When writing this, I knew someone would comment on that! I thought it too myself, but also realize that the best stuff comes without deadlines. When you have deadlines you usually start to rush things if you get behind. And when you do that, the software becomes sloppy. I did state that you need to try to get it out as quickly as you can. But don't rush. The reason IMO that Windows is so buggy is because of these deadlines. The later it is, the worse MS looks. So deliver anyway and just release the latest service pack when you get a chance. In fact (this is funny), my company isn't going to adopt W2K until Service Pack One. This is official. When have you heard about not receiving a package until the first service release is out. If any other company didn't release a "stable"(relative here) version until the first service pack, then they wouldn't be in business.
A large number of developers have stopped developing for the Windows platform, except for the gaming industry and Anti-virus software. But you don't see any new developers for Office apps. Just the original ones, and Microsoft. Yes, there are developers for MS, but not as many as there were. There was an article last year talking about how Microsoft has crushed so many competitors, that companies are afraid to develop for that platform. The Windows platform became "stagnet" that MS actually started campaining to get developers to come back. Maybe it worked, but I don't see much out there besides MS, Lotus, Corel, and of course Quicken. And Quicken was almost bought by MS. Steven Rostedt
I remember a while back, when asked "Do you care if Linux is on everyone's desktop". Linus replied "No, I don't. It will always be there for me, and thats all that matters". I use to think the same too. But it now seems that Linus (and myself) are starting to care otherwise. He now shows interest (and disappointment) in getting Linux to the average user. That is where the average person sees as a computer. Just because it's in your cell phone doesn't make you think you are using it.
I was hoping the article would talk more about the Mozilla project instead of a one liner.
Peoples views on Linux vs MS are far and between. I feel too that Linux should work with MS and vise versa. But others believe that it should just be a replacement. If MS would just change their attitude from being so corporate heavy to a little more "lets work together for the common good", then I might start liking them again.
The problem with companies going to Open Source is that they think its the end all to everything. You can not controll the outcome of Open Source. It controls itself. Its like the Internet and technology. You can control a little, but it will eventually escape on its own. It may help you if you let it work on its own, but it may hurt you if you control it. I don't like the corporate "dead lines". When its done, its done. You just try to get it to work the best you can. Kernel release 2.4 comes out when its done, thats all I care about. If you need something from it, that's what 2.3 is for. Open Source is like nature described by Malcom in Jurasic Park. It will always break free.
I don't really think that MS did this purposely to take down Lotus. Especially because of the FoF. But this is just a situation that happens when you control the OS and the applications. You do things for your stuff and your stuff alone. You don't care if you hurt someone on the way. MS is trying hard to get companies to develop on their OS again, since most are scared to. If the get a good product, then MS will either buy them out (a good thing for them) or come out with a clone and destroy them (a bad thing). And MS is wondering why noone is developing for them. Of course they don't want Lotus to develop on their OS, since that competes with their stuff.
Thank God that MS failed to buy Quicken. Its the only product left that I use on the MS platform. Someday (hopefully) they will port to Linux;)
On my way to work this morning, they covered this on NPR. It was much more interesting to hear what he had to say then to just read it. The MS employees really tried to hit him with these questions. One, being in the position that he's in (VP), he can't comment on the trial. But to say that the case is "sound" with confidence was actually shocking for me to hear. He didn't seem to "around the bush" talk. To me it stood out how he felt about the case, and that he's telling these people what they don't want to hear. I haven't seen a politician do that in a long time. Al didn't back down on any of these questions. Although they all started no comment, he continued to have sayings about how he felt.
After one person said "I'll try not to repeat the question, but I work for Microsoft..." and Al just interupted by saying "How many of these are we going to have?" and the audience all laughed. Another question that hits him with government stopping MS from joining the Internet, Al said that "For a company that has a large market share in one area, for them to use that to keep others out of another area, is not the American way."
All in all, I was impressed at how he stood up the best he could. Answering without answering. I think he just got my vote.
There is no secret message There is no tpyos in this web page
Or something like that, I'm doing this from memory. But The second statement was false, so you might think the first statement is false too. I think that's why its there, to let people know that there will be a secret message in the main page. So they had a "Non-secret secret"!
I'm just curious what the error rate is. Can you send that much data without loosing a few bits. I'm impressed with the numbers regardless, but if you have a 50% error rate is that good? Also if you loose one bit per byte, can you clam anything? Did they only count the good bits sent?
Also, what is the speed to transfer the light signals to electrical. I don't have (or have I ever heard of) an optical computer, would be nice though;). If you send 160 Gb/s (20 GB/s), can you convert that to electrical data without making a bottleneck. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm curious to know.
Actually, I would say that your arguement is good against the tests. In the real world, the main thing that causes differences in speed is bandwidth. Not processors. If you can scale to the max of the bandwidth, anything else is just extra. As an ex-Girl Friend use to tell me, "more than a handful is a waste";^) More than a bandwidth is too a waste. It seems to me from the tests, that the Apache/Samba/Linux can handle the majority of bandwidths that are out there.
So I guess that until there is high speed optical switches everywhere over the Internet, we can stick with Apache.
Second note, Where are the tests on Dynamic Web pages? Although I read the Mindcraft White Paper quickly and might have missed a statement that they did do it.
Anyhoo, this was good to let the Linux Kernel hackers work out the bottle necks. I can't wait till "Mindcraft III", where we get to test the 2.4 kernel.
Third Note: When are we going to use something other than that damn Dell? Isn't that machine made for NT. Although there is problems with the Linux SMP (soon to be solved), this machine I once heard (don't know if this is true though) is tuned for NT servers. Lets run this test on another High speed machine. Or is this the only server that NT runs on?
I'm currently going for my Masters and it's interesting that my current class, we all had to sign a Non-disclosure agreement. The notes that we are given are copyrighted. But all the notes are posted on my professors web site anyway!?, so actually anyone can get them. My professor really doesn't care, but he also included notes from other professors, in which is the reason why we had to sign. He talks basically straight from his notes that are view with a overhead. So, I can't legally sell my notes. Well, since I get the notes, I just write stuff in my own interpretation to help me understand it a little better. But my interpretation won't be useful with out the given notes.
I did figure out how Hue is derived from RGB, which I may post on my web site soon. But that was done because I couldn't find it anywhere else. I don't mean just the formula, but how that formula came about.
The only reason he was intervied (IMO) is because he makes a fuss with those here on/. My first and only discussions of him are on/. So I knew this was going to get dirty. I still have really no feelings towards this guy one way or another. It justs amuses me to see the reaction that he brings.
The/. community is made up of several types of people from serious business, to the skrip kiddies. Unfortunately you only get to see the ones with the most opinions about the subject. In somecases it's good when the subject is good. But this was ment to be flame bait, and you saw the reactions of the flamers. Don't lose trust in/. It never censors, and gives both good and the bad of the Internet.
PS. If you didn't read the response by Hard_Code before, that question "Anti-Anti-Anti" was a joke that was moderated up with "Funny". Thus it was sent. Too bad.
The first time I hit the link I received a "memory access violation" from the site. And now I get no response. Anyone else get through? And could you give an abstract.
Speaking as a systems programmer, I would not say that the inetd operations are part of the "operating system", but I would say it is part of the "system for operation";^)
I have had numerous debates with a colleague of mine about whether or not Windows 95 is an operating system, or just something that sits on top of a hidden DOS. We finally agreed, that it is more of an "Extension" of DOS since Windows 95 was needed for certain apps and operations. We then started debating if X is an opertating system, or is that an "extension" too?
Operating System is a ambiguous term now a days. If you want to talk about the thing that controls the hardware, you should say "kernel". If you talk about all the apps you need to get operations done, you should say "distribution", although I agree that "environment" is an equal term, although I do think that "platform" can be as ambiguous as OS.
"You say tomAto, I say tomaato, you say LIEnux I say Lynnucks." Steven Rostedt
Yes it was. And MS took as much from IBM as they could. When IBM would need specs from MS, MS would delay the deliveries or give out dated ones. Then MS came out with NT as a cometitor of OS/2. This wasn't suppose to happen, so IBM thought. MS specifically made it so apps will work better on NT then on OS/2. This is one of the many reasons IBM doesn't like MS. Steven Rostedt
Anytime a store asks me for my phone number (and I really don't think that it's their business to know), I just give them my fax number. I've noticed that my fax rings a lot more now;) Ouch to the ears of the telemarketers.... hee hee.
If MS starts to make good revenue on this, they will eventually want more. That's how their apps started. They tested the waters of app developmenet, an found that they could make a lot more money there. So they use their business/marketing smarts to kill the competition and take over the market. You might see the same here, and RShack will take the brunt of it.
I'm not so sure that it is Red Hat that is not confident about their own business strategy, that is behind this "rumored" deal. It may just be that they have Billions of dollars to fund something that needs to make revenue. They may be confident that they can make money, but probably not at that scale. So save some for R&D and to keep the stock holders happy (thus the stock up), use the rest of the money to buy someone else that is making some nice revenue.
I've been using Unix since I was 19, and I'm now 31. So does this mean that I can make 110K too?
Becareful about this negotiating. It may get expensive, and the companies might see a large number of MSCE's that are cheap. And a business person (non-techie) will think "whats the difference between Unix and NT/2000. 50K for support". And then you will really be in trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
When writing this, I knew someone would comment on that! I thought it too myself, but also realize that the best stuff comes without deadlines. When you have deadlines you usually start to rush things if you get behind. And when you do that, the software becomes sloppy. I did state that you need to try to get it out as quickly as you can. But don't rush. The reason IMO that Windows is so buggy is because of these deadlines. The later it is, the worse MS looks. So deliver anyway and just release the latest service pack when you get a chance. In fact (this is funny), my company isn't going to adopt W2K until Service Pack One. This is official. When have you heard about not receiving a package until the first service release is out. If any other company didn't release a "stable"(relative here) version until the first service pack, then they wouldn't be in business.
Steven Rostedt
A large number of developers have stopped developing for the Windows platform, except for the gaming industry and Anti-virus software. But you don't see any new developers for Office apps. Just the original ones, and Microsoft. Yes, there are developers for MS, but not as many as there were. There was an article last year talking about how Microsoft has crushed so many competitors, that companies are afraid to develop for that platform. The Windows platform became "stagnet" that MS actually started campaining to get developers to come back. Maybe it worked, but I don't see much out there besides MS, Lotus, Corel, and of course Quicken. And Quicken was almost bought by MS.
Steven Rostedt
I remember a while back, when asked "Do you care if Linux is on everyone's desktop". Linus replied "No, I don't. It will always be there for me, and thats all that matters". I use to think the same too. But it now seems that Linus (and myself) are starting to care otherwise. He now shows interest (and disappointment) in getting Linux to the average user. That is where the average person sees as a computer. Just because it's in your cell phone doesn't make you think you are using it.
I was hoping the article would talk more about the Mozilla project instead of a one liner.
Peoples views on Linux vs MS are far and between. I feel too that Linux should work with MS and vise versa. But others believe that it should just be a replacement. If MS would just change their attitude from being so corporate heavy to a little more "lets work together for the common good", then I might start liking them again.
The problem with companies going to Open Source is that they think its the end all to everything. You can not controll the outcome of Open Source. It controls itself. Its like the Internet and technology. You can control a little, but it will eventually escape on its own. It may help you if you let it work on its own, but it may hurt you if you control it. I don't like the corporate "dead lines". When its done, its done. You just try to get it to work the best you can. Kernel release 2.4 comes out when its done, thats all I care about. If you need something from it, that's what 2.3 is for. Open Source is like nature described by Malcom in Jurasic Park. It will always break free.
Steven Rostedt
Are you claiming that Lotus plained this before the FoF was even out? How long ago was that software written????
No, you can see my views here. But I just thought it was funny that you asked a question, then stated something that could be the answer.
Steven Rostedt
I don't really think that MS did this purposely to take down Lotus. Especially because of the FoF. But this is just a situation that happens when you control the OS and the applications. You do things for your stuff and your stuff alone. You don't care if you hurt someone on the way. MS is trying hard to get companies to develop on their OS again, since most are scared to. If the get a good product, then MS will either buy them out (a good thing for them) or come out with a clone and destroy them (a bad thing). And MS is wondering why noone is developing for them. Of course they don't want Lotus to develop on their OS, since that competes with their stuff.
;)
Thank God that MS failed to buy Quicken. Its the only product left that I use on the MS platform. Someday (hopefully) they will port to Linux
Steven Rostedt
Question:
First off, I have a problem with trying to blame Lotus... why would they do this to themselves?
Answer:
Secondly, even if it is lotus's fault, it makes MS look bad.
;)
Steven Rostedt
On my way to work this morning, they covered this on NPR. It was much more interesting to hear what he had to say then to just read it. The MS employees really tried to hit him with these questions. One, being in the position that he's in (VP), he can't comment on the trial. But to say that the case is "sound" with confidence was actually shocking for me to hear. He didn't seem to "around the bush" talk. To me it stood out how he felt about the case, and that he's telling these people what they don't want to hear. I haven't seen a politician do that in a long time. Al didn't back down on any of these questions. Although they all started no comment, he continued to have sayings about how he felt.
After one person said "I'll try not to repeat the question, but I work for Microsoft..." and Al just interupted by saying "How many of these are we going to have?" and the audience all laughed. Another question that hits him with government stopping MS from joining the Internet, Al said that "For a company that has a large market share in one area, for them to use that to keep others out of another area, is not the American way."
All in all, I was impressed at how he stood up the best he could. Answering without answering. I think he just got my vote.
Steven Rostedt
So you are saying that the secret message was
;)
There are no typos on this page
And that the encryption was to use the word tpyos. Making this a secret secret secret
Steven Rostedt
I always wondered why the previous web page said:
There is no secret message
There is no tpyos in this web page
Or something like that, I'm doing this from memory. But The second statement was false, so you might think the first statement is false too. I think that's why its there, to let people know that there will be a secret message in the main page. So they had a "Non-secret secret"!
Steven Rostedt
I'm just curious what the error rate is. Can you send that much data without loosing a few bits. I'm impressed with the numbers regardless, but if you have a 50% error rate is that good? Also if you loose one bit per byte, can you clam anything? Did they only count the good bits sent?
;). If you send 160 Gb/s (20 GB/s), can you convert that to electrical data without making a bottleneck. I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm curious to know.
Also, what is the speed to transfer the light signals to electrical. I don't have (or have I ever heard of) an optical computer, would be nice though
Steven Rostedt
Actually, I would say that your arguement is good against the tests. In the real world, the main thing that causes differences in speed is bandwidth. Not processors. If you can scale to the max of the bandwidth, anything else is just extra. As an ex-Girl Friend use to tell me, "more than a handful is a waste" ;^) More than a bandwidth is too a waste. It seems to me from the tests, that the Apache/Samba/Linux can handle the majority of bandwidths that are out there.
So I guess that until there is high speed optical switches everywhere over the Internet, we can stick with Apache.
Second note, Where are the tests on Dynamic Web pages? Although I read the Mindcraft White Paper quickly and might have missed a statement that they did do it.
Anyhoo, this was good to let the Linux Kernel hackers work out the bottle necks. I can't wait till "Mindcraft III", where we get to test the 2.4 kernel.
Third Note: When are we going to use something other than that damn Dell? Isn't that machine made for NT. Although there is problems with the Linux SMP (soon to be solved), this machine I once heard (don't know if this is true though) is tuned for NT servers. Lets run this test on another High speed machine. Or is this the only server that NT runs on?
Steven Rostedt
I'm currently going for my Masters and it's interesting that my current class, we all had to sign a Non-disclosure agreement. The notes that we are given are copyrighted. But all the notes are posted on my professors web site anyway!?, so actually anyone can get them. My professor really doesn't care, but he also included notes from other professors, in which is the reason why we had to sign. He talks basically straight from his notes that are view with a overhead. So, I can't legally sell my notes. Well, since I get the notes, I just write stuff in my own interpretation to help me understand it a little better. But my interpretation won't be useful with out the given notes.
I did figure out how Hue is derived from RGB, which I may post on my web site soon. But that was done because I couldn't find it anywhere else. I don't mean just the formula, but how that formula came about.
Steven Rostedt
The only reason he was intervied (IMO) is because he makes a fuss with those here on /. My first and only discussions of him are on /. So I knew this was going to get dirty. I still have really no feelings towards this guy one way or another. It justs amuses me to see the reaction that he brings.
/. community is made up of several types of people from serious business, to the skrip kiddies. Unfortunately you only get to see the ones with the most opinions about the subject. In somecases it's good when the subject is good. But this was ment to be flame bait, and you saw the reactions of the flamers. Don't lose trust in /. It never censors, and gives both good and the bad of the Internet.
The
PS. If you didn't read the response by Hard_Code before, that question "Anti-Anti-Anti" was a joke that was moderated up with "Funny". Thus it was sent. Too bad.
Steven Rostedt
Robin,
/. interview "Roblimo"?
Maybe next interview, you can send the reasons that the question was moderated up for.
Question #1 (Interesting) blah blah blah
Question #2 (Insightful) blah blah blah
Questoin #3 (Funny) Why doesn't
Just as an example.
Steven Rostedt
Remember, Americans are the only ones to go to another country and call everyone else Foreigners.
;)
Foreigners just don't do it often in Americans' faces
This is the main point about Americans. We will say it to their faces
Steven Rostedt
How am I Redundant being the Third post? And without anyone else asking this. Moderators, please check your "order" listings before you say Redundant.
I have level 2 with my karma, and I choose to only post at 1. And then I get moderated down for a simple question.
I was asking for an abstract on the articles. Please use your moderation points more wisely!!!
Steven Rostedt
The first time I hit the link I received a "memory access violation" from the site. And now I get no response. Anyone else get through? And could you give an abstract.
Thanks.
Steven Rostedt
Very good comment.
;^)
Speaking as a systems programmer, I would not say that the inetd operations are part of the "operating system", but I would say it is part of the "system for operation"
I have had numerous debates with a colleague of mine about whether or not Windows 95 is an operating system, or just something that sits on top of a hidden DOS. We finally agreed, that it is more of an "Extension" of DOS since Windows 95 was needed for certain apps and operations. We then started debating if X is an opertating system, or is that an "extension" too?
Operating System is a ambiguous term now a days. If you want to talk about the thing that controls the hardware, you should say "kernel". If you talk about all the apps you need to get operations done, you should say "distribution", although I agree that "environment" is an equal term, although I do think that "platform" can be as ambiguous as OS.
"You say tomAto, I say tomaato, you say LIEnux I say Lynnucks."
Steven Rostedt
The comment that tells you what all the other comments will be about.
Steven Rostedt
Yes it was. And MS took as much from IBM as they could. When IBM would need specs from MS, MS would delay the deliveries or give out dated ones. Then MS came out with NT as a cometitor of OS/2. This wasn't suppose to happen, so IBM thought. MS specifically made it so apps will work better on NT then on OS/2. This is one of the many reasons IBM doesn't like MS.
Steven Rostedt
Anytime a store asks me for my phone number (and I really don't think that it's their business to know), I just give them my fax number. I've noticed that my fax rings a lot more now ;) Ouch to the ears of the telemarketers.... hee hee.
If MS starts to make good revenue on this, they will eventually want more. That's how their apps started. They tested the waters of app developmenet, an found that they could make a lot more money there. So they use their business/marketing smarts to kill the competition and take over the market. You might see the same here, and RShack will take the brunt of it.
Steven Rostedt
Jeremy,
Are you going to be in the New York/North-Eastern area anytime soon??? Would you like to talk at my college?
Thanks,
Steven Rostedt
Isn't "usa" a city in Japan?
;^}
I didn't know that patents apply to that city alone?
They use to make products there and label it "Made in USA", until the US government made them stop. -- or is this just an Urban Ledgend?
Steven Rostedt
I'm not so sure that it is Red Hat that is not confident about their own business strategy, that is behind this "rumored" deal. It may just be that they have Billions of dollars to fund something that needs to make revenue. They may be confident that they can make money, but probably not at that scale. So save some for R&D and to keep the stock holders happy (thus the stock up), use the rest of the money to buy someone else that is making some nice revenue.
;)
Just a thought, not a reality
Steven Rostedt
I've been using Unix since I was 19, and I'm now 31. So does this mean that I can make 110K too?
Becareful about this negotiating. It may get expensive, and the companies might see a large number of MSCE's that are cheap. And a business person (non-techie) will think "whats the difference between Unix and NT/2000. 50K for support". And then you will really be in trouble.
Steven Rostedt