dumb to me.
"Code" is protected by the GPL.
Algorhythms are not.
In cases where it's fancy math (i.e. graphics rendering) being done, the GPL can be easily defeated by anybody who studies the algorhythms behind the code and does a re-implementation after studying the GPL'd code. That's why "trade secret" protection (not releasing the source code) has been so popular for so long. It's why some interests are so much into Software Patents (which WOULD protect a disclosed algorhythm). It's why you don't find much GPL'd DSP code.
Let's try an experimental rephrasing of the above:
Linux (a low end UNIX) doesn't compete with SGI (producer of a high end UNIX). In fact, Linux is a nice cheap development platform, and a nice client for IRIX based larger systems.
By incorporating Linux as their low end offering, SGI can flatten the development model and produce a more seamless interface for integrating features into their higher end offerings. Plus, they can sell more cheap Intel hardware without having to give money to Redmond by bundling NT on it.
Linux and Irix don't compete, any more than Ford trucks and Ferrari's compete.
The question should be rephrased:
'What advanced features of Irix is SGI willing to give away for free?' Remember, when something is open-sourced anybody can run with the algorhythms. SGI certainly knows this.
Until that question is answered (and yes, the answer may be "all of them"- but I have my doubts) it is hard to see Irix disappearing.
Cheering for the fact that SGI may have "knuckled under" may be a premature thing to do.
Is it ever a good thing when there are fewer choices in the world? If SGI eventually throws in the towel with Irix, it just means that Linux is doing what Microsoft hopes it will do:
Killing off all the commercial Unices.
I have grown beyond an "anti-Microsoft" stance to the point where I feel that it's just silly to base your core philosopy on 'anti-' anything as the starting point. Diversity is good. That means it's bad whenever any OS is driven from the marketplace. Including OSes you can't buy from Cheapbytes for $1.99.
The "Open Source" movement isn't fascist, unless it starts claim it is the ONLY model for software development. Then it gets frighteningly similar to one-party Communism (some theorize that the only way Communism can ever succeed is if it takes over the whole world, and that this fact leads to it's defeat) I'm not trying to slam "open source" initiatives, because it can be and is a good thing at present. It's NOT EVER going to take over the entire market. Watch out for people who claim it is. They're the Lenin/Stalin types humanity always has to watch out for.
Let's face it, the whole MP3 arguement we make here doesn't hold much water unless more people start using the acutal Microphone (or synthesizer, etc.) to make real actual new music on the MP3 format. Certainly I have seen an amount of new and original music being distributed (hooray!) in the MP3 format on the net, but it seems like a lot of people think "music" is made by elves in a factory somewhere, and their job is just to move it around from one format to another. "Ripping" CDs at this point in time is illegal, and if it's all the "MP3 Movement" is up to doing, it's not a lot different from an ethical point of view from stripping the credit and license info from GPL'd software and claiming it as your own.
I'm not writing this to be flamebait here, just to get people to think. There have been Microphone jacks on the front of cassette decks for as long as they've been on the market. But what percentage of the machines out there have ever had a microphone plugged in?
MP3, if it is to take hold, has to become a two-way format. Artists, hopefully a lot of new artists, have to start using it to distribute new creations. It isn't enough for people to use a cable to move stuff from another format over to it and expect that to cause the format to take hold.
The Music Biz is what it is today (a big bloated octopus that controls and crushes what it can't control) because people are willing to just sit on the sofa punching remote control buttons. MP3 and the Net presents an opportunity to challange that, by elbowing in and having a say in how the distribution network functions. But it ain't gonna happen if all we want to do with it is steal tracks off commercially released CDs.
When was the last time YOU did something creative with music? If you can carry a tune in your head, you're capable of producing some. Think about it.
This is pretty much the typical kind of thing I would expect from the RIAA. They do a number of other things, because they "represent the interests of the musician."
If you run a tavern, or a bowling alley or supermarket, or really just about any public space, and you provide background music (records, or Muzak or even the radio) you pay a bill to the RIAA that provides "royalties" to the poor starving musicians.
The fact that the "poor starving musicians" are basically locked into an RIAA prision (the Music Biz as it exists in todays market) means nothing to these people.
The RIAA has been a monopoly for ages. It's a protection racket. And they're VERY VERY astute where it comes to the law, and lobbying.
Needless to say they are threatened by MP3, as has already been said in this thread, they've historically challanged anything that threatens to disturb the status quo that they own.
I'd say the same, that the whole item was really engineered to lead up to the "buy it at Amazon" link at the bottom. But with a musty old book like "The Third Wave" you can go into any used bookstore and pick up a copy for a few bucks.
I'm not sure Microsoft is getting nervous.
They might just be getting annoyed.
The first 'beta' release of NT came out in October 1992. The first commercial release (curiously version numbered '3.1') came out in 1993. When did the Linux 1.0 kernel come out?
If Outlook "sucks" do more than throw insults at it. You need more, and less childish, words if you want to mean anything to anybody. If you didn't realize that was the previous posters point you're wasting bandwidth.
I don't think Microsoft is "setting the rules of the game." They've set up this performance study to sell stuff to businesses. If businesses thought it was a dog and pony show, they'd ignore it and Microsoft's credibility would suffer.
The rules of the game (and the model used in setting up the evaluation) were based on common business practice. It's not worth it to "think outside the box" when your customers are thinking "inside the box." You just find yourself boxed out.
How much liability insurance do you carry? Until you have a good answer, your guarantee means next to nothing.
You're describing a hardware configuration where Microsoft would advocate Windows CE instead.
Actually, you're describing a configuration for which QNX put out a NICE demo disk awhile back.
A capitalist values private property. Contracts are just 'the bargain with the devil' (lawyers) that enforces his/her right to hold that private property.
A GPL license says that any 'capital' produced becomes a part of the 'commons,' and clearly NOT private property.
A BSD-style license is a contract which allows the capitalist to invest resources in producing more capital (derived products) without the resultant capital becoming 'common propety.'
A true 'individualist' shouldn't be using any code from anywhere else. He should be writing everything new 'his' way with each coding effort, or at a minimum basing it on 'his' prior work. Then again, he should be writing everything he does in machine code with toggle switches, since that's about the only way it will all be 'his' entirely (excpet for the problem of the microcode. So a true 'individualist' needs to get out the wire-wrap tool and the TTL gates.... no, wait! somebody else built the chips.... argh! (heh) )