It's not always explicitly worded as RTFM, but if you look back over your forums I'm sure you will see a large share of "advice" that boils down to:
* You can make your hardware work, but it's not easy. Next time, buy better (but more expensive) hardware.
* Linux can't do whatever it is you're trying to do. Therefore, don't do that or do this other thing, which is kind of what you're trying to do, but not really.
... And endless variations on the above. These aren't RTFM replies in the most explicit sense, they are just nicely (or not!) worded advice that is about as helpful as RTFM.
That's not a valid comparison at all. First of all, the original link points to a "desktop" version of SuSE, so the comparable Windows version should not be required to run any servers.
Second, you're artificially trying to boost the cost of the Windows option by including software that only has free counterparts in Linux.
SuSE: OpenOffice, GCC, KDevelop or whatever the hot IDE is.
So the REAL valid comparison would be XP Home (why did you switch it to Pro? Really Pro is just Home with some slight mods, nothing earth-shattering. Oh that's right, Pro costs more) + OpenOffice + GCC + Dev-C++ + A whole bunch of free servers running in Cygwin.
The original price quoted does not budge an inch as a result of adding all this software. Even if we used Pro instead of Home the price would be close to the quoted $100 a copy if bought in volume.
Besides, you're missing the big point the author was trying to make: the Linux he bought cost the same amount as Windows, yet couldn't claim the same amount of hardware compatibility as Windows. Therefore, in his opinion Linux is overpriced, and throwing in 5 CDs of software you could just download anyway doesn't change anything.
XP Home comes with an industry standard web server?
Irrelevant, as the original poster's link points to what is touted as a "desktop" version of SuSE, not a server version. But, if you really want, you can get Apache.
XP Home can operate as a full-fledged file server?
With Windows File Sharing, or an FTP server, or an NFS server, sure. Just download it.
With unlimited client-licensed connections?
Nothing stopping you from accepting as many connections with third-party software as you want.
XP Home provides a secure, virus-free work environment for the corporate desktop?
Linux doesn't provide you with one either, so this isn't really a good point for you to be making.
Seems to me that XP Home is a bit overpriced.
Not when you consider that the author's original concern was not with how many different kinds of FTP servers and word processors ship with his OS, but how compatible the OS is with common hardware. Windows is more compatible than Linux. Windows (the version cited) is cheaper. In his view, Linux is therefore overpriced, considering that it costs more than the listed version of Windows yet can't maintain the same level of hardware compatibility. End of story.
All it can do out of the box is play music, watch DVD's, connect to the internet, and download malware while you're trying to get real work done.
Of course, in a corporate environment you would most likely be installing full disk images, complete with all the software you need (and patches) to the client machines, so Windows could "out of the box" do all the things you listed (which no one really cares about on the desktop, except development, depending on the user).
Yes, it is an OEM price. But you don't have to buy new machines to get the OEM price, just "hardware" at many computer retailers. So, you could buy something cheap, like an IDE cable with each copy. Make it $101. So sorry.
BUT, considering that's the one copy OEM price that any person can get, I have to imagine that the volume prices (5+ copies) are even cheaper. Maybe someone can confirm, as generally finding the price requires calling someone.
And Advanced Server? For a desktop? How about XP Pro instead...
Considering that you can get 5 copies of XP home (yes, that's not the "workstation" version of Windows, but still) for $500, AND considering that XP is going to be more compatible with hardware than SuSE's offering (this was the guy's main gripe), then perhaps you understand where he's coming from when he says that commercial Linux distros are overpriced.
Sorry, just had to chime in one last time, even though you childishly refuse to defend your position further.
They do not pay for the bandwidth of their mirrors.
Yes, they rely on the goodwill of the people supplying the mirrors. The mirrors can and will be taken down if they are clogged with excessive bandwidth. Reducing the bandwidth requirements sounds like a good idea in this case, does it not?
Even a 50% bandwidth savings is hardly earth-shattering.
50% off the total bandwidth requirements isn't much? Are you kidding? That could easily add up to thousands of dollars a month, depending on how fast the connection is.
You have to figure out how to get bittorrent and python to the size of/bin/ftp, so it will fit on a floppy disk (for FreeBSD network installs).
Hello, native client.
Having a webserver that runs scripts is nothing like running a server that IS A SCRIPT. I think you are stretching quite a bit now.
Actually it could be argued that a script-based network service would be more secure than a native one. Sandboxed VMs and all that.
This is my point... They would not be willing to do that at all. Why should they? They get nothing out of it, not even good karma...
This point baffles me, because they have nothing to gain from hosting FreeBSD.org FTP mirrors either. Yet they do it anyway.
I look forward to seeing the source code for this program you are going to write to perform this practically impossible task.
What? Have you ever heard of Gnutella? People with fast connections are used as "super nodes" through which searches are routed. Are you saying this can't be done? Hell, what about Grid Computing? You are writing this off as "impossible", when the reality is no one wants to do it, not because of technological challenges, but because no one wants to create a network that isn't a haven for warez and movies.
If you are going to condem a technology just for it's initial immoral uses, then the internet should have been condemed
I'm not condemning P2P apps because they can be used for immoral purposes, I'm condemning them because they primarily are.
Well, they can afford the bandwidth, as evidenced by their many years of operation before bittorrent and p2p. Primarily because there are numerous universities willing to offer their bandwidth for free.
And this reduces their willingness to cut bandwidth requirements by using Bittorrent how...? Bandwidth savings are bandwidth savings, no matter how you slice it.
Bittorrent hasn't been around long at all, it's quite new. That's the main reason why a lot of technologies aren't used... It takes time.
Perhaps, but if it is as earth-shatteringly amazing as I've been lead to believe, surely it would be embraced quickly.
Bittorrent is hurt in the ftp-replacement field by a few different things. For one, it's nothing like HTTP/FTP because you can't navigate through folders to find a file.
So make an FTP server that serves only the torrent files.
Most people don't currently run bittorrent on their machines
They will if that's the only way they can get the software. Nobody currently runs Microsoft's/Mozilla's download installer software, but they do if they want IE or Mozilla (and yes, I'm aware that you don't need to run the software to install either package).
And last but not least, bittorrent is not a native program, it requires python... I don't think you'll find a lot of system admins happy about running a network service that is a 100% scripted program.
And they don't have any problem running a web server (network service) that allows execution of Perl scripts?
Possibly, but you still need somebody to pay for the massive bandwidth usage of each of these "affiliate" servers.
Dur, universities perhaps? Or just a large collection of the "OSS community" using their PCs behind cable connections as nodes?
Did anybody around here tell you that anonymous, encrypted file sharing was for mirroring of Linux ISOs? No, I think you made that up yourself.
Actually yes, I have been told that, right here on Slashdot. If I were a paying user of this site I could link to one such reply, but I can only look back about 20 comments. You'll just have to take my word on this. You could also skim some previous P2P articles to find instances of someone replying to "Kazaa is pretty much only used for illegal purposes" with "Nuh-uh! I download my Linux ISOs from there!"
The first is the idea behind Freenet... You have a network where you can share ideas that may be quite unpopular to your government. Military personell can share their photos of Iraqi prisions being tortured, or Chinese can share their anti-Government views, without fear of retribution.
Any way you slice it, it's still being used for illegal purposes. And while the oft-quoted example of Chinese people complaining about the government sounds very noble on paper, I really wonder how common political speech from citizens of oppresive nations is on Freenet. From all accounts I've seen, child pornography is what's hot on Freenet, and serious users of the network will not deny that child porn is out there on the network and not at all hard to find.
You see, right now bittorrent is mostly popular for sites that don't have that kind of bandwidth, so you are making an unfair comparison with only anecdotal information.
Sites like suprnova.org I suppose? And why is it that even popular files, with well over a hundred seeds (or whatever number it is that those tracker sites list along side the torrent file) can still be awfully slow? By all accounts, the downloads should always be blazing fast, when the awesome power of over a hundred fast connections is put together.
Speed is #1. #2 is altruism. When you download from an FTP server, you suck up their bandwidth, and don't provide anything in return. With P2P like bittorrent, all while you are downloading, somebody else is uploading from you. If you've got a 1.5M/768M connection, then you are transfering at least half that data to another person before your download is done. That means for every 2 people wasting the main server's bandwidth using bittorrent, there is 1 person that doesn't use the server's bandwidth at all. 50% reduction in the bandwidth fees a mirror site has to pay is a good thing by anyone's account.
If the benefits are so obvious, then why isn't everyone jumping on the bandwagon? Big commercial entities I can understand for not embracing it. Maybe they don't "get it". But it would seem only natural to me that FreeBSD.org, Debian.org, Redhat.com, etc. would "get it" and gladly make Bittorrent their preferred distribution method, the primary reason being that these groups, which make so little money as it is, can't afford massive bandwidth. And yet, for some reason, they don't. Perhaps you could explain this? The only conclusion I can draw, from my experience, is that the speed just isn't there. It sounds good on paper, and every now and then you might get lucky and get good speeds, but overall it's just not as fast for most people as FTP, in spite of the one-sided nature of FTP.
Who is going to bankroll this thing?
I dunno. But perhaps someone could come up with a protocol wherein the bandwidth of numerous "affiliate" servers can be combined to create something resembling a centralized server infrastructure? With all the ingenious schemes being created to make networks that are more efficient at bypassing copyright, surely someone can come up with a network that protects copyright.
I don't know why you make BitTorrent your big example of anonymous networks being pointless -- BitTorrent is just about the least anonymous kind of file sharing ever.
I used it as an example because I've used it before and it seems to be popular with the Slashdot crowd. I also tried Freenet out of curiosity, but it was so God-awful slow that I gave up on it within minutes.
And as far as download speeds go, I'm not sure what you mean about the "right" kind of Internet connection -- I know for a fact that my connection is "right" enough to get download speeds greater than a pitiful 40KB/sec. I think what you meant to say was "with a popular file and with everyone sharing the file having a fast connection..." It's interesting to hear that you got a very fast download with Bittorrent. However, I have a feeling that speeds like that are more likely the exception than the rule.
It's becoming harder and harder to believe the desperate cries of "why don't they understand that people are interested in P2P for legitimate uses!" in light of developments like these. Do you honestly need these convoluted secrecy schemes like 1024-bit encryption and splitting up files into thousands of pieces that are distributed to thousands of other machines on the network just to share Linux ISOs and Project Gutenberg texts? Clearly these non-copyrighted (or copyrighted, but freely distributable) files can be made available openly on web sites or FTP sites without fear of "the man" coming down hard (but please, feel free to share some isolated exception to this rule with me), and chances are you'll be able to download it faster to boot.
Honestly, it can't be about download speed. I've used Bittorrent before. It's slow. Unless the file you're trying to get is very popular, your download is going to be stalled for a long time, after which you'll be pulling a whopping 3KB/sec for hours on end. Maybe you'll top out at an underwhelming 40KB/sec. Color me unimpressed. Why anyone would want to download a Linux ISO using Bittorrent or Freenet (now THAT'S what I call agony) is beyond me. Just a few weeks ago I downloaded two FreeBSD ISOs at a consistent speed of approximately 500KB/sec from one of FreeBSD's FTP sites. No muss, no fuss, no "more sources needed" messages. Remind me again why I should have preferred using a P2P app to grab those ISOs? Remind me again why anyone would want to grab a Linux ISO from a P2P app when there are plenty of fast FTP sites where the ISO can be downloaded? This is why I roll my eyes when I hear people on Slashdot talking about how P2P apps have revolutionized their Linux ISO (for example) downloads. No one would put up with greatly reduced download speeds and file availability when nine times out of ten the file can be found on much faster non-P2P sources. On the other hand, when someone is trying to obtain files that cannot be freely distributed, they're willing to put up with awful download speeds and, of course, desire having unbelievable encryption on everything they do on the network.
What P2P advocates need to do -- and I've said this many times -- is create a self-policed P2P network where the sharing of files that users DO NOT have the right to redistribute is strictly prohibited. Users report violations they've found, and the offending user is banned from the network, perhaps reported to the authorities if the people in charge of the network -- NOT the RIAA -- determine a legitimate case of copyright infringement has occurred. Before any user creates an account on the network, make them aware of this fact. It's simple, and while nothing can be done to stop the network being used for copyright infringement entirely, I'm sure such measures would greatly reduce the amount of piracy that would occur. This would finally create the P2P utopia I've been hearing so much about on Slashdot.
Nah, I doubt they'll really take contributions back in, at least, I doubt they will if they still plan to ship the WTL code with their products. This is not because of evil practices, but simply the reality that they have to be responsible for every piece of code they ship. I mean, can you imagine the following scenario at a status meeting?
Manager: "So who has code ownership of this WTL source?"
Lead: "The WTL team, and somebody from sf.net named 'superhacker69' contributed significant amounts of code, which we plan to ship with the next version of Windows."
Manager: "Will this 'superhacker69' be held responsible for maintaining his part of the source?"
Lead: "Well obviously we can't make him maintain his code, since he's not a Microsoft employee..."
You mean "if you're lucky and the creator of your distribution has the resources to create one, it will have a centralized easy to use updating service like windows update." You're forgetting that there are an insane number of distros out there of varying popularity and with varying maintenance levels. Some may get patched very quickly and others will languish. Some distros won't have a "linux update" users can turn to. And I'm sure modem users will appreciate the fact that their phone line will be tied up 24x7 as their distro downloads a constant stream of patches for the hundreds of individual programs the user has installed (many of which are duplicates, because Linux users pride themselves on the fact that distros ship with 10 of every kind of program).
First of all, why would Microsoft care if someone was using a different tool to create.NET bytecode? It's not like MS is charging money for the SDK and compiler (before you say "VS.NET", realize that's an IDE -- MS is indeed giving away tools for creating.NET code), so there's no motive there to keep people from creating bytecode without paying money. Second, as stated earlier, Microsoft can't just go around altering the bytecode format on a whim, as that will break all sorts of existing.NET apps. So, any changes that they could conceivably make to the bytecode format will not be structure related and easily reverse-engineered. In other words, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
Besides all that, Microsoft just plain doesn't need to do anything special to "break" Mono. The biggest thing that will always hold Mono back is WinForms support, and the only reason they're having trouble getting that working is because the Windows GUI messaging system is so different from how X handles messaging. Otherwise, they're simply re-implenting the WinForms libraries (and every other.NET library) by reading the publicly available API docs and creating source-level compatible implementations of the libraries. And there's nothing Microsoft can do about that, nor would they care enough to do anything about it. They know that there are certain libraries that Mono could never re-implement due to the availability of certain features only on Windows and not on Linux. It has nothing to do with evil tactics, but just the reality that there are things one platform can do that the other can't. That's all they need to keep the edge, not strong-arming (at least not in this situation). Slashdot cracks me up. These are the same people who are convinced that Microsoft is going to create it's own offshoot of XML, all the while failing to realize that the XML spec allows for obfuscating data to the point where it's pointless for Microsoft to even bother pulling the old "embrace and extend" on the format.
The original poster made it sound like right after installing XP, cygwin, and Firefox that 8GB of disk space was consumed. To which I correctly replied "bullshit". I wouldn't exactly count things like caches in a total for the "install size" of the OS. Hell, I could write a Linux app that caches gigs of data, but that wouldn't contribute to the overall size of the OS installation, in my opinion. All I'm saying is that caches and data that apps generate after the fact should not be counted towards the "OS install size" figure.
I'm looking at a windows box right now with the base install plus cygwin and firefox. No Word, Excel, compiler... 7.98 GB
I call extreme bullshit. What version of Windows? Email me with a directory listing (dir/s c:\). I would be very surprised to learn how Microsoft can manage to unpack a single install CD into 8GB.
Try running Windows 2003 server on a 486 (you can't).
I'm sure IF people could strip down Windows 2003 to absolute bare essentials (and don't kid yourself, you have to strip down Linux installations to an incredible degree to get them running on 386/486's), then Windows 2003 could be used for the "router box". But then again, when new PC hardware is so cheap, it's not really worth it to bother with clunky old 386's when you can spend $300 on a new system and use the old one for server activities.
Many eyes constely looking over, improving and tweaking code will always turn out a better product than an elite few.
In theory, yes. In reality, there are, in most open source projects, very few active committers. Sure there's lots of people who commit the odd "typo" patch or something of the like, but there are very few actual "team members" that are working on the architecture. Windows has many hundreds (thousands?) of active developers, and I'm will to wager it has far more active developers than Linux does. The reality is a far cry from the "4 guys working in an office" situation that you think Windows may have.
First, I'm going to take this "scoop" with a grain of salt. It's being brought to us by the same biased nerds who continually try to slam Longhorn with as much unsubstantiated FUD as they possibly can. My favorite involves the Longhorn release date. All over Slashdot all I see are cries of "2008" for the release. I seem to remeber it being 2006 for a release, 2007 at latest. My memory might be slighly fuzzy in that regard, but if someone can provide me with a definitive link stating "Longhorn no earlier than 2008", I'll be happy. Otherwise, I'm convinced that in 2005 Slashdot geeks will be yelling "no Longhorn until 2009", etc. At any rate, I'm not buying these specs. They are quite ridiculous, and it seems unlikely that the Longhorn developers could be getting any work accomplished with modern-era PCs if Longhorn is expected to be such a hog.
Now the second point: does anyone remember all the big flap over the story that Windows 98 was going to require (gasp) 200MB of hard drive space? Who could forget... "200MB for an OS! That's ridiculous", etc. Of course, everyone forgets that at around the same time, Linux had similar HD requirements. And when XP was set to be released, bitching and moaning about the expected 1GB install (or thereabouts), when modern Linux distros installed to roughly the same size. Time marches on, and OS requirements will climb because modern OS's will be expected to do more and more hardware-taxing things. The minimum recommended specs for a modern version of Redhat would look downright bloated to just about any computer user of 3 or 4 years ago, so keep that in mind. Windows will require beefier hardware, and so will Linux. This sort of behavior is not limited strictly to Windows.
There's a lot of people who prefer SAMBA over NFS or AFS. Just because a SAMBA developer doesn't think SMB is the most pleasant network FS to deal with, architecturally speaking, doesn't mean that it isn't popular with all sorts of users. I mean really, is anyone developing NFS and AFS clients/servers as actively as the SAMBA team is developing for SMB? That should tell you something: that for all intents and purposes, NFS and AFS are dead to most users. SAMBA is extremely easy to set up, the client is built in to Windows and most Unix OS's (i.e., mount_smbfs), it gets the job done, and as an added bonus, it works with Windows without any special software. NFS and AFS are dead to everyone except those obsessed with avoiding anything related to Microsoft or obsessed with architectural cleanliness.
Microsoft, you see, is electing to make WinFS not just a mere file system but a complex database engine application that will manage relational and XML data as well as file data.
Microsoft says this aims to give users a way to search for information content independent of format. I say that's a job for search engines, and Google's doing just fine, thank you very much.
So this guy wants people to use Google to search for stuff on their hard drive?
This is an example of anti-MS zealotry in action:
Phase 1: denounce any radical ideas Microsoft plans on implementing as stupid, better done by (X), pointless, etc.
Phase 2: after a couple years of this "pointless" MS tech being used, find out that it's actually not that bad and perhaps even better than a competing "kosher" technology (see SAMBA vs NFS), and start making a Linux implementation.
Phase 3: bash Microsoft for not innovating.
I don't see any real need to deconstruct something as basic as a file system and replace it with such a complex infrastructure except to make it harder for anyone else--say, the open-source community--to make WinFS-compatible programs and servers.
Maybe, just maybe MS is trying something different for a change. Of course it's going to require big changes to the filesystem. I have a feeling that their interests lie in making a better FS first and an incompatible one second, not the other way around, as many would speculate. The author seems very intent on being able to access Windows disks over the network -- Longhorn won't really change that. If SAMBA doesn't work with Longhorn, there's always FTP. Somehow I don't think it's going to be as dire as the author makes it out to be.
Re:I had a discussion...
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: 0
Nah, it was already funny, because from the conversation we could all tell that you're a nerd.
Re:I had a discussion...
on
D&D Is 30
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
My girlfriend immediately said, "oh my god, i'm dating a nerd."
Gotta love those Slashdot comments where someone throws in a line about having a girlfriend despite the fact that it adds nothing to the comment and doesn't relate to it at all.
Oh, I know it's not slow (although there are many Java applications which are quite torturous to run, like WSAD or Eclipse). But the fact is, it's not faster than the.NET VM, and that's what matters. Google for benchmarks.
Great, but will it run on Solaris? OS X? AS/400? Linux?
You know, most developers targetting a desktop OS don't really care if their application runs on marginal OS's. If it can run on 95% of desktop computers, that's good enough.
Well, that's when you have a windows box on your network that you can run things from (assuming longhorn will be the point where that will work correctly)
I think you misunderstand..NET apps do not have to be run remotely. In fact, MS's plan with Longhorn is to have most of the LOCAL user applications targetted at the.NET runtime. Net effect, every Longhorn-equipped PC (and don't kid yourself, there will be quite a sizable number of users on Longhorn, just as there are a large number of XP users) will have.NET built-in, and Microsoft's angle is "if you want to develop apps for Longhorn, use.NET". It won't take much to convince developers given that:
The.NET SDK and tools are free.
The runtime is just a download away (better yet, then can put it on the app's CD).
The.NET VM is fast.
Best of all, the VM targets Windows 2000, XP, 2003, 98, ME, and NT 4.0 (!), meaning that all apps written in.NET can target those OS's with no additional work. And, when 64-bit Windows is finished, the apps will target and take advantage of 64-bit systems without a recompile!
Slow. Microsoft's XAML will be much faster and likely more robust, count on that. Hell, Microsoft managed to outdo Sun by producing a JVM (and this is in the early days of Java) that ran circles around Sun's JVM. Don't count them out.
Mono, Java, Parrot, others.
AKA: Not there yet, slower than.NET, vaporware.
Thats the best list of things Linux "doesn't have"? You're not looking very hard.
Obviously you must have missed the part of my post where I mocked the typical Linux zealot (in this case, you) saying "oh yeah? Linux has that!" After which you proceeded to list things that don't work as good as Microsoft's stuff and/or requires kludgy hacks to get working.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not always explicitly worded as RTFM, but if you look back over your forums I'm sure you will see a large share of "advice" that boils down to:
... And endless variations on the above. These aren't RTFM replies in the most explicit sense, they are just nicely (or not!) worded advice that is about as helpful as RTFM.
* You can make your hardware work, but it's not easy. Next time, buy better (but more expensive) hardware.
* Linux can't do whatever it is you're trying to do. Therefore, don't do that or do this other thing, which is kind of what you're trying to do, but not really.
That's not a valid comparison at all. First of all, the original link points to a "desktop" version of SuSE, so the comparable Windows version should not be required to run any servers.
Second, you're artificially trying to boost the cost of the Windows option by including software that only has free counterparts in Linux.
SuSE: OpenOffice, GCC, KDevelop or whatever the hot IDE is.
So the REAL valid comparison would be XP Home (why did you switch it to Pro? Really Pro is just Home with some slight mods, nothing earth-shattering. Oh that's right, Pro costs more) + OpenOffice + GCC + Dev-C++ + A whole bunch of free servers running in Cygwin.
The original price quoted does not budge an inch as a result of adding all this software. Even if we used Pro instead of Home the price would be close to the quoted $100 a copy if bought in volume.
Besides, you're missing the big point the author was trying to make: the Linux he bought cost the same amount as Windows, yet couldn't claim the same amount of hardware compatibility as Windows. Therefore, in his opinion Linux is overpriced, and throwing in 5 CDs of software you could just download anyway doesn't change anything.
XP Home comes with an industry standard web server?
Irrelevant, as the original poster's link points to what is touted as a "desktop" version of SuSE, not a server version. But, if you really want, you can get Apache.
XP Home can operate as a full-fledged file server?
With Windows File Sharing, or an FTP server, or an NFS server, sure. Just download it.
With unlimited client-licensed connections?
Nothing stopping you from accepting as many connections with third-party software as you want.
XP Home provides a secure, virus-free work environment for the corporate desktop?
Linux doesn't provide you with one either, so this isn't really a good point for you to be making.
Seems to me that XP Home is a bit overpriced.
Not when you consider that the author's original concern was not with how many different kinds of FTP servers and word processors ship with his OS, but how compatible the OS is with common hardware. Windows is more compatible than Linux. Windows (the version cited) is cheaper. In his view, Linux is therefore overpriced, considering that it costs more than the listed version of Windows yet can't maintain the same level of hardware compatibility. End of story.
All it can do out of the box is play music, watch DVD's, connect to the internet, and download malware while you're trying to get real work done.
Of course, in a corporate environment you would most likely be installing full disk images, complete with all the software you need (and patches) to the client machines, so Windows could "out of the box" do all the things you listed (which no one really cares about on the desktop, except development, depending on the user).
Yes, it is an OEM price. But you don't have to buy new machines to get the OEM price, just "hardware" at many computer retailers. So, you could buy something cheap, like an IDE cable with each copy. Make it $101. So sorry.
BUT, considering that's the one copy OEM price that any person can get, I have to imagine that the volume prices (5+ copies) are even cheaper. Maybe someone can confirm, as generally finding the price requires calling someone.
And Advanced Server? For a desktop? How about XP Pro instead...
Considering that you can get 5 copies of XP home (yes, that's not the "workstation" version of Windows, but still) for $500, AND considering that XP is going to be more compatible with hardware than SuSE's offering (this was the guy's main gripe), then perhaps you understand where he's coming from when he says that commercial Linux distros are overpriced.
Sorry, just had to chime in one last time, even though you childishly refuse to defend your position further.
/bin/ftp, so it will fit on a floppy disk (for FreeBSD network installs).
They do not pay for the bandwidth of their mirrors.
Yes, they rely on the goodwill of the people supplying the mirrors. The mirrors can and will be taken down if they are clogged with excessive bandwidth. Reducing the bandwidth requirements sounds like a good idea in this case, does it not?
Even a 50% bandwidth savings is hardly earth-shattering.
50% off the total bandwidth requirements isn't much? Are you kidding? That could easily add up to thousands of dollars a month, depending on how fast the connection is.
You have to figure out how to get bittorrent and python to the size of
Hello, native client.
Having a webserver that runs scripts is nothing like running a server that IS A SCRIPT. I think you are stretching quite a bit now.
Actually it could be argued that a script-based network service would be more secure than a native one. Sandboxed VMs and all that.
This is my point... They would not be willing to do that at all. Why should they? They get nothing out of it, not even good karma...
This point baffles me, because they have nothing to gain from hosting FreeBSD.org FTP mirrors either. Yet they do it anyway.
I look forward to seeing the source code for this program you are going to write to perform this practically impossible task.
What? Have you ever heard of Gnutella? People with fast connections are used as "super nodes" through which searches are routed. Are you saying this can't be done? Hell, what about Grid Computing? You are writing this off as "impossible", when the reality is no one wants to do it, not because of technological challenges, but because no one wants to create a network that isn't a haven for warez and movies.
If you are going to condem a technology just for it's initial immoral uses, then the internet should have been condemed
I'm not condemning P2P apps because they can be used for immoral purposes, I'm condemning them because they primarily are.
Well, they can afford the bandwidth, as evidenced by their many years of operation before bittorrent and p2p. Primarily because there are numerous universities willing to offer their bandwidth for free.
And this reduces their willingness to cut bandwidth requirements by using Bittorrent how...? Bandwidth savings are bandwidth savings, no matter how you slice it.
Bittorrent hasn't been around long at all, it's quite new. That's the main reason why a lot of technologies aren't used... It takes time.
Perhaps, but if it is as earth-shatteringly amazing as I've been lead to believe, surely it would be embraced quickly.
Bittorrent is hurt in the ftp-replacement field by a few different things. For one, it's nothing like HTTP/FTP because you can't navigate through folders to find a file.
So make an FTP server that serves only the torrent files.
Most people don't currently run bittorrent on their machines
They will if that's the only way they can get the software. Nobody currently runs Microsoft's/Mozilla's download installer software, but they do if they want IE or Mozilla (and yes, I'm aware that you don't need to run the software to install either package).
And last but not least, bittorrent is not a native program, it requires python... I don't think you'll find a lot of system admins happy about running a network service that is a 100% scripted program.
And they don't have any problem running a web server (network service) that allows execution of Perl scripts?
Possibly, but you still need somebody to pay for the massive bandwidth usage of each of these "affiliate" servers.
Dur, universities perhaps? Or just a large collection of the "OSS community" using their PCs behind cable connections as nodes?
Did anybody around here tell you that anonymous, encrypted file sharing was for mirroring of Linux ISOs? No, I think you made that up yourself.
Actually yes, I have been told that, right here on Slashdot. If I were a paying user of this site I could link to one such reply, but I can only look back about 20 comments. You'll just have to take my word on this. You could also skim some previous P2P articles to find instances of someone replying to "Kazaa is pretty much only used for illegal purposes" with "Nuh-uh! I download my Linux ISOs from there!"
The first is the idea behind Freenet... You have a network where you can share ideas that may be quite unpopular to your government. Military personell can share their photos of Iraqi prisions being tortured, or Chinese can share their anti-Government views, without fear of retribution.
Any way you slice it, it's still being used for illegal purposes. And while the oft-quoted example of Chinese people complaining about the government sounds very noble on paper, I really wonder how common political speech from citizens of oppresive nations is on Freenet. From all accounts I've seen, child pornography is what's hot on Freenet, and serious users of the network will not deny that child porn is out there on the network and not at all hard to find.
You see, right now bittorrent is mostly popular for sites that don't have that kind of bandwidth, so you are making an unfair comparison with only anecdotal information.
Sites like suprnova.org I suppose? And why is it that even popular files, with well over a hundred seeds (or whatever number it is that those tracker sites list along side the torrent file) can still be awfully slow? By all accounts, the downloads should always be blazing fast, when the awesome power of over a hundred fast connections is put together.
Speed is #1. #2 is altruism. When you download from an FTP server, you suck up their bandwidth, and don't provide anything in return. With P2P like bittorrent, all while you are downloading, somebody else is uploading from you. If you've got a 1.5M/768M connection, then you are transfering at least half that data to another person before your download is done. That means for every 2 people wasting the main server's bandwidth using bittorrent, there is 1 person that doesn't use the server's bandwidth at all. 50% reduction in the bandwidth fees a mirror site has to pay is a good thing by anyone's account.
If the benefits are so obvious, then why isn't everyone jumping on the bandwagon? Big commercial entities I can understand for not embracing it. Maybe they don't "get it". But it would seem only natural to me that FreeBSD.org, Debian.org, Redhat.com, etc. would "get it" and gladly make Bittorrent their preferred distribution method, the primary reason being that these groups, which make so little money as it is, can't afford massive bandwidth. And yet, for some reason, they don't. Perhaps you could explain this? The only conclusion I can draw, from my experience, is that the speed just isn't there. It sounds good on paper, and every now and then you might get lucky and get good speeds, but overall it's just not as fast for most people as FTP, in spite of the one-sided nature of FTP.
Who is going to bankroll this thing?
I dunno. But perhaps someone could come up with a protocol wherein the bandwidth of numerous "affiliate" servers can be combined to create something resembling a centralized server infrastructure? With all the ingenious schemes being created to make networks that are more efficient at bypassing copyright, surely someone can come up with a network that protects copyright.
I don't know why you make BitTorrent your big example of anonymous networks being pointless -- BitTorrent is just about the least anonymous kind of file sharing ever.
I used it as an example because I've used it before and it seems to be popular with the Slashdot crowd. I also tried Freenet out of curiosity, but it was so God-awful slow that I gave up on it within minutes.
And as far as download speeds go, I'm not sure what you mean about the "right" kind of Internet connection -- I know for a fact that my connection is "right" enough to get download speeds greater than a pitiful 40KB/sec. I think what you meant to say was "with a popular file and with everyone sharing the file having a fast connection..." It's interesting to hear that you got a very fast download with Bittorrent. However, I have a feeling that speeds like that are more likely the exception than the rule.
It's becoming harder and harder to believe the desperate cries of "why don't they understand that people are interested in P2P for legitimate uses!" in light of developments like these. Do you honestly need these convoluted secrecy schemes like 1024-bit encryption and splitting up files into thousands of pieces that are distributed to thousands of other machines on the network just to share Linux ISOs and Project Gutenberg texts? Clearly these non-copyrighted (or copyrighted, but freely distributable) files can be made available openly on web sites or FTP sites without fear of "the man" coming down hard (but please, feel free to share some isolated exception to this rule with me), and chances are you'll be able to download it faster to boot.
Honestly, it can't be about download speed. I've used Bittorrent before. It's slow. Unless the file you're trying to get is very popular, your download is going to be stalled for a long time, after which you'll be pulling a whopping 3KB/sec for hours on end. Maybe you'll top out at an underwhelming 40KB/sec. Color me unimpressed. Why anyone would want to download a Linux ISO using Bittorrent or Freenet (now THAT'S what I call agony) is beyond me. Just a few weeks ago I downloaded two FreeBSD ISOs at a consistent speed of approximately 500KB/sec from one of FreeBSD's FTP sites. No muss, no fuss, no "more sources needed" messages. Remind me again why I should have preferred using a P2P app to grab those ISOs? Remind me again why anyone would want to grab a Linux ISO from a P2P app when there are plenty of fast FTP sites where the ISO can be downloaded? This is why I roll my eyes when I hear people on Slashdot talking about how P2P apps have revolutionized their Linux ISO (for example) downloads. No one would put up with greatly reduced download speeds and file availability when nine times out of ten the file can be found on much faster non-P2P sources. On the other hand, when someone is trying to obtain files that cannot be freely distributed, they're willing to put up with awful download speeds and, of course, desire having unbelievable encryption on everything they do on the network.
What P2P advocates need to do -- and I've said this many times -- is create a self-policed P2P network where the sharing of files that users DO NOT have the right to redistribute is strictly prohibited. Users report violations they've found, and the offending user is banned from the network, perhaps reported to the authorities if the people in charge of the network -- NOT the RIAA -- determine a legitimate case of copyright infringement has occurred. Before any user creates an account on the network, make them aware of this fact. It's simple, and while nothing can be done to stop the network being used for copyright infringement entirely, I'm sure such measures would greatly reduce the amount of piracy that would occur. This would finally create the P2P utopia I've been hearing so much about on Slashdot.
Nah, I doubt they'll really take contributions back in, at least, I doubt they will if they still plan to ship the WTL code with their products. This is not because of evil practices, but simply the reality that they have to be responsible for every piece of code they ship. I mean, can you imagine the following scenario at a status meeting?
Manager: "So who has code ownership of this WTL source?"
Lead: "The WTL team, and somebody from sf.net named 'superhacker69' contributed significant amounts of code, which we plan to ship with the next version of Windows."
Manager: "Will this 'superhacker69' be held responsible for maintaining his part of the source?"
Lead: "Well obviously we can't make him maintain his code, since he's not a Microsoft employee..."
Manager (Donald Trump impersonation): "You're fired!"
You mean "if you're lucky and the creator of your distribution has the resources to create one, it will have a centralized easy to use updating service like windows update." You're forgetting that there are an insane number of distros out there of varying popularity and with varying maintenance levels. Some may get patched very quickly and others will languish. Some distros won't have a "linux update" users can turn to. And I'm sure modem users will appreciate the fact that their phone line will be tied up 24x7 as their distro downloads a constant stream of patches for the hundreds of individual programs the user has installed (many of which are duplicates, because Linux users pride themselves on the fact that distros ship with 10 of every kind of program).
Sounds like fun.
Yeah, that's definitely conspiracy theory talk.
.NET bytecode? It's not like MS is charging money for the SDK and compiler (before you say "VS.NET", realize that's an IDE -- MS is indeed giving away tools for creating .NET code), so there's no motive there to keep people from creating bytecode without paying money. Second, as stated earlier, Microsoft can't just go around altering the bytecode format on a whim, as that will break all sorts of existing .NET apps. So, any changes that they could conceivably make to the bytecode format will not be structure related and easily reverse-engineered. In other words, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
.NET library) by reading the publicly available API docs and creating source-level compatible implementations of the libraries. And there's nothing Microsoft can do about that, nor would they care enough to do anything about it. They know that there are certain libraries that Mono could never re-implement due to the availability of certain features only on Windows and not on Linux. It has nothing to do with evil tactics, but just the reality that there are things one platform can do that the other can't. That's all they need to keep the edge, not strong-arming (at least not in this situation). Slashdot cracks me up. These are the same people who are convinced that Microsoft is going to create it's own offshoot of XML, all the while failing to realize that the XML spec allows for obfuscating data to the point where it's pointless for Microsoft to even bother pulling the old "embrace and extend" on the format.
First of all, why would Microsoft care if someone was using a different tool to create
Besides all that, Microsoft just plain doesn't need to do anything special to "break" Mono. The biggest thing that will always hold Mono back is WinForms support, and the only reason they're having trouble getting that working is because the Windows GUI messaging system is so different from how X handles messaging. Otherwise, they're simply re-implenting the WinForms libraries (and every other
The original poster made it sound like right after installing XP, cygwin, and Firefox that 8GB of disk space was consumed. To which I correctly replied "bullshit". I wouldn't exactly count things like caches in a total for the "install size" of the OS. Hell, I could write a Linux app that caches gigs of data, but that wouldn't contribute to the overall size of the OS installation, in my opinion. All I'm saying is that caches and data that apps generate after the fact should not be counted towards the "OS install size" figure.
I'm looking at a windows box right now with the base install plus cygwin and firefox. No Word, Excel, compiler... 7.98 GB
/s c:\). I would be very surprised to learn how Microsoft can manage to unpack a single install CD into 8GB.
I call extreme bullshit. What version of Windows? Email me with a directory listing (dir
Try running Windows 2003 server on a 486 (you can't).
I'm sure IF people could strip down Windows 2003 to absolute bare essentials (and don't kid yourself, you have to strip down Linux installations to an incredible degree to get them running on 386/486's), then Windows 2003 could be used for the "router box". But then again, when new PC hardware is so cheap, it's not really worth it to bother with clunky old 386's when you can spend $300 on a new system and use the old one for server activities.
Many eyes constely looking over, improving and tweaking code will always turn out a better product than an elite few.
In theory, yes. In reality, there are, in most open source projects, very few active committers. Sure there's lots of people who commit the odd "typo" patch or something of the like, but there are very few actual "team members" that are working on the architecture. Windows has many hundreds (thousands?) of active developers, and I'm will to wager it has far more active developers than Linux does. The reality is a far cry from the "4 guys working in an office" situation that you think Windows may have.
First, I'm going to take this "scoop" with a grain of salt. It's being brought to us by the same biased nerds who continually try to slam Longhorn with as much unsubstantiated FUD as they possibly can. My favorite involves the Longhorn release date. All over Slashdot all I see are cries of "2008" for the release. I seem to remeber it being 2006 for a release, 2007 at latest. My memory might be slighly fuzzy in that regard, but if someone can provide me with a definitive link stating "Longhorn no earlier than 2008", I'll be happy. Otherwise, I'm convinced that in 2005 Slashdot geeks will be yelling "no Longhorn until 2009", etc. At any rate, I'm not buying these specs. They are quite ridiculous, and it seems unlikely that the Longhorn developers could be getting any work accomplished with modern-era PCs if Longhorn is expected to be such a hog.
Now the second point: does anyone remember all the big flap over the story that Windows 98 was going to require (gasp) 200MB of hard drive space? Who could forget... "200MB for an OS! That's ridiculous", etc. Of course, everyone forgets that at around the same time, Linux had similar HD requirements. And when XP was set to be released, bitching and moaning about the expected 1GB install (or thereabouts), when modern Linux distros installed to roughly the same size. Time marches on, and OS requirements will climb because modern OS's will be expected to do more and more hardware-taxing things. The minimum recommended specs for a modern version of Redhat would look downright bloated to just about any computer user of 3 or 4 years ago, so keep that in mind. Windows will require beefier hardware, and so will Linux. This sort of behavior is not limited strictly to Windows.
Nothing to see here, just more geek hypocrisy...
There's a lot of people who prefer SAMBA over NFS or AFS. Just because a SAMBA developer doesn't think SMB is the most pleasant network FS to deal with, architecturally speaking, doesn't mean that it isn't popular with all sorts of users. I mean really, is anyone developing NFS and AFS clients/servers as actively as the SAMBA team is developing for SMB? That should tell you something: that for all intents and purposes, NFS and AFS are dead to most users. SAMBA is extremely easy to set up, the client is built in to Windows and most Unix OS's (i.e., mount_smbfs), it gets the job done, and as an added bonus, it works with Windows without any special software. NFS and AFS are dead to everyone except those obsessed with avoiding anything related to Microsoft or obsessed with architectural cleanliness.
Microsoft, you see, is electing to make WinFS not just a mere file system but a complex database engine application that will manage relational and XML data as well as file data.
Microsoft says this aims to give users a way to search for information content independent of format. I say that's a job for search engines, and Google's doing just fine, thank you very much.
So this guy wants people to use Google to search for stuff on their hard drive?
This is an example of anti-MS zealotry in action:
Phase 1: denounce any radical ideas Microsoft plans on implementing as stupid, better done by (X), pointless, etc.
Phase 2: after a couple years of this "pointless" MS tech being used, find out that it's actually not that bad and perhaps even better than a competing "kosher" technology (see SAMBA vs NFS), and start making a Linux implementation.
Phase 3: bash Microsoft for not innovating.
I don't see any real need to deconstruct something as basic as a file system and replace it with such a complex infrastructure except to make it harder for anyone else--say, the open-source community--to make WinFS-compatible programs and servers.
Maybe, just maybe MS is trying something different for a change. Of course it's going to require big changes to the filesystem. I have a feeling that their interests lie in making a better FS first and an incompatible one second, not the other way around, as many would speculate. The author seems very intent on being able to access Windows disks over the network -- Longhorn won't really change that. If SAMBA doesn't work with Longhorn, there's always FTP. Somehow I don't think it's going to be as dire as the author makes it out to be.
Nah, it was already funny, because from the conversation we could all tell that you're a nerd.
My girlfriend immediately said, "oh my god, i'm dating a nerd."
Gotta love those Slashdot comments where someone throws in a line about having a girlfriend despite the fact that it adds nothing to the comment and doesn't relate to it at all.
It is, in fact, quite speedy.
.NET VM, and that's what matters. Google for benchmarks.
Oh, I know it's not slow (although there are many Java applications which are quite torturous to run, like WSAD or Eclipse). But the fact is, it's not faster than the
Great, but will it run on Solaris? OS X? AS/400? Linux?
You know, most developers targetting a desktop OS don't really care if their application runs on marginal OS's. If it can run on 95% of desktop computers, that's good enough.
I think you misunderstand.
Sure, Java can do all that too, but slowly.
XUL
.NET, vaporware.
Slow. Microsoft's XAML will be much faster and likely more robust, count on that. Hell, Microsoft managed to outdo Sun by producing a JVM (and this is in the early days of Java) that ran circles around Sun's JVM. Don't count them out.
Mono, Java, Parrot, others.
AKA: Not there yet, slower than
Thats the best list of things Linux "doesn't have"? You're not looking very hard.
Obviously you must have missed the part of my post where I mocked the typical Linux zealot (in this case, you) saying "oh yeah? Linux has that!" After which you proceeded to list things that don't work as good as Microsoft's stuff and/or requires kludgy hacks to get working.