I liked the article. It uses (and acknowledges) lots of the ideas expressed by Bob Young.
I've used the analogy of the automobile with Open Source as well. But I wonder, with today's new techno cars, are we going back to "closed sourced" vendors? If, let's say, Ford comes with some new high tech fuel injection, or even a new engine design all together, and patents it. Will the normal mechanic be able to fix it? Dealers make a lot of money off of maintenance, does Ford get some of that too? If not, then Ford doesn't have a problem with sharing the "innards" of the design. Just licensing it. Food for thought.
Second, I like to mention another aspect of Open Source. Several years ago, a buzz word called "COTS" (Commercial Off The Shelf) was used by management. I was one to suffer under this. I had to make closed sourced tools do things that they were not designed to because it was a COTS product, and was considered "cheaper". Well, in the long run it was not. I wrote about the same amount of "glue" code to get it working that the time and effort was almost the same as doing the desired tool from scratch. But now we have licensing fees and we don't have a product nearly as good.
I've shared a term before called Modifiable COTS. This is what Open Source is. The whole COTS idea was not to reinvent the wheel. To let someone else do it and use a commodity tool that would be less expensive than a customized one. But this failed because commodity tools where always general. Good for the basic purpose, but not good for all specific needs. But with Open Sourced tools, you have a tool that is "off the shelf" and good for the basic purpose. But where Open Source leaves COTS is that you can tweak it to your needs. Thus the term "Modifiable COTS".
Third point. A competitor of ours has a board that runs Linux. We use another "closed" source OS for our board. The few of use that realize the benefits of Linux has brought this to the attention of our Upper management. But they still don't understand the technical details. But we were able to (after lots of complaints to the management) get a unfunded OK to do a work study on porting to Linux. If this does well, then it will be a BIG boost for the Linux community. This article may have helped in the effort! Thanks Alan.
Ok, So I see posts of Corel being better off without him, and I see fewer posts of Corel being better off with him. I say neither, because I don't know who's up on deck. This to me is the critical issue. If Cowpland leaves Corel for whatever reasons (I'm being nice), the big question is: Who takes over?
This can make or break Corel.
When IBM lost Akers(sp?) it was a Good Thing(tm). Mainly because Gerstner(sp?) took over. Of course it was hard to get worst than Akers, but Gerstner was able to bring IBM back and not make things worse. Now, this may be a different story because of the circumstances behind Cowpland, but how the business does, will be determined by who runs it.
--- Old IBM Joke: How much dirt does it take to bury IBM? One Aker.
There's some of us (I'm included:) that have this (stupid) thing about having the "latest" update before our peers. OK, I acknowledge that this is stupid. But we only do this for non-mission critical machines, so it is all out of fun. I don't update any of our critical machines unless the change log acknowledges a change that directly (or indirectly) affects us.
So, please/. keep posting as soon as it comes out. It doesn't hurt. Those of use that want the "latest" no matter what will be happy, and those who are interested in the change logs can wait for them. I sit on both sides of the ladder.
Well, applications often sit atop more than just the kernel - either they're dynamically linked (and thus sit atop the system shared libraries), or they're statically linked (and may have wired into their binaries assumptions about, say, the locations of files used by the library routines).
I wonder why it hasn't gone to (*shudder*) the MS way. If the DLLs (or shared objects) don't exist, then just insert them. I don't see a problem since shared objects have ways of versioning that DLLs don't. So it won't be a problem to add libX.2.1 if it doesn't exist.
I know all the distros use different versions of the kernel. The first thing I do when I install a new distro is download and compile the latest kernel. And I have yet to have a problem with this.
Why do I always see this comparison, that Linux will follow in the footsteps of Unix. Wasn't Unix able be hide its source, whereas Linux can't. The GPL is probably the strongest reason that Linux will not fork. Any packages that are on top of Linux that are not GPL has the probability to do so. But even with KDE and GNOME, I see them merging more than I see them separating, and that is because of the ability to look at the others code and make updates or "compatibilities".
Linux core (the True Linux or kernel) will always be the same among the distros. Any distro to fork will fail since it will no longer be compatible with the rest. Or you won't be able to keep up with the "latest" by downloading.
This brings up one exception. And this was stated in the article about Unix. If different hardware architectures arise, then we may see a split with Linux. But even then, the GPL will allow any "enhancements" to be shared among all distros.
So far I have had no problems in keeping my Slackware and RedHat Linux boxes up and running the same utilities and applications. I'll raise a concern once I start seeing a problem.
Of the 12 channels, I only watch 4. So if you have five "good" channels, that's probably better than me:)
This is all relative, I said only 12, because everyone else that I know around here has 32 or more. When I was in Ireland, there was only 4 channels that I could get, but I liked all 4, and I thought it was actually better than what I got in the States.
Are they going to give credit to those who asked the questions? I only have 12 channels, and I don't think that I get BBC, is there a way to get a transcript?
My favorite part: Internet Links Microsoft
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.
I wouldn't want to be responsible for that either.:-)
Again, Linux may be "competing" with Unix, but I see it helping Unix against NT. So, can you compete and help the opposition at the same time? If so, then Yes it does compete. If not then no it doesn't.
I didn't expect you to read my mind, but I was stating that Linux works well with Unix, and NT doesn't. NT may seem to work with Unix, but once MS gets a strong hold on the server market, you will see that stop.
RedHat competes with Caldera, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, etc. and each competes with each other. But I see this as good and healthy competition. Under GPL each one seems to improve the other, all trying to stay on top. But the way Microsoft competes, it is to hurt the opponent and noone (but MS) benefits.
The note about installation "make/configure" and so on was just to say there is generally a way things will work. It's not the best way. RPMs and other utilities are probably better, but are still young. I'm hoping that some "install wizard" should come out and be the end all of installation tools. But I have yet to have any app run on one distribution and not another. I do need to download and install libraries sometimes, but once I do than everything seems ok.
Again, Linux may be "competing" with Unix, but I see it helping Unix against NT. So, can you compete and help the opposition at the same time? If so, then Yes it does compete. If not then no it doesn't.
I didn't expect you to read my mind, but I was stating that Linux works well with Unix, and NT doesn't. NT may seem to work with Unix, but once MS gets a strong hold on the server market, you will see that stop.
RedHat competes with Caldera, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, etc. and each competes with each other. But I see this as good and healthy competition. Under GPL each one seems to improve the other, all trying to stay on top. But the way Microsoft competes, it is to hurt the opponent and noone (but MS) benefits.
The note about installation "make/configure" and so on was just to say there is generally a way things will work. It's not the best way. RPMs and other utilities are probably better, but are still young. I'm hoping that some "install wizard" should come out and be the end all of installation tools. But I have yet to have any app run on one distribution and not another. I do need to download and install libraries sometimes, but once I do than everything seems ok.
Who is NT competing with? Unix and not Linux. If NT is competing with Linux, then how can Linux not be competing with NT. But if you just answer Unix, then this arguement doesn't hold up.
My company has been switching to NT from "traditional" Unix workstations and servers. The sole reason was for cost. Now that Linux is in the picture, Unix is not lost. It's now cheaper to buy a few Unix servers and a lot of Linux servers than to buy all Unix servers. So, instead of replacing all Unix boxes with NT, we now have a few Unix with Linux. The reason I said that Linux was not competing with Unix, is because NT is competing with Unix. It's not easy to incorporate NT with Unix, but it is easy to incorporate Linux. If it wasn't for Linux, Unix would probably be out of the picture here.
I'm not saying that there are not those who are replacing Unix with Linux. I'm saying that Unix would probably have been replaced with NT. But if Linux is chosen then you still can have Unix interaction. Example: A new professor came to our University and wanted to set up a cluster of Solaris machines. The administration said it was too expensive, and why not use NT instead. I talked with the professor, and we all agreed (including administration) we can have a few Solaris machines and several Linux ones. So here is a case Solaris is still being bought, but it would not have if we went the NT route.
As for standards: is installation the only standard out there? Yes you can make/configure tarballs, I even installed rpm packages on Slackware with the rpm2tgz utility. But once you have something installed, it works fine on all platforms. The standards I'm talking about is communication between the utilities. Why do I have trouble installing something on NT that I installed easily on Windows 95? If you have different platforms, of course you will have different ways to install!
I wouldn't say that it's not newsworthy, but I would say that it's not a shocker.
But I am interested in what companys are investing in Linux. Especially when my manager asks me why I choose Linux instead of other operating systems. If there is another company investment in Linux, it makes it easier to discuss this with my manager.
So, please keep posting these articles. Their not shockers, but they are "newsworthy".
I'm sick of this arguement from MS, that "It hasn't effected sales of NT" and "Linux is competing with Unix" this is a bunch of BS.
When I set up a system, there are times I need Solaris, but to interact with it, I'm not going to buy NT! I'm going to use Linux, and maybe SCO and maybe BSD or a combination of them.
Linux doesn't have standards? Then why can I have my Slackware system running fine with another Redhat system, as well as a Solaris, and AIX! But problems always arrive when I hook up a NT to the equation.
The problem is arises when Singer needs guards to speak his mind. The problem I see, is that people are afraid to speak about things that upset them. I'm no different from anyone else. I get upset when someone states something that offends me, but instead of censoring the offending remarks, I argue against them. I try to do an intellectual debate to denounce the offending comments. People have a tendency to flame or cast insults or even worse, violence against individuals instead of pointing out the problems with there discussion.
The best way to understand things is to listen, even if it is something you dislike.
Sometimes censorship may be a Good Thing(tm). If you can argue that it is. I would argue that posting the instructions on making bombs on the internet is dangerous, and make a case for censorship of it. Not for opinions in general, but to show a direct consequence of the problems caused by the publishing of that content.
Growing up in the birth place of IBM (Endicott NY), and having both parents work (and one still works) for IBM (My father was even a manager) and then (after college) working for IBM (Federal Systems which was bought by Loral, and then by Lockheed Martin). I have had the opportunity to watch the life of IBM from a very close perspective.
Back in the 80's IBM was the one on top (everyone knows this). But they became blind. In the early 80's my father came home complaining that IBM is about to go down. He said that the top managers were ignoring advice from outsiders with the attitude that "We're IBM, and we know more than you".
In the early 90's the s**t hit the fan, and the layoffs started. My town almost became a ghost town. After selling us (Federal Systems) off, we were able to look elsewhere for products. One of my co-workers, whose been with IBM for a while, was shocked to see what was out there. He stated to me "We have just been patting each other on the back because we are IBM we never saw what was going on".
Well, IBM woke up. Now being leveled by MS, it has learned a lesson, and will not do the same again. IBM is constantly watching what is going on, and is now trying to give what the customer wants. Yes, there is major resentment towards Microsoft, and a hint of personal disgust towards Mr. Gates himself, but the attitude is different. I never cared for IBM (even when I went to work for them!) but now I see things are different. They use to cater to the employees, and now its trying to stay ahead by catering to customers (and stock holders)
I don't see IBM as a threat to Linux. The other posts are correct, they are more focusing on hardware. Yes they supply a lot of support, and software, but they want the IBM logo on you machines. If Linux can help them, that's what they will support. I cant see IBM trying to bring down Linux, but I can see them dropping it if it will no longer help them.
I know Microsoft is a business and businesses make money. But I've heard that you are interested in increasing innovation and technology. If this is true, then a heterogeneous environment is the more productive than a homogeneous one. To do this we need to form standards: standards in communication, standards in document format, and standards in user interfaces. Standards should be configurable to suit most environments. This doesn't mean that standards should benefit one environment over another.
It's good to push for standards, but I see Microsoft pushing those that will benefit Microsoft while damaging other environments. This is not a Good Thing(TM). Standards should be used to help different environments interact and not to improve ones market share. The former is a perspective of a technical person, the later is the perspective of a marketer.
My question: Are you a technical advocate, or are you just here for marketing?
PS: when will Windows(tm) GUI be able to push back a window. If I have a window full screen in front of other windows, I would like to just push it to the back (under other windows). All other environments I've used allow this, but Windows is yet to do Steven Rostedt
RMS is for Free Software defined by the GPL. He (and many others) should get credit for all the GNU utilities that come with a Linux distribution.
RMS view of OS is not the same as ESR view. I don't see RMS as trying to take credit for Open Source, but he wants people to acknowledge the GNU utilities that are out there.
Doesn't arp only get the MAC from the nics connected directly to the computer, and not go past routers. For example, can you get the MAC from the slashdot.org machine?
Where as the IPv6 sends the MAC all the way to the connecting machine, past all routers and all.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked the article. It uses (and acknowledges) lots of the ideas expressed by Bob Young.
I've used the analogy of the automobile with Open Source as well. But I wonder, with today's new techno cars, are we going back to "closed sourced" vendors? If, let's say, Ford comes with some new high tech fuel injection, or even a new engine design all together, and patents it. Will the normal mechanic be able to fix it? Dealers make a lot of money off of maintenance, does Ford get some of that too? If not, then Ford doesn't have a problem with sharing the "innards" of the design. Just licensing it. Food for thought.
Second, I like to mention another aspect of Open Source. Several years ago, a buzz word called "COTS" (Commercial Off The Shelf) was used by management. I was one to suffer under this. I had to make closed sourced tools do things that they were not designed to because it was a COTS product, and was considered "cheaper". Well, in the long run it was not. I wrote about the same amount of "glue" code to get it working that the time and effort was almost the same as doing the desired tool from scratch. But now we have licensing fees and we don't have a product nearly as good.
I've shared a term before called Modifiable COTS. This is what Open Source is. The whole COTS idea was not to reinvent the wheel. To let someone else do it and use a commodity tool that would be less expensive than a customized one. But this failed because commodity tools where always general. Good for the basic purpose, but not good for all specific needs. But with Open Sourced tools, you have a tool that is "off the shelf" and good for the basic purpose. But where Open Source leaves COTS is that you can tweak it to your needs. Thus the term "Modifiable COTS".
Third point.
A competitor of ours has a board that runs Linux. We use another "closed" source OS for our board. The few of use that realize the benefits of Linux has brought this to the attention of our Upper management. But they still don't understand the technical details. But we were able to (after lots of complaints to the management) get a unfunded OK to do a work study on porting to Linux. If this does well, then it will be a BIG boost for the Linux community. This article may have helped in the effort! Thanks Alan.
Steven Rostedt
Ok, So I see posts of Corel being better off without him, and I see fewer posts of Corel being better off with him. I say neither, because I don't know who's up on deck. This to me is the critical issue. If Cowpland leaves Corel for whatever reasons (I'm being nice), the big question is: Who takes over?
This can make or break Corel.
When IBM lost Akers(sp?) it was a Good Thing(tm). Mainly because Gerstner(sp?) took over. Of course it was hard to get worst than Akers, but Gerstner was able to bring IBM back and not make things worse. Now, this may be a different story because of the circumstances behind Cowpland, but how the business does, will be determined by who runs it.
--- Old IBM Joke: How much dirt does it take to bury IBM? One Aker.
Steven Rostedt
I totally agree with your point!
:) that have this (stupid) thing about having the "latest" update before our peers. OK, I acknowledge that this is stupid. But we only do this for non-mission critical machines, so it is all out of fun. I don't update any of our critical machines unless the change log acknowledges a change that directly (or indirectly) affects us.
/. keep posting as soon as it comes out. It doesn't hurt. Those of use that want the "latest" no matter what will be happy, and those who are interested in the change logs can wait for them. I sit on both sides of the ladder.
But...
There's some of us (I'm included
So, please
Steven Rostedt
Well, applications often sit atop more than just the kernel - either they're dynamically linked (and thus sit atop the system shared libraries), or they're statically linked (and
may have wired into their binaries assumptions about, say, the locations of files used by the library routines).
I wonder why it hasn't gone to (*shudder*) the MS way. If the DLLs (or shared objects) don't exist, then just insert them. I don't see a problem since shared objects have ways of versioning that DLLs don't. So it won't be a problem to add libX.2.1 if it doesn't exist.
I know all the distros use different versions of the kernel. The first thing I do when I install a new distro is download and compile the latest kernel. And I have yet to have a problem with this.
Steven Rostedt
Why do I always see this comparison, that Linux will follow in the footsteps of Unix. Wasn't Unix able be hide its source, whereas Linux can't. The GPL is probably the strongest reason that Linux will not fork. Any packages that are on top of Linux that are not GPL has the probability to do so. But even with KDE and GNOME, I see them merging more than I see them separating, and that is because of the ability to look at the others code and make updates or "compatibilities".
Linux core (the True Linux or kernel) will always be the same among the distros. Any distro to fork will fail since it will no longer be compatible with the rest. Or you won't be able to keep up with the "latest" by downloading.
This brings up one exception. And this was stated in the article about Unix. If different hardware architectures arise, then we may see a split with Linux. But even then, the GPL will allow any "enhancements" to be shared among all distros.
So far I have had no problems in keeping my Slackware and RedHat Linux boxes up and running the same utilities and applications. I'll raise a concern once I start seeing a problem.
Steven Rostedt
Of the 12 channels, I only watch 4. So if you have five "good" channels, that's probably better than me :)
This is all relative, I said only 12, because everyone else that I know around here has 32 or more. When I was in Ireland, there was only 4 channels that I could get, but I liked all 4, and I thought it was actually better than what I got in the States.
Steven Rostedt
My system can only handle 8.4G. :(
But when I buy a new computer I will like one of these!!
Just a note, with a 70+G drives, thats a lot of data to loose if one were to crash. What is the best media to use to back these suckers up?
Steven Rostedt
Are they going to give credit to those who asked the questions? I only have 12 channels, and I don't think that I get BBC, is there a way to get a transcript?
:-)
My favorite part:
Internet Links
Microsoft
The BBC is not responsible for
the content of external internet
sites.
I wouldn't want to be responsible for that either.
Steven Rostedt
If you feel so strongly about this, go ahead and organize and fund an Open Source event. Make it free to all attendees. I'll go!
(Not so easy to do this is it!)
Steven Rostedt
EVERY OS competes with every other OS
Yes and I wish MS would acknowledge this!
Again, Linux may be "competing" with Unix, but I see it helping Unix against NT. So, can you compete and help the opposition at the same time? If so, then Yes it does compete. If not then no it doesn't.
I didn't expect you to read my mind, but I was stating that Linux works well with Unix, and NT doesn't. NT may seem to work with Unix, but once MS gets a strong hold on the server market, you will see that stop.
RedHat competes with Caldera, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, etc. and each competes with each other. But I see this as good and healthy competition. Under GPL each one seems to improve the other, all trying to stay on top. But the way Microsoft competes, it is to hurt the opponent and noone (but MS) benefits.
The note about installation "make/configure" and so on was just to say there is generally a way things will work. It's not the best way. RPMs and other utilities are probably better, but are still young. I'm hoping that some "install wizard" should come out and be the end all of installation tools. But I have yet to have any app run on one distribution and not another. I do need to download and install libraries sometimes, but once I do than everything seems ok.
Steven Rostedt
EVERY OS competes with every other OS
Yes and I wish MS would acknowledge this!
Again, Linux may be "competing" with Unix, but I see it helping Unix against NT. So, can you compete and help the opposition at the same time? If so, then Yes it does compete. If not then no it doesn't.
I didn't expect you to read my mind, but I was stating that Linux works well with Unix, and NT doesn't. NT may seem to work with Unix, but once MS gets a strong hold on the server market, you will see that stop.
RedHat competes with Caldera, SuSE, Debian, Slackware, etc. and each competes with each other. But I see this as good and healthy competition. Under GPL each one seems to improve the other, all trying to stay on top. But the way Microsoft competes, it is to hurt the opponent and noone (but MS) benefits.
The note about installation "make/configure" and so on was just to say there is generally a way things will work. It's not the best way. RPMs and other utilities are probably better, but are still young. I'm hoping that some "install wizard" should come out and be the end all of installation tools. But I have yet to have any app run on one distribution and not another. I do need to download and install libraries sometimes, but once I do than everything seems ok.
Steven Rostedt
Who is NT competing with? Unix and not Linux.
If NT is competing with Linux, then how can Linux not be competing with NT. But if you just answer Unix, then this arguement doesn't hold up.
My company has been switching to NT from "traditional" Unix workstations and servers. The sole reason was for cost. Now that Linux is in the picture, Unix is not lost. It's now cheaper to buy a few Unix servers and a lot of Linux servers than to buy all Unix servers. So, instead of replacing all Unix boxes with NT, we now have a few Unix with Linux. The reason I said that Linux was not competing with Unix, is because NT is competing with Unix. It's not easy to incorporate NT with Unix, but it is easy to incorporate Linux. If it wasn't for Linux, Unix would probably be out of the picture here.
I'm not saying that there are not those who are replacing Unix with Linux. I'm saying that Unix would probably have been replaced with NT. But if Linux is chosen then you still can have Unix interaction. Example: A new professor came to our University and wanted to set up a cluster of Solaris machines. The administration said it was too expensive, and why not use NT instead. I talked with the professor, and we all agreed (including administration) we can have a few Solaris machines and several Linux ones. So here is a case Solaris is still being bought, but it would not have if we went the NT route.
As for standards: is installation the only standard out there? Yes you can make/configure tarballs, I even installed rpm packages on Slackware with the rpm2tgz utility. But once you have something installed, it works fine on all platforms. The standards I'm talking about is communication between the utilities. Why do I have trouble installing something on NT that I installed easily on Windows 95? If you have different platforms, of course you will have different ways to install!
Steven Rostedt
I wouldn't say that it's not newsworthy, but I would say that it's not a shocker.
But I am interested in what companys are investing in Linux. Especially when my manager asks me why I choose Linux instead of other operating systems. If there is another company investment in Linux, it makes it easier to discuss this with my manager.
So, please keep posting these articles. Their not shockers, but they are "newsworthy".
Steven Rostedt
I'm sick of this arguement from MS, that "It hasn't effected sales of NT" and "Linux is competing with Unix" this is a bunch of BS.
:)
When I set up a system, there are times I need Solaris, but to interact with it, I'm not going to buy NT! I'm going to use Linux, and maybe SCO and maybe BSD or a combination of them.
Linux doesn't have standards? Then why can I have my Slackware system running fine with another Redhat system, as well as a Solaris, and AIX! But problems always arrive when I hook up a NT to the equation.
Sorry, I'll come off my soap box now.
Later
Steven Rostedt
Actually I was trying to say,
:)
Your 'right to denounce Singer' is perfectly fine.
* I ended up making up a word "You'r" as in "Your bicycle". *
As in "freedom to denounce"
But let me give it up since I think people got the general idea
Sorry!
My sig was done by a buddy of mine who's really into SW.
Steven Rostedt
I've compiled the 2.2 kernel with libc5 with no problems.
But 8 should probably be:
>> 8) Installing only libc5 library.
This I see can be a problem. Not just using apps that use libc5 (unless you don't have libc5 installed!)
Steven Rostedt
Sorry the first sentence should have been.
You'r right to denounce Singer is perfectly fine
That missing apostrophe can make it confusing.
Steven Rostedt
Your right to denounce Singer is perfectly fine.
The problem is arises when Singer needs guards to speak his mind. The problem I see, is that people are afraid to speak about things that upset them. I'm no different from anyone else. I get upset when someone states something that offends me, but instead of censoring the offending remarks, I argue against them. I try to do an intellectual debate to denounce the offending comments. People have a tendency to flame or cast insults or even worse, violence against individuals instead of pointing out the problems with there discussion.
The best way to understand things is to listen, even if it is something you dislike.
Sometimes censorship may be a Good Thing(tm). If you can argue that it is. I would argue that posting the instructions on making bombs on the internet is dangerous, and make a case for censorship of it. Not for opinions in general, but to show a direct consequence of the problems caused by the publishing of that content.
Steven Rostedt
Growing up in the birth place of IBM (Endicott NY), and having both parents work (and one still works) for IBM (My father was even a manager) and then (after college) working for IBM (Federal Systems which was bought by Loral, and then by Lockheed Martin). I have had the opportunity to watch the life of IBM from a very close perspective.
Back in the 80's IBM was the one on top (everyone knows this). But they became blind. In the early 80's my father came home complaining that IBM is about to go down. He said that the top managers were ignoring advice from outsiders with the attitude that "We're IBM, and we know more than you".
In the early 90's the s**t hit the fan, and the layoffs started. My town almost became a ghost town. After selling us (Federal Systems) off, we were able to look elsewhere for products. One of my co-workers, whose been with IBM for a while, was shocked to see what was out there. He stated to me "We have just been patting each other on the back because we are IBM we never saw what was going on".
Well, IBM woke up. Now being leveled by MS, it has learned a lesson, and will not do the same again. IBM is constantly watching what is going on, and is now trying to give what the customer wants. Yes, there is major resentment towards Microsoft, and a hint of personal disgust towards Mr. Gates himself, but the attitude is different. I never cared for IBM (even when I went to work for them!) but now I see things are different. They use to cater to the employees, and now its trying to stay ahead by catering to customers (and stock holders)
I don't see IBM as a threat to Linux. The other posts are correct, they are more focusing on hardware. Yes they supply a lot of support, and software, but they want the IBM logo on you machines. If Linux can help them, that's what they will support. I cant see IBM trying to bring down Linux, but I can see them dropping it if it will no longer help them.
Just my $0.02
Steven Rostedt
Mr. Gates,
I know Microsoft is a business and businesses make money.
But I've heard that you are interested in increasing innovation and
technology. If this is true, then a heterogeneous environment is
the more productive than a homogeneous one. To do this we
need to form standards: standards in communication, standards
in document format, and standards in user interfaces. Standards
should be configurable to suit most environments. This doesn't mean
that standards should benefit one environment over another.
It's good to push for standards, but I see Microsoft pushing those
that will benefit Microsoft while damaging other environments.
This is not a Good Thing(TM). Standards should be used to
help different environments interact and not to improve ones
market share. The former is a perspective of a technical person,
the later is the perspective of a marketer.
My question: Are you a technical advocate, or are you just
here for marketing?
PS: when will Windows(tm) GUI be able to push back a window.
If I have a window full screen in front of other windows, I would like
to just push it to the back (under other windows). All other
environments
I've used allow this, but Windows is yet to do
Steven Rostedt
A buddy of mine made this one.
DARTH TUX
Steven Rostedt
RMS is for Free Software defined by the GPL.
He (and many others) should get credit for all the GNU utilities that come with a Linux distribution.
RMS view of OS is not the same as ESR view. I don't see RMS as trying to take credit for Open Source, but he wants people to acknowledge the GNU utilities that are out there.
Just try to use Linux w/o GNU.
Steven Rostedt
Doesn't arp only get the MAC from the nics connected directly to the computer, and not go past routers. For example, can you get the MAC from the slashdot.org machine?
:)
Where as the IPv6 sends the MAC all the way to the connecting machine, past all routers and all.
If I am wrong, please correct me politely
Steven Rostedt
So are you saying that the inventor of Dvorak hired Mindcraft to do the benchmark
Steven Rostedt
You replied just as I was,
Sorry for being redundant
Steven Rostedt