Take a look at my previous posts concerning Linux and you'll see where I'm coming from on this.
Linux does *not* work for everyone. It works for those who are familiar with UNIX, or who are CompSci majors or geeks/nerds who get a cheap thrill (how much does Linux cost?) out of being a renegade. It works great as a Server platform because those people who are in that line of business (such as I am) understand it.
As I have said before; try installing it on your favorite family member's system when they've been previously running Windows, and you'll end-up being disowned.
Try putting it on your Mom's/Dad's/Grandma's PC and see how they'll do with it.
"Oh, I need to upgrade to the latest "Kernel"? What does corn have to do with it? and what does this "nmake" command do? Building an OS? What does that mean? Timmy, get this crap off of my machine and put Windows back on!!!"
So much for your "reality via rose-colored glasses".
Excuse me? You obviously didn't read my entire post; I said that Linux as a Server platform is great. As a Desktop OS for the unfamiliar PC user, it's seriously wanting.
As the article is being posted, a listserv for an open-source project is being spammed by some clever putz who figured-out how to forge mail headers and send them via a live, working member's email address.
The LiteStep maillist has been severely spammed by gibberish posts for the last 48 hours, to the ammount of over 18,000 emails.
(for those who don't know what LiteStep is; it's an open-source Shell replacement for Windows' SHELL32.DLL, and the more popular of the open-source Shell Replacements)
The admin that runs the maillist is away from his office and is unable to immediately deal with the problem. The listadmin has a fairly good idea where it's coming from, and I'm not really at liberty to divulge that info at this time, but if ANYONE in the/. community has any ideas, we'd appreciate it and any support.
You can get more info on this at http://www.shellfront.org
I had the extreme pleasure to take the 4-hour drive from Dallas to Houston when I was in Dallas on business for two weeks, and went to the Johnson Space Center - for someone who has followed the Space Program for as long as I have (ever since John Glenn's first mission - I was a baby then...), to visit that place was pure heaven!
Tours of the Mission Control Center for the Shuttle and the ISS...
Seeing the X-38 (Crew Return Vehicle) being built...
See the places where Astronauts are trained...
A peek at the fully preserved but access-restricted Mission Control Center for the Gemini & Apollo missions...
You can even walk right up to a full Saturn V stack laid-down on the ground and taken care of quite nicely - it's the stack they were going to use for Apollo 18, which was cancelled when funding for further Apollo / Lunar missions was cut in favor of the Space Shuttle / STS.
ScottKin
Re:It just goes to show...
on
Soviet Moon Rocket
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
/me sighs
First off; the notion that "political motivation" is some kind of arcane, evil-thing. Without such "political motivation" there would be no Parliment, no PM, and Great Britan would still be a total and complete Monarchy. Without "political motivation", the colonists in America would not have had the desire to tell King George where he can put his tea and tax stamps. The "Space Race" was politically motivated, as was ARPANet.
Obviously, you missed my entire section on the failures that the USA experienced in the "Space Race" - not to mention the death of 3 Apollo Astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire - which showed several deadly design flaws in the Command Module (a hatch that didn't allow for emergency escape when the CM was pressurized, pressurizing the CM with pure oxygen, and faulty wiring in the power buss panel.). Or the Apollo 13 mission, which nearly cost 3 more lives that were saved by impromptu engineering to build a CO2 scrubber from scratch, and how to use the systems on-board the Aquarius (lunar module) to provide life support for a crew of 3 versus a crew of 2. America's technical prowess can not be denied, but we've made some monumental cock-ups in the past like anyone has.
To correct you; Tim Berners-Lee had nothing to do with the development and/or of the physical design and creation of the Internet - however, he was the creator of the World Wide Web...which is just a part of the Internet.
Another correction: All Government work is politically motivated, to some extent. Political motivation is not limited to campaigns for political office. ARPANet was designed as a communications network between Government facilities that would allow for information sharing and network redundancy in the case of nuclear attack. It was extended to include Universities and other such institutions that were directly related to Government-funded research (LBL/LLL/Sandia/Los Alamos/Dryden/NASA/Purdue/Cornell/MIT/SRI/Xerox PARC, etc).
Interestingly enough, the "pen.vs pencil" research was *very* valid - the last thing you want floating around in microgravity/zero-gravity are pencil shavings and lead powder (which, in the case of lead poweder, can cause short circuits in switches if the powder is of sufficient concentration);however, it did not cost NASA "millions" to develop it, since Parker Pens already had developed a pen that could write at any angle using a pressurized ink cartridge.
Yes, the USSR used different approaches in spaceflight; however, those approaches cost them many more lives than those that were lost in the NASA programs. Nothing like having your return capsule's retros fail when you're making a hard landing in the Siberian tundra (Soviet/Russian capsules do not "splash-down" into a body of water - their passengers either eject using rocket-powered ejection seats or hard-land using huge parachutes and retro-rockets that fire at the last moment to soften the impact), or to have your return capsule explosively de-pressurize at 90,000 ft.
The Salyut series of spacecraft and modules were nothing more than re-furbished Soyuz & Zond capsules connected in a row. MIR was almost the same design, and plagued with technical problems throughout it's service-life (including a near-tragic fire which could have killed all of the crew on-board at that time - if they had not put out the fire in time, MIR would be an expensive space-born Memorial to the Soviet/Russian Space effort).
In short: Technology shortcuts when involving human life are usually tragic in their consequences.
Do us all a favor and drop the posturing - it does nothing but show frustration at your inability to sucessfully rebut my comments.
We're talking about present-day systems and not MS-DOS 6.22. Welcome to the 21st Century. Things *have* changed in Personal Computing since 1995. Keep it current or keep it to yourself.
It's a common tactic of people who can't successfully argue their point to resort to 3rd-party namecalling, and attempts at denigration of the previous comments.
Additionally - as being a member of the Windows NT DevTeam (Kernel, API & Test Group), I know the MS.vs IBM debacle all too well - care to illustrate where MS was wrong?
It's interesting how we're validating each other's posts here:
SMB is a *part* of NetBIOS.
TCP/IP is based on the OSI model, hence it applies to OSI standards.
IPX/SPX/ODI are *not* dead - look a the number of existing Novell-based LANs and you'll see them all over the place, but wrapped-up in new 32-bit Win32-compliant drivers. They're not dead at all - they just smell kinda funny.
Also, get your SMB info correct; Samba was designed to be a product to allow connectivity to SMB-based network products and protocols - which, at that time, was only used by Windows, MS LanMAN and OS/2. It would be more correct to say that "Samba is broken and will not work with every Windows release..." instead of what appears to be finger-pointing against the Windows/Win32 implementation of SMB.
Concerning you comments about Microsoft's "extending" of Kerberos; remember that Microsoft has a right to patent their extentions as much as any other software company does. Reverse Engineering is the hacker's joy-in-life, right? Why reverse engineer when the standards are published and available? Which costs you more development dollars: Reverse Engineering, or obtaining a legal license to use the technology & API?
Concerning your comments about controlling the server market via the desktop: pure fantasy. Why does Microsoft provide connectivity tools for Novell, Apple, UNIX and a host of others (including 3270 Emulation - but why?!?!?)?
Nothing but pure paranoia.
ScottKin
Re:It just goes to show...
on
Soviet Moon Rocket
·
· Score: 2, Informative
You'd think at least after the second time it ended in disaster they'd think it was time to go back to the drawing board. However I suppose this is the kind of thing that happens when they are political motivations behind scientific achievements - shortcuts are made.
Wow - how astute of you to come up with such commentary!
Oh, btw; the greatest single achievement of mankind - man landing on the moon - was fueled and driven by political motivation. It also gave us the technology to produce Integrated Circuits, Fuel Cells that will (eventually) replace the Internal Combustion Engine for cars (and have water as it's only major byproduct), and the "Space Race" also was a major part of the further development of ARPANet.
Soviet missiles, ever since the Vostok launchers, have always used multiple rocket motors/engines of smaller size to provide the needed thrust versus the F-1 engines used in the Saturn V. The images that you see on the BBC site show (1) the tail-end of the N1, which housed the 30 smaller engines, and the 2nd image is also just the tail-end housing of the N1 and not the exhaust nozzles. The nozzles for the N1 engines ranged from about 3 feet to 1 foot in diameter. The overall diameter of the tail-end of the N1 is greater than the Saturn V, because they had to fit 30 of the smaller, less-efficient engines instead of the 5 vastly more efficient F-1 engines used in the Saturn V.
Some links to some photos and illustrations:
Line-up Illustration of size differences of engines used for the Apollo missions
(The RL-10's were used in the Descent and Acsent engines of the LEM, the H-1 served the Command & Service Modules, the J-2 for the 3rd Stage (single engine) and for the 2nd Stage (5-engine cluster), and the F-1 for the 1st Stage of the Saturn V stack))
At the time that the N1 was in the planning stages, the most powerful rocket engines produced only 40 tons of thrust, and the N1 required engines that produced (at most) 150 tons of thrust each, in comparison to the massive F-1 engines used in the Saturn V, which produced ~680 tons of thrust each. The lack of sophistication in Soviet designs called for many more engines in the N1 than in the Saturn V, proving to be a systems-management nightmare (the more engines/systems you have, the larger the "point-of-failure" boundaries, which negates any kind of planned redundancy.). Engines to equal the F-1 were almost impossible for them to build, due to the technology gap between the USSR and the USA.
Additionally, You'd be suprised at how many botched launches of various launch vehicles happened at Cape Canaveral/Kenedy; the "Mercury Seven" were about ready to voluntarily drop-out of the Mercury program when they learned that the proposed launch vehicle was the Atlas - one of the most disaster-plagued launch vehicles the USA ever had - hence, the "Spam in a can" comments from the Astronauts to illustrate what would happen to them if the Atlas malfunctioned. Several different designs of the Saturn launch vehicle blew-up or were ordered to self-destruct when early guidance system designs failed and caused the rocket stack to "end-over" several times.
Rocket Science IS "Rocket Science"
Also remember that the technological state of the Soviet Union was about 10 years behind the USA - but they made up for it by pouring huge financial backing from the Soviet government into producing quantity and not quality - which partially led to the financial collapse of the Soviet Union and it's enevitable disintegration.
So much for your ignorant comments. Learn something instead of parroting some obscure Liberalist doctrine. If you didn't have "...political motivation behind scientific achievement...", we wouldn't have the Internet and we'd all still be chatting and swapping files on BBS systems.
ScottKin - who was a NASA-junkie at the ripe, old age of 7.
No - he was only saying that new software is tested to be backwards-compatable with Win95. I can't see how you missed that or how you misconstrued it enough to come-up with your supposition.
Additionally, it appears that you just skimmed through the article, because he squarely said that it's all dependent on the economics of doing a re-write.vs clean-up. If it makes economic sense to re-write from the ground-up, do it; if it doesn't, then you have your answer.
Care to show us which protocols are "MS" or "Windows" protocols?
Here - let me help you start:
NetBEUI (NetBIOS Extended User Interface) - Developed by IBM for OS/2, but used by MS and adopted for use in MS LanMan; implementation of OSI LLC2 protocols
NetBIOS - IBM
IPX/SPX/ODI - Novell
TCP/IP - OSI Standard, no one owns it, originally developed by DARPA for ARPANet and not widely used until 1983 when 4.2 BSD came to life and introduced "sockets".
SMB? Nope. SMB is part of the Open Group (nee X/Open) Interoperability Standards since 1992.
Secondly, the topic was DESKTOPS, not servers!
Nice try, but no prize!
ScottKin - he who cut his teeth on 3.2 BSD, csh and Vax/VMS at UC Berkeley/LBL in 1979!
1) More like "Active Bug Fixes and patches for Gaping Security Holes" - nothing like the buffer overflow bug in lpr that allows arbitrary programs to be run to ruin your day.
2) A case of Linux-o-phile onanism - try giving RH to your Grandma so she can install it on her Tandy 2000; she'll disown you. Most 12-year-olds who play with Linux are socially-challenged geeks who get a thrill out of typing "nmake"
3) We now see the Marketing Strategy of Linux unfolded - market penetration by subtefuge and deception.
4) Totally dependent on the target systems hardware configuration. And the "Workplace" shell problem is one of the underlying instability issues with OS/2 (half-an-OS). Remember that OS/2 was mostly written by the biggest of the "Big Iron" computer companies, who revel in complicated systems.
In addition, your comment about Linux becoming "illegal" is nothing but pure, assenine FUD. Making Linux "illegal" would be equal to making Crystal Radio sets illegal, or even typewriters. Good deduction there, Sherlock!
Would not that make every computer literate a criminal? We all got a copy, don't we? Would you trash your copy, just because the OS became illegal? Don't think so.:o)
Typical Linux-o-phile onanism - thinking that everyone who is "computer-literate" has a copy of Linux on their system.
Frankly, I wouldn't trust an OS that was cobbled-together by an ad-hoc committee of hackers (read "LINUX") as far as I could spit.
LINUX - "Linus, I Now Understand Xenophobia"
(and the previous posts confirm this statement!)
What everyone seems to be missing in the whole Windows.vs Linux debate is something that you're missing as well - so, consider yourself in good company.
An analogy: What makes Ford & Chevrolet the most popular automobile manufacturers? Their quality? Their style? No! It's because they've had TENS OF MILLIONS of their cars all over the world for the last 70 years or so. "VOLUME, baby.....VOLUME!!"
Linux is not a "mainstream" OS and will remain a hobbyist/academic OS until the following things occurr:
1) Number of software titles/packages available are equal to the number of available titles/packages for Windows/Win32.
2) Quality of software titles/packages available are equal in quality to the available titles/packages for Windows/Win32 (sorry, but StarOffice is severely lacking when held up besides MS-Office, whether it be the Win32 or the OSX versions)
3) Support offered for OSS Operating Systems (i.e. single-source of support, 1-800 number, number of technicians, quality of support) equals that of Microsoft or Apple.
4) Software Testing standards that the rest of the Industry uses is applied to OSS Operating Systems (sorry, but CVS does not qualify as a QA (Quality Assurance) tool.)
5) Due to the "variety" of Linux OS's available, an average user *must* be able to take any Linux program and be able to install a BINARY and expect it to run flawlessly on ANY variety of Linux (i.e. No End-User nmake or build, and *COMPLETE* Binary portability between RH, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, etc)
6) Major software companies produce Linux versions of their current software, with similar prices to match (i.e. can't penalize Windows/Win32 users with a higher price). This is already happening, but not at a sufficient-enough scale to cause Linux to be as widely accepted/used for the next 5 to 10 years.(note: this point is partially dependant on #5)
7) Hardware Manufacturers produce QUALITY Linux drivers for their hardware along-side of Windows/Win32 drivers, instead of depending on OSS coders. (i.e. if your drivers are crap, so is your OS)
8) Linux stability is *not* dependent on hardware chosen for target system(s) (from "The Linux Operating System" at Christopher Browne's Web Pages (http://http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html):
"Work is ongoing on creating highly stable Linux systems; properly configured Linux kernels with suitably configured software on top of that commonly run for hundreds of days without any need to reboot. *Ensuring high availability requires careful choices of hardware, discussed at the Linux-HA Project Web Site*."
9) Installation *must* be easy enough for the less-experienced user (i.e. easy enough for your parents/aunt & uncle/grandparents to install).
10) Upgrades & patches do *not* require a nmake/build/re-compile of the OS.
Linux has only made entrances into the business world because of companies that were started by or employed people who knew Linux and implemented it as the platform OS for Web Servers because other Web Server platform OS's (WinNT/SunOS/Solaris/HP-UX) were too expensive. Before Apache came along, Linux *was* nothing more than an amusing UNIX-clone.
If the Linux/OSS "community" would just step-out of their "free software" shoes for a moment and join the rest of us in the "Business Computing World", they would understand that the whole problem with LINUX not being as prevalent as Windows/Win32 has NOTHING to do with the quality of the software, but the sheer level of exposure Windows/Win32 has had for the last 20 years, not to mention the number of programs produced for Windows/Win32 over that same timeframe.
It's something called "Economics of Scale" - and Linux won't be there for the next 10 years or so, and no ammount of LEGAL GAMESMANSHIP (read "Hiring the DOJ as your personal Corporate Attorney to penalize your competition for just doing it better than you") will change that.
Crying, whining and playing the "Linux Advocacy" game will get you absolutely "dick".
Litigation will only get you Lawyer's bills and cause delays in "innovation" by the companies involved in such litigation.
Anti-Microsoft sentiment and bleathing will only get you laughed at and *not* taken seriously.
Linux will only rise above it's current position when people realize that it *IS* better than Windows/Win32...that is, if it really *IS* better than Windows/Win32 (14 Critical core bugs that can cripple a Linux box that have yet to be fixed or patched - whomever said Linux was "stable" must be smoking crack)
"But for the time being, if you want to create professional-quality audio, the kind that a top name DJ will spin into their set, forget about software. It's just not good enough yet."
BT uses Reason, FruityLoops and DSP software from Spectral Noise in his productions, as well as ProTools for mixing and Hardware Synths as well.
Joe Satriani (Joe's site is Satriani.com used nothing but MIDI hardware and software to provide backing tracks for his "Engines of Creation" CD - totally amazing work, including "The Power Cosmic, Part II", "Borg Sex", and "Attack".
I am, among other things, a professional musician/guitarist as well, and am working on a solo project with only the hardware and software sitting in my home office.
So much for "It's just not good enough yet". If you think "digital" sounds thin, run your final output stage through a warm-sounding Tube Preamp (Rotel made a very sweet-sounding one back in the early 60's - if you can find them), and you'll re-capture the supposed "warmth" that's missing from digital.
Reason absolutely STOMPS on FruityLoops in *every* single aspect - except the price...
...but then again, isn't/. the "Free Software and Open-Source Love-Fest"???
Samples played via Reason are cleaner...more patching and signal-routing capabilities, as well as patch modification capabilities...Re-Wire support so I can hook-up Reason to Cubase VST/32.
Are you living in a cave? Or were you too busy contemplating your own navel?
As I've often said on this weblog-turned-"Open-Source-lovefest", Open-Source software will *Never* achieve the same level of usage as Commercial software does unless the quality and quantity of Open-Source software equals that of Commercial software.
Based on that, we should see Linux with as much acceptance as an OS as Windows is today in 2023 - that should give the developers enough time, based on their current development schedule/timeline to have those nasty core/root bugs resolved enough and have Linux as easy to install and maintain as Windows.
"Do you want your Grandma installing Linux on her system?"
I hate to burst any bubble here, but as long as it's anti-Microsoft it's/. fodder and open-season on Microsoft.
I wouldn't be suprised if some Linux-o-phile here turned this whole thing around and either blamed Microsoft for it or even twisted it around into some anti-Microsoft commentary.
Screw the Penguin!
LINUX - "Linus, I Now Understand Xenophobia" (yes, I did get it right this time, and next time I'll be more carefull to check my own posts)
1) Machine Crashes 2) Blame OS Manufacturer 3) Forget the fact that you're overclocking the hell out of your machine and/or you're a cheap enough bastage to keep your ATI Mach64 or ViRGE graphics card that has 1" of dust on it in use on that system.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at my previous posts concerning Linux and you'll see where I'm coming from on this.
Linux does *not* work for everyone. It works for those who are familiar with UNIX, or who are CompSci majors or geeks/nerds who get a cheap thrill (how much does Linux cost?) out of being a renegade. It works great as a Server platform because those people who are in that line of business (such as I am) understand it.
As I have said before; try installing it on your favorite family member's system when they've been previously running Windows, and you'll end-up being disowned.
ScottKin
Try putting it on your Mom's/Dad's/Grandma's PC and see how they'll do with it.
"Oh, I need to upgrade to the latest "Kernel"? What does corn have to do with it? and what does this "nmake" command do? Building an OS? What does that mean? Timmy, get this crap off of my machine and put Windows back on!!!"
So much for your "reality via rose-colored glasses".
ScottKin
Excuse me? You obviously didn't read my entire post; I said that Linux as a Server platform is great. As a Desktop OS for the unfamiliar PC user, it's seriously wanting.
Now, run off and play with your Linux machine.
ScottKin
Can you say "vindication"?
I'be been saying this here for the last year, and I get modded-down or left in neutral, on top of getting diss'ed by Linux fans.
NOW will the Linux community wake-up to reality, or continue to delude itself that Linux is great for the desktop today?
Linux: Great Taste for Servers, Less Fulfilling on the Desktop.
ScottKin
As the article is being posted, a listserv for an open-source project is being spammed by some clever putz who figured-out how to forge mail headers and send them via a live, working member's email address.
/. community has any ideas, we'd appreciate it and any support.
The LiteStep maillist has been severely spammed by gibberish posts for the last 48 hours, to the ammount of over 18,000 emails.
(for those who don't know what LiteStep is; it's an open-source Shell replacement for Windows' SHELL32.DLL, and the more popular of the open-source Shell Replacements)
The admin that runs the maillist is away from his office and is unable to immediately deal with the problem. The listadmin has a fairly good idea where it's coming from, and I'm not really at liberty to divulge that info at this time, but if ANYONE in the
You can get more info on this at http://www.shellfront.org
Thanks!
ScottKin
I had the extreme pleasure to take the 4-hour drive from Dallas to Houston when I was in Dallas on business for two weeks, and went to the Johnson Space Center - for someone who has followed the Space Program for as long as I have (ever since John Glenn's first mission - I was a baby then...), to visit that place was pure heaven!
Tours of the Mission Control Center for the Shuttle and the ISS...
Seeing the X-38 (Crew Return Vehicle) being built...
See the places where Astronauts are trained...
A peek at the fully preserved but access-restricted Mission Control Center for the Gemini & Apollo missions...
You can even walk right up to a full Saturn V stack laid-down on the ground and taken care of quite nicely - it's the stack they were going to use for Apollo 18, which was cancelled when funding for further Apollo / Lunar missions was cut in favor of the Space Shuttle / STS.
ScottKin
/me sighs
.vs pencil" research was *very* valid - the last thing you want floating around in microgravity/zero-gravity are pencil shavings and lead powder (which, in the case of lead poweder, can cause short circuits in switches if the powder is of sufficient concentration);however, it did not cost NASA "millions" to develop it, since Parker Pens already had developed a pen that could write at any angle using a pressurized ink cartridge.
First off; the notion that "political motivation" is some kind of arcane, evil-thing. Without such "political motivation" there would be no Parliment, no PM, and Great Britan would still be a total and complete Monarchy. Without "political motivation", the colonists in America would not have had the desire to tell King George where he can put his tea and tax stamps. The "Space Race" was politically motivated, as was ARPANet.
Obviously, you missed my entire section on the failures that the USA experienced in the "Space Race" - not to mention the death of 3 Apollo Astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire - which showed several deadly design flaws in the Command Module (a hatch that didn't allow for emergency escape when the CM was pressurized, pressurizing the CM with pure oxygen, and faulty wiring in the power buss panel.). Or the Apollo 13 mission, which nearly cost 3 more lives that were saved by impromptu engineering to build a CO2 scrubber from scratch, and how to use the systems on-board the Aquarius (lunar module) to provide life support for a crew of 3 versus a crew of 2. America's technical prowess can not be denied, but we've made some monumental cock-ups in the past like anyone has.
To correct you; Tim Berners-Lee had nothing to do with the development and/or of the physical design and creation of the Internet - however, he was the creator of the World Wide Web...which is just a part of the Internet.
Another correction: All Government work is politically motivated, to some extent. Political motivation is not limited to campaigns for political office. ARPANet was designed as a communications network between Government facilities that would allow for information sharing and network redundancy in the case of nuclear attack. It was extended to include Universities and other such institutions that were directly related to Government-funded research (LBL/LLL/Sandia/Los Alamos/Dryden/NASA/Purdue/Cornell/MIT/SRI/Xerox PARC, etc).
Interestingly enough, the "pen
Yes, the USSR used different approaches in spaceflight; however, those approaches cost them many more lives than those that were lost in the NASA programs. Nothing like having your return capsule's retros fail when you're making a hard landing in the Siberian tundra (Soviet/Russian capsules do not "splash-down" into a body of water - their passengers either eject using rocket-powered ejection seats or hard-land using huge parachutes and retro-rockets that fire at the last moment to soften the impact), or to have your return capsule explosively de-pressurize at 90,000 ft.
The Salyut series of spacecraft and modules were nothing more than re-furbished Soyuz & Zond capsules connected in a row. MIR was almost the same design, and plagued with technical problems throughout it's service-life (including a near-tragic fire which could have killed all of the crew on-board at that time - if they had not put out the fire in time, MIR would be an expensive space-born Memorial to the Soviet/Russian Space effort).
In short: Technology shortcuts when involving human life are usually tragic in their consequences.
ScottKin
Do us all a favor and drop the posturing - it does nothing but show frustration at your inability to sucessfully rebut my comments.
.vs IBM debacle all too well - care to illustrate where MS was wrong?
We're talking about present-day systems and not MS-DOS 6.22. Welcome to the 21st Century. Things *have* changed in Personal Computing since 1995. Keep it current or keep it to yourself.
It's a common tactic of people who can't successfully argue their point to resort to 3rd-party namecalling, and attempts at denigration of the previous comments.
Additionally - as being a member of the Windows NT DevTeam (Kernel, API & Test Group), I know the MS
Have a nice day!
ScottKin
It's interesting how we're validating each other's posts here:
SMB is a *part* of NetBIOS.
TCP/IP is based on the OSI model, hence it applies to OSI standards.
IPX/SPX/ODI are *not* dead - look a the number of existing Novell-based LANs and you'll see them all over the place, but wrapped-up in new 32-bit Win32-compliant drivers. They're not dead at all - they just smell kinda funny.
Also, get your SMB info correct; Samba was designed to be a product to allow connectivity to SMB-based network products and protocols - which, at that time, was only used by Windows, MS LanMAN and OS/2. It would be more correct to say that "Samba is broken and will not work with every Windows release..." instead of what appears to be finger-pointing against the Windows/Win32 implementation of SMB.
Concerning you comments about Microsoft's "extending" of Kerberos; remember that Microsoft has a right to patent their extentions as much as any other software company does. Reverse Engineering is the hacker's joy-in-life, right? Why reverse engineer when the standards are published and available? Which costs you more development dollars: Reverse Engineering, or obtaining a legal license to use the technology & API?
Concerning your comments about controlling the server market via the desktop: pure fantasy. Why does Microsoft provide connectivity tools for Novell, Apple, UNIX and a host of others (including 3270 Emulation - but why?!?!?)?
Nothing but pure paranoia.
ScottKin
Wow - how astute of you to come up with such commentary!
Oh, btw; the greatest single achievement of mankind - man landing on the moon - was fueled and driven by political motivation. It also gave us the technology to produce Integrated Circuits, Fuel Cells that will (eventually) replace the Internal Combustion Engine for cars (and have water as it's only major byproduct), and the "Space Race" also was a major part of the further development of ARPANet.
Soviet missiles, ever since the Vostok launchers, have always used multiple rocket motors/engines of smaller size to provide the needed thrust versus the F-1 engines used in the Saturn V. The images that you see on the BBC site show (1) the tail-end of the N1, which housed the 30 smaller engines, and the 2nd image is also just the tail-end housing of the N1 and not the exhaust nozzles. The nozzles for the N1 engines ranged from about 3 feet to 1 foot in diameter. The overall diameter of the tail-end of the N1 is greater than the Saturn V, because they had to fit 30 of the smaller, less-efficient engines instead of the 5 vastly more efficient F-1 engines used in the Saturn V.
Some links to some photos and illustrations:
Line-up Illustration of size differences of engines used for the Apollo missions (The RL-10's were used in the Descent and Acsent engines of the LEM, the H-1 served the Command & Service Modules, the J-2 for the 3rd Stage (single engine) and for the 2nd Stage (5-engine cluster), and the F-1 for the 1st Stage of the Saturn V stack))
The N1 Story - Part 1
At the time that the N1 was in the planning stages, the most powerful rocket engines produced only 40 tons of thrust, and the N1 required engines that produced (at most) 150 tons of thrust each, in comparison to the massive F-1 engines used in the Saturn V, which produced ~680 tons of thrust each. The lack of sophistication in Soviet designs called for many more engines in the N1 than in the Saturn V, proving to be a systems-management nightmare (the more engines/systems you have, the larger the "point-of-failure" boundaries, which negates any kind of planned redundancy.). Engines to equal the F-1 were almost impossible for them to build, due to the technology gap between the USSR and the USA.
Additionally, You'd be suprised at how many botched launches of various launch vehicles happened at Cape Canaveral/Kenedy; the "Mercury Seven" were about ready to voluntarily drop-out of the Mercury program when they learned that the proposed launch vehicle was the Atlas - one of the most disaster-plagued launch vehicles the USA ever had - hence, the "Spam in a can" comments from the Astronauts to illustrate what would happen to them if the Atlas malfunctioned. Several different designs of the Saturn launch vehicle blew-up or were ordered to self-destruct when early guidance system designs failed and caused the rocket stack to "end-over" several times.
Rocket Science IS "Rocket Science"
Also remember that the technological state of the Soviet Union was about 10 years behind the USA - but they made up for it by pouring huge financial backing from the Soviet government into producing quantity and not quality - which partially led to the financial collapse of the Soviet Union and it's enevitable disintegration.
So much for your ignorant comments. Learn something instead of parroting some obscure Liberalist doctrine. If you didn't have "...political motivation behind scientific achievement...", we wouldn't have the Internet and we'd all still be chatting and swapping files on BBS systems.
ScottKin - who was a NASA-junkie at the ripe, old age of 7.
No - he was only saying that new software is tested to be backwards-compatable with Win95. I can't see how you missed that or how you misconstrued it enough to come-up with your supposition.
.vs clean-up. If it makes economic sense to re-write from the ground-up, do it; if it doesn't, then you have your answer.
Additionally, it appears that you just skimmed through the article, because he squarely said that it's all dependent on the economics of doing a re-write
Have a nice day!
Excuse me?
Care to show us which protocols are "MS" or "Windows" protocols?
Here - let me help you start:
NetBEUI (NetBIOS Extended User Interface) - Developed by IBM for OS/2, but used by MS and adopted for use in MS LanMan; implementation of OSI LLC2 protocols
NetBIOS - IBM
IPX/SPX/ODI - Novell
TCP/IP - OSI Standard, no one owns it, originally developed by DARPA for ARPANet and not widely used until 1983 when 4.2 BSD came to life and introduced "sockets".
SMB? Nope. SMB is part of the Open Group (nee X/Open) Interoperability Standards since 1992.
Secondly, the topic was DESKTOPS, not servers!
Nice try, but no prize!
ScottKin - he who cut his teeth on 3.2 BSD, csh and Vax/VMS at UC Berkeley/LBL in 1979!
1) More like "Active Bug Fixes and patches for Gaping Security Holes" - nothing like the buffer overflow bug in lpr that allows arbitrary programs to be run to ruin your day.
2) A case of Linux-o-phile onanism - try giving RH to your Grandma so she can install it on her Tandy 2000; she'll disown you. Most 12-year-olds who play with Linux are socially-challenged geeks who get a thrill out of typing "nmake"
3) We now see the Marketing Strategy of Linux unfolded - market penetration by subtefuge and deception.
4) Totally dependent on the target systems hardware configuration. And the "Workplace" shell problem is one of the underlying instability issues with OS/2 (half-an-OS). Remember that OS/2 was mostly written by the biggest of the "Big Iron" computer companies, who revel in complicated systems.
In addition, your comment about Linux becoming "illegal" is nothing but pure, assenine FUD. Making Linux "illegal" would be equal to making Crystal Radio sets illegal, or even typewriters. Good deduction there, Sherlock!
Typical Linux-o-phile onanism - thinking that everyone who is "computer-literate" has a copy of Linux on their system.
Frankly, I wouldn't trust an OS that was cobbled-together by an ad-hoc committee of hackers (read "LINUX") as far as I could spit.
LINUX - "Linus, I Now Understand Xenophobia" (and the previous posts confirm this statement!)
hmmm...
and how do YOU spell PARANOIA???
What everyone seems to be missing in the whole Windows .vs Linux debate is something that you're missing as well - so, consider yourself in good company.
An analogy: What makes Ford & Chevrolet the most popular automobile manufacturers? Their quality? Their style? No! It's because they've had TENS OF MILLIONS of their cars all over the world for the last 70 years or so. "VOLUME, baby.....VOLUME!!"
Linux is not a "mainstream" OS and will remain a hobbyist/academic OS until the following things occurr:
1) Number of software titles/packages available are equal to the number of available titles/packages for Windows/Win32.
2) Quality of software titles/packages available are equal in quality to the available titles/packages for Windows/Win32 (sorry, but StarOffice is severely lacking when held up besides MS-Office, whether it be the Win32 or the OSX versions)
3) Support offered for OSS Operating Systems (i.e. single-source of support, 1-800 number, number of technicians, quality of support) equals that of Microsoft or Apple.
4) Software Testing standards that the rest of the Industry uses is applied to OSS Operating Systems (sorry, but CVS does not qualify as a QA (Quality Assurance) tool.)
5) Due to the "variety" of Linux OS's available, an average user *must* be able to take any Linux program and be able to install a BINARY and expect it to run flawlessly on ANY variety of Linux (i.e. No End-User nmake or build, and *COMPLETE* Binary portability between RH, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, etc)
6) Major software companies produce Linux versions of their current software, with similar prices to match (i.e. can't penalize Windows/Win32 users with a higher price). This is already happening, but not at a sufficient-enough scale to cause Linux to be as widely accepted/used for the next 5 to 10 years.(note: this point is partially dependant on #5)
7) Hardware Manufacturers produce QUALITY Linux drivers for their hardware along-side of Windows/Win32 drivers, instead of depending on OSS coders. (i.e. if your drivers are crap, so is your OS)
8) Linux stability is *not* dependent on hardware chosen for target system(s) (from "The Linux Operating System" at Christopher Browne's Web Pages (http://http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html):
"Work is ongoing on creating highly stable Linux systems; properly configured Linux kernels with suitably configured software on top of that commonly run for hundreds of days without any need to reboot. *Ensuring high availability requires careful choices of hardware, discussed at the Linux-HA Project Web Site*."
9) Installation *must* be easy enough for the less-experienced user (i.e. easy enough for your parents/aunt & uncle/grandparents to install).
10) Upgrades & patches do *not* require a nmake/build/re-compile of the OS.
Linux has only made entrances into the business world because of companies that were started by or employed people who knew Linux and implemented it as the platform OS for Web Servers because other Web Server platform OS's (WinNT/SunOS/Solaris/HP-UX) were too expensive. Before Apache came along, Linux *was* nothing more than an amusing UNIX-clone.
If the Linux/OSS "community" would just step-out of their "free software" shoes for a moment and join the rest of us in the "Business Computing World", they would understand that the whole problem with LINUX not being as prevalent as Windows/Win32 has NOTHING to do with the quality of the software, but the sheer level of exposure Windows/Win32 has had for the last 20 years, not to mention the number of programs produced for Windows/Win32 over that same timeframe.
It's something called "Economics of Scale" - and Linux won't be there for the next 10 years or so, and no ammount of LEGAL GAMESMANSHIP (read "Hiring the DOJ as your personal Corporate Attorney to penalize your competition for just doing it better than you") will change that.
Crying, whining and playing the "Linux Advocacy" game will get you absolutely "dick".
Litigation will only get you Lawyer's bills and cause delays in "innovation" by the companies involved in such litigation.
Anti-Microsoft sentiment and bleathing will only get you laughed at and *not* taken seriously.
Linux will only rise above it's current position when people realize that it *IS* better than Windows/Win32...that is, if it really *IS* better than Windows/Win32 (14 Critical core bugs that can cripple a Linux box that have yet to be fixed or patched - whomever said Linux was "stable" must be smoking crack)
'nuff said!
ScottK
It's posts like this that make /. the wonderfully-objective, open-minded places that it is.
"DirtyTroll" - STFU, You stupid PRICK!
Oops! Did I really say that?!?
Hmmm...ever heard of "BT"???
BT's Site
BT uses Reason, FruityLoops and DSP software from Spectral Noise in his productions, as well as ProTools for mixing and Hardware Synths as well.
Joe Satriani (Joe's site is Satriani.com used nothing but MIDI hardware and software to provide backing tracks for his "Engines of Creation" CD - totally amazing work, including "The Power Cosmic, Part II", "Borg Sex", and "Attack".
I am, among other things, a professional musician/guitarist as well, and am working on a solo project with only the hardware and software sitting in my home office.
So much for "It's just not good enough yet". If you think "digital" sounds thin, run your final output stage through a warm-sounding Tube Preamp (Rotel made a very sweet-sounding one back in the early 60's - if you can find them), and you'll re-capture the supposed "warmth" that's missing from digital.
Reason absolutely STOMPS on FruityLoops in *every* single aspect - except the price...
/. the "Free Software and Open-Source Love-Fest"???
...but then again, isn't
Samples played via Reason are cleaner...more patching and signal-routing capabilities, as well as patch modification capabilities...Re-Wire support so I can hook-up Reason to Cubase VST/32.
FruityLoops = Musical Cheeze-whiz.
Hmmmm...."competing product"?
As in open-source software, or just software?
Are you living in a cave? Or were you too busy contemplating your own navel?
As I've often said on this weblog-turned-"Open-Source-lovefest", Open-Source software will *Never* achieve the same level of usage as Commercial software does unless the quality and quantity of Open-Source software equals that of Commercial software.
Based on that, we should see Linux with as much acceptance as an OS as Windows is today in 2023 - that should give the developers enough time, based on their current development schedule/timeline to have those nasty core/root bugs resolved enough and have Linux as easy to install and maintain as Windows.
"Do you want your Grandma installing Linux on her system?"
LINUX - "Linus, I Now Understand Xenophobia"
Have you? :p
What a wonderfully-juvenile comment!
Now, go back and run fsck on your brain - you're missing a few allocation units!
LINUX - "Linus, I Now Understand Xenophobia"
I hate to burst any bubble here, but as long as it's anti-Microsoft it's /. fodder and open-season on Microsoft.
I wouldn't be suprised if some Linux-o-phile here turned this whole thing around and either blamed Microsoft for it or even twisted it around into some anti-Microsoft commentary.
Screw the Penguin!
LINUX - "Linus, I Now Understand Xenophobia"
(yes, I did get it right this time, and next time I'll be more carefull to check my own posts)
ummm...
This is not "Star Wars", pea-brain.
It's something called "Real Life(tm)"
The only real "Evil Empire" died when the Berlin Wall came down.
Microsoft is only as evil as Ford/GM, Standard Oil/Chevron/Shell and the rest of the business world.
Well, if the HD is too fragmented, you run the risk of problems with shared clusters that go bad.
Has anyone ever wondered why "fsck" is one of the first commands that most UNIX boxes run when they boot?
LINUX - "Linus, Now I Understand Xenophobia
Ya Figure?
Sheesh - pure fscking detective work here:
1) Machine Crashes
2) Blame OS Manufacturer
3) Forget the fact that you're overclocking the hell out of your machine and/or you're a cheap enough bastage to keep your ATI Mach64 or ViRGE graphics card that has 1" of dust on it in use on that system.
/. - the Bastion of the Brainless.
LINUX - "Linus, Now I Understand Xenophobia"