> Lets face it folks... > linux is a geek OS > and it is going to > be years and years > before a newbie can > be productive on it > from day 1.
Linux was an experimental system in first place. Linux got useable for developers rather quickly. Linux got quickly established in network environments. Linux is nowadays professionally distributed with: - an easy to use installer - grafics drivers for nearly every card - state of the art text processing software. So Linux is mowadays a general purpose OS.
Why do you state Linux needs one day to set up? The average general purpose setup time is less than an hour including more than you will ever need. (ignoring the possiblity of duplicating disks)
> linux appeals to a niche
You aren't up to date. Linux appeals everything.
> Why would IBM and Intel support linux anyway???
They simply do. Intel suspects Linux/IA64 to be availabel when they release their new processors. IBM is a customer oriented company, in the past mainly for corporate customers, and these are customers that need reliable servers with the possibility of remote administration - Linux! But IBM expands towards the smaller customers and theses are demanding quite the same for less money. So they are Linux candidates as well. Putting on a growing but established system for gaining market share is a reliable strategy.
Linux is a power OS at a percentage of the fee most other competitors will charge. The only reason why Linux was indeed able to get big enough for the Windows encouter was its independency from traditional ways of distribution channels. As you can read in other postings right here they were controlled by Microsoft to prevent any other competitor from achieving any noticeable market share. But in the case of Linux Microsoft had no influx because the channels were new and are far less vulnerable to any sort of pressure. Therefore MS couldn't prevent anything here.
So here is one of that persons that brings the Linux community into a bad light.
As i know myself there are always several news messages or press releases concerning a special event. The mentioned URL is in fact the report itself. There its mentioned, but probably not in the one that ESR pointed to. How many reporters had the time to look deeply into that report?
First of all: microso~1 is a buggy expression, it has 9 chars. micros~1 is the right one.
Even OpenSource itself isnt the key of getting that OS up. For Linux there are pathways back to Linus and Alan (Cox, of course). I dont think Bill will be happy doing the job of a kernel patcher himself, but he could pay (and fire) a person that will do this for him.
But what i am personally aware of is that: A build manager typically tends to incorporate only things that are prooven to be stable. But as long as that changes aren included in some version they have no chance of doing that proove. Since there is less possibility of trying out and merging experimental code into Windows it has the disadvantage of being less performant. Linux can be configured risky but it must not by default. It lets more choices to the users since they are doing the system build themselves.
Thats the reason why Linux has the better sheduler over NT. It is a matter of the process how fast the code is advanced veryfied and merged into the default system.
Even on Linux projects (mesa) the question arised: Who is the owner of the submitted patches? Who is the copyright holder? Who has the right to distirbute it or change its license? (mesa/gpl was made availabel to xfree project as mesa/xfree, which means lots more freedom.)
Think about Microsoft, they will run in several serious troubles if they would start with doing real OpenSource. (And there is still the question of how many code they "borrowed" from other software without being entiteled to do so.)
"Doing the Chicago Tribune no favours." The article is doing this, of course.
Microsoft isn't a welfare organisation. You need only a short look into their latest business reports and will find out that they are doing best business in terms of financial results. Doing good service to their users by maintainig their software and fixing bugs is quite a different side.
Starting application development with Linux requires an installed system to be successful. Doing the same with any Windows and Microsofts Tools is a matter of big money and time. You need compiler, assembler, debugger, SDKs/DDKs and docu which will sum up some $1.000 or even more and a grant for success isnt included by that.
Tell that to a 15 or 16 year old genius (that will be the software engineer of the future) and his choice for now and later is obvious.
How many Office Packages do you need? Primary answer: I need only one that fits my needs. Perfect answer, isn't it?
I think the author isnt well informed on Windows either, even if it is his reference. There are lots more of Office packages than only MS-0ffice. And if i am willing to spend, say $300, then i have the choice between multiple qualified systems on Linux either, including the free ones as well.
It seems to me that this article is some sort of FUD out of a lower tray. Not simply the speach is the matter but its intense expression of a disagree without giving any argument for the reasons why to do so.
Sure if all Linux people were be able to contribute to Microsoft Windows there had been no need for Linux at all. But since they had no chance to do so, they were forced to do it on their own. Since Windows never was a free OS and there was a need for a free OS on the x86 platform and the free tools to do so it was just a question when to start up with it.
Anyone who writes about any complex system like the area of operating system usage (i intentionally avoid the phrases "market" and "market share") should be in knowledge of Darwin's principles. Any life form (=OS) that exists has its well founded base. An increasing population of one sort indicates that it has managed to adapt to certain environmental parameters that were unused or non existing before. Any life form that doesnt adapt will shrink in population or even be extinct if certain parameters change. A big population has a bit of an advance over a small one in adapting to a changed environments. A population that consists of individuals with lots of flavours, expressed by the number of hooked landscape types (=platforms), is more likely to already have the ability to adapt to certain changes.
Applying this to the Linux/Windows future we can state that: - Linux is adaptable to any need at any place - Linux has already lots of platforms - Linux is existing in lots of flavours and is performing higly even with small HW demands (ebedded, desktop, server, cluster,...)
- Windows is developed at a single place only - Windows has a few platforms (some 3-5) - Windows is existing in a few flavours and is performing average with medium HW demands
Now we come to the most known Darwin quote: "Only the fittest will survive." Comparing the characteristics above implys to me that Linux is more fit than Windows in terms of adaption capabilities. Recent research has brought up that evolution is not always a steady process that goes incrementally but there were some phases where evolution went in very fast steps in relatively short time. Such a quantum jump can be independent of anything if steady evolution has reached critical mass or of some sort of major catastrophe or big change happend.
The last "catastrophe" we have seen was the uprise of the internet. Can you imagine Linux happening without the internet? (There were other things like IA-32 or the cheap- ness of the IBM-PC clones or the GNU compiler but they were only base requirements, not the real change in "climate".)
The time until now showed that Linux was able to take big advantages of presence of the internet. Windows despite wasnt really dependent on it and could gain only less advantage of it.
The next "catastrophe" in terms of evolution is the IA-64 challenge. (okay, maybe there will be another, i dont know right now, its a sample) Linux surely will take advantage of that new system and will nearly immediately take it over due to its well founded multi "colored" background. Windows also has a 64 bit flavour (the DEC Alpha port) so it is likely as well that it will run on it in time.
Linux needed some 7 years to spread around and seems to be ready now for most challenges. Windows had 14 years in which it was already very widespread but if confronted with major changes it was from time to time a bit slow or say late in hitting the streets.
So its more likely that Linux is the one that has the power to give you the OS for the 64 bit aera first. For buying an early IA-64 system its not unlikely that there is a Linux/64 system pre-installed for 64 bits mode simply because the lack of alternatives at that time.
Lets do a last statement fitting into Darwins description of nature: Any known species is derived from the same root. Any of them has developed special skills. Some of that skills are rather special and others are rather universal. The most important and universal skill is to survive and to evolve in any environment. (In this terms, Ridley Scott's Alien would be classify as extremly fit.) Applying this to Operating systems, you know they all share the same root (bits and bytes) but will differ lots in the ways they are designed, the speed and quality development is done on them and finally the way they do their job at the users computer as his desire.
Since there a many different users and as much different desires, an OS can oly succeed if it is possible to fit as much of that. An OS that is designed to satisfy lots of users is fine. An OS that can be customized is better. An OS that can be improved and extended and takes advantage of that changes by incorporating them for anyones use is best!
A single direction design process is always beaten in the long term by a design process that has included feedback. I have lots more the impression that this does much more apply to Linux than to Windows.
There are: - developer builds - internal betas - NDA'd developer betas - currently ONE SINGLE public beta, called preview All of them are regular "free" ones. astonishing, isn't it:)
As far as i know the downloadable one is a web installer that has abt. 400 kB and requires internet access while installing. A fully packed version from apples public quicktime site is out of my scope. At least i havent found such.
But there is a possibility to activate further features. You should buy a registration key to do that. It is then called QuickTime 4.0 PRO.
There seem to be several MCSE or comparable qualified persion in the crew that made that test. The tuning steps they took were not that obvious than the average manager would think. (Having such a person hired is indeed costly.)
On the other hand their report suggested that the linux part was done without any knowledge of the system. Having to read the HOWTOs dosnt proove of much expirience. If they had hired a Linux professional as well then the situation were much more balanced.
If i call the *desktop* hotline of MS then i will get a info compareable to a calling at RH. But if i pay for premium support (and i will do this if i have to do business of that server size) then will get lots more, sure.
I browsed the other slashdot postings and found some of them very interesting in technical aspects. I am sure lots of that info will go into an enterprise-setup-HOWTO or similar, some other things will merge into applications or kernel. This already works against that (pretended) non-knowledge of the testers and benefits everyone in the linux community as well.
Just one is clear to me, this sort of FUD approach can never ever happen again. The sponsor has caused a counter movement with lots more power behind it. I am prettey sure, the shootout will and has to be repeated at honest conditions. And the winner is... ? Well i dont know totally for sure. But the price Linux has to win is a price of honour.
Get the machines, get some expirienced system administrators and choose a place to happen. Make it in a public environment and the result will proove the performance, the reliability and the integrity of each candidate.
Bye AlexS.
PS: Anyone that knows what exact effect of the different stripe size on the RAID0 device can be? Is it true that Linux is currently limited in that area? Or is it another FUD?
Slashdot Mirror
> Lets face it folks...
> linux is a geek OS
> and it is going to
> be years and years
> before a newbie can
> be productive on it
> from day 1.
Linux was an experimental system in first place.
Linux got useable for developers rather quickly.
Linux got quickly established in network environments.
Linux is nowadays professionally distributed with:
- an easy to use installer
- grafics drivers for nearly every card
- state of the art text processing software.
So Linux is mowadays a general purpose OS.
Why do you state Linux needs one day to set up?
The average general purpose setup time is less
than an hour including more than you will ever need.
(ignoring the possiblity of duplicating disks)
> linux appeals to a niche
You aren't up to date. Linux appeals everything.
> Why would IBM and Intel support linux anyway???
They simply do. Intel suspects Linux/IA64 to be
availabel when they release their new processors.
IBM is a customer oriented company, in the past
mainly for corporate customers, and these are
customers that need reliable servers with the
possibility of remote administration - Linux!
But IBM expands towards the smaller customers
and theses are demanding quite the same for
less money. So they are Linux candidates as well.
Putting on a growing but established system for
gaining market share is a reliable strategy.
Linux is a power OS at a percentage of the fee
most other competitors will charge. The only
reason why Linux was indeed able to get big
enough for the Windows encouter was its independency
from traditional ways of distribution channels. As you
can read in other postings right here they
were controlled by Microsoft to prevent any
other competitor from achieving any noticeable
market share. But in the case of Linux Microsoft
had no influx because the channels were new and
are far less vulnerable to any sort of pressure.
Therefore MS couldn't prevent anything here.
Bye AlexS.
Hey,
i used lynx and skipped their inital page.
Now i had the right url for MSIE 3.x
and it worked fine.
So why should you call that page "large-scaled" ???
Bye AlexS.
No, Rio has a double A.
Tripple A is in my opinion a waste of money
because the contain less energy at nearly the
same price.
AlexS.
What about a real shootout party?
The machines are required only once.
Invite some important guys, like:
- Microsoft
- Novell
- SGI
- BSD folks
- Linux
and others important.
Why not do testing on
- single intel
- dual intel
- quad intel
and proprietary systems?
Such an event would be very intersting.
So here is one of that persons that brings
the Linux community into a bad light.
As i know myself there are always several
news messages or press releases concerning
a special event. The mentioned URL is in
fact the report itself. There its mentioned,
but probably not in the one that ESR pointed
to. How many reporters had the time to look
deeply into that report?
Bye, AlexS.
First of all:
microso~1 is a buggy expression, it has 9 chars.
micros~1 is the right one.
Even OpenSource itself isnt the key of getting
that OS up. For Linux there are pathways back
to Linus and Alan (Cox, of course). I dont think
Bill will be happy doing the job of a kernel
patcher himself, but he could pay (and fire)
a person that will do this for him.
But what i am personally aware of is that:
A build manager typically tends to incorporate
only things that are prooven to be stable.
But as long as that changes aren included
in some version they have no chance of
doing that proove. Since there is less
possibility of trying out and merging
experimental code into Windows it has
the disadvantage of being less performant.
Linux can be configured risky but it must not
by default. It lets more choices to the users
since they are doing the system build themselves.
Thats the reason why Linux has the better
sheduler over NT. It is a matter of the process
how fast the code is advanced veryfied and
merged into the default system.
Even on Linux projects (mesa) the question arised:
Who is the owner of the submitted patches?
Who is the copyright holder?
Who has the right to distirbute it or change its license?
(mesa/gpl was made availabel to xfree project
as mesa/xfree, which means lots more freedom.)
Think about Microsoft, they will run in several
serious troubles if they would start with doing
real OpenSource. (And there is still the question
of how many code they "borrowed" from other
software without being entiteled to do so.)
Bye, AlexS.
"Doing the Chicago Tribune no favours."
...)
The article is doing this, of course.
Microsoft isn't a welfare organisation.
You need only a short look into their
latest business reports and will find
out that they are doing best business
in terms of financial results. Doing
good service to their users by maintainig
their software and fixing bugs is quite
a different side.
Starting application development with Linux
requires an installed system to be successful.
Doing the same with any Windows and Microsofts
Tools is a matter of big money and time.
You need compiler, assembler, debugger, SDKs/DDKs
and docu which will sum up some $1.000 or even
more and a grant for success isnt included by that.
Tell that to a 15 or 16 year old genius (that
will be the software engineer of the future)
and his choice for now and later is obvious.
How many Office Packages do you need?
Primary answer: I need only one that fits my needs.
Perfect answer, isn't it?
I think the author isnt well informed on Windows
either, even if it is his reference.
There are lots more of Office packages than
only MS-0ffice. And if i am willing to spend,
say $300, then i have the choice between
multiple qualified systems on Linux either,
including the free ones as well.
It seems to me that this article is some sort
of FUD out of a lower tray. Not simply the
speach is the matter but its intense expression
of a disagree without giving any argument for
the reasons why to do so.
Sure if all Linux people were be able to
contribute to Microsoft Windows there had
been no need for Linux at all. But since
they had no chance to do so, they were forced
to do it on their own. Since Windows never was
a free OS and there was a need for a free OS
on the x86 platform and the free tools to do
so it was just a question when to start up
with it.
Anyone who writes about any complex system
like the area of operating system usage
(i intentionally avoid the phrases "market"
and "market share") should be in knowledge
of Darwin's principles. Any life form (=OS)
that exists has its well founded base.
An increasing population of one sort indicates
that it has managed to adapt to certain
environmental parameters that were unused
or non existing before. Any life form that
doesnt adapt will shrink in population or
even be extinct if certain parameters change.
A big population has a bit of an advance
over a small one in adapting to a changed
environments. A population that consists
of individuals with lots of flavours,
expressed by the number of hooked landscape
types (=platforms), is more likely to already
have the ability to adapt to certain changes.
Applying this to the Linux/Windows future
we can state that:
- Linux is adaptable to any need at any place
- Linux has already lots of platforms
- Linux is existing in lots of flavours and
is performing higly even with small HW demands
(ebedded, desktop, server, cluster,
- Windows is developed at a single place only
- Windows has a few platforms (some 3-5)
- Windows is existing in a few flavours and
is performing average with medium HW demands
Now we come to the most known Darwin quote:
"Only the fittest will survive."
Comparing the characteristics above implys to
me that Linux is more fit than Windows in
terms of adaption capabilities. Recent research
has brought up that evolution is not always
a steady process that goes incrementally but
there were some phases where evolution went
in very fast steps in relatively short time.
Such a quantum jump can be independent of
anything if steady evolution has reached
critical mass or of some sort of major
catastrophe or big change happend.
The last "catastrophe" we have seen
was the uprise of the internet. Can you
imagine Linux happening without the internet?
(There were other things like IA-32 or the cheap-
ness of the IBM-PC clones or the GNU compiler
but they were only base requirements, not the
real change in "climate".)
The time until now showed that Linux was able
to take big advantages of presence of the
internet. Windows despite wasnt really dependent
on it and could gain only less advantage of it.
The next "catastrophe" in terms of evolution
is the IA-64 challenge. (okay, maybe there will
be another, i dont know right now, its a sample)
Linux surely will take advantage of that new
system and will nearly immediately take it over
due to its well founded multi "colored" background.
Windows also has a 64 bit flavour (the DEC Alpha
port) so it is likely as well that it will run
on it in time.
Linux needed some 7 years to spread around and
seems to be ready now for most challenges.
Windows had 14 years in which it was already
very widespread but if confronted with major
changes it was from time to time a bit slow
or say late in hitting the streets.
So its more likely that Linux is the one that
has the power to give you the OS for the 64 bit
aera first. For buying an early IA-64 system
its not unlikely that there is a Linux/64
system pre-installed for 64 bits mode simply
because the lack of alternatives at that time.
Lets do a last statement fitting into Darwins
description of nature:
Any known species is derived from the same root.
Any of them has developed special skills.
Some of that skills are rather special and
others are rather universal. The most important
and universal skill is to survive and to evolve
in any environment. (In this terms, Ridley Scott's
Alien would be classify as extremly fit.)
Applying this to Operating systems, you know
they all share the same root (bits and bytes)
but will differ lots in the ways they are
designed, the speed and quality development is
done on them and finally the way they do their
job at the users computer as his desire.
Since there a many different users and as much
different desires, an OS can oly succeed if it
is possible to fit as much of that. An OS that
is designed to satisfy lots of users is fine. An
OS that can be customized is better. An OS that
can be improved and extended and takes advantage
of that changes by incorporating them for anyones
use is best!
A single direction design process is always
beaten in the long term by a design process
that has included feedback. I have lots more
the impression that this does much more apply
to Linux than to Windows.
Bye AlexS.
and nowadays analysts are people that
inform managers and stock brokers
about what they should do.
Can you ever afford not to check any well
informed source before acting in your role?
Of course, if your source of opinion was
bad then you have made a step in the false direction.
There are: :)
- developer builds
- internal betas
- NDA'd developer betas
- currently ONE SINGLE public beta, called preview
All of them are regular "free" ones. astonishing, isn't it
As far as i know the downloadable one is a
web installer that has abt. 400 kB and requires
internet access while installing. A fully packed
version from apples public quicktime site is
out of my scope. At least i havent found such.
But there is a possibility to activate further features.
You should buy a registration key to do that.
It is then called QuickTime 4.0 PRO.
Thats all folks.
There seem to be several MCSE or comparable
... ?
qualified persion in the crew that made that test.
The tuning steps they took were not that obvious
than the average manager would think.
(Having such a person hired is indeed costly.)
On the other hand their report suggested that
the linux part was done without any knowledge
of the system. Having to read the HOWTOs dosnt
proove of much expirience. If they had hired
a Linux professional as well then the situation
were much more balanced.
If i call the *desktop* hotline of MS then i
will get a info compareable to a calling at RH.
But if i pay for premium support (and i will do
this if i have to do business of that server size)
then will get lots more, sure.
I browsed the other slashdot postings and found
some of them very interesting in technical aspects.
I am sure lots of that info will go into an
enterprise-setup-HOWTO or similar, some other
things will merge into applications or kernel.
This already works against that (pretended)
non-knowledge of the testers and benefits
everyone in the linux community as well.
Just one is clear to me, this sort of FUD
approach can never ever happen again. The
sponsor has caused a counter movement with
lots more power behind it. I am prettey sure,
the shootout will and has to be repeated at
honest conditions. And the winner is
Well i dont know totally for sure. But the
price Linux has to win is a price of honour.
Get the machines, get some expirienced system
administrators and choose a place to happen.
Make it in a public environment and the result
will proove the performance, the reliability
and the integrity of each candidate.
Bye AlexS.
PS: Anyone that knows what exact effect of the
different stripe size on the RAID0 device
can be? Is it true that Linux is currently
limited in that area? Or is it another FUD?