When I was bored in high school, my friend and I created the beginnings of a programming language and wrote a compiler for it. The compiler reads source files in our invented language, outputs x86 assembly code in the format of a script to pipe into DOS DEBUG, then pipes it into DEBUG and the result is saved as a.COM file. The compiler was written in QBASIC.
We never got far enough to be useful, but it does actually work.
According to a source at Cox, Cox has been thinking of offering consumers a choice of multiple ISPs. Cox doesn't like @Home any more than the rest of us, but they had an exclusive contract, which it seems has now expired, or will soon expire. Cox has already done testing with Earthlink, so it's pretty much guaranteed that Earthlink will be one of the ISPs Cox offers. Whether or not they'll actually offer consumer choice remains to be seen, and I don't know about Comcast or AT&T.
It appears that I spoke out without really understanding what you were saying. Let me see if I understand you:
If my Web server were on a dynamic IP and I wanted my own.com domain, here's how it would normally work: the root server says.com is handled by the gTLD server. The gTLD server says mysite.com is handled by the nameservers listed on the domain registration, which are operated by a dynamic DNS hosting service I have signed up with. When I get a new IP, I run a script that contacts my DNS hosting service, and they update the DNS information.
What I first thought you were proposing was, you run the root servers, the aTLD servers, and the DNS servers, and I connect to you with a script when my IP changes. The only difference to me is, I'm using a different TLD (which of course only works for a handful of my friends).
What I now think you're proposing is, you run the root and aTLD servers, and I run my own DNS server on my dynamic IP. When my IP changes, I update my own zone files, etc. Once I've done that and reloaded, my script contacts your aTLD server, and you now point my domain to my server on the correct IP.
This is a very interesting idea that I had not considered seriously before. It would only work with aTLDs, because the NSI Registry doesn't update on the fly, which would be required for this proposal.
Biggest issue I see is that too many people aren't competent enough to run a DNS server, but like your idea, so would do it anyway. The question is, what's the worst thing they can possibly do? If they hose their config, are they just hurting themselves, or do they cause problems for others? If they can potentially cause problems for others, can you set up your system to ensure that doesn't happen? How will you deal with irate users who are upset because your service doesn't work, when in fact it's their own fault?
Now, assuming all the technical details are worked out and this is in fact a good idea: I have to recommend that you coordinate with the existing aTLD organizations out there, such as OpenNIC or New.net or whoever. Reason: too many groups trying to manage TLDs is a Bad Thing(tm). Your aTLD is useless if you don't have a broad user base, or if you conflict with another aTLD (because you don't know about each other or whatever). You'd still be authoritative for your own TLD (and able to do the dyndns thing), but let someone else manage the root.
By the way, the way I think aTLDs should be handled is a config file included from named.conf that contains a list of aTLDs and aTLD servers. Everything else should drop back to the official root servers. If all aTLD-related services were to drop offline, or if the data on their servers became corrupt, or whatever, my ability to resolve.com,.uk, etc. should not be affected in the slightest (because the official TLDs should still use the official root servers). This is what would make me the most comfortable as a DNS admin. From your previous post it sounds like you agree. I noticed that new.net offers this as an option; do you know who else does?
Also, I have concerns about creating new TLD's. Certainly more are needed, but ideally, I think that excluding ccTLD's, there need be no more than 70-80 TLD's. Any more than that, and they all lose meaning.
There are several alternate TLD organizations. Each has their own list of TLDs. I want to be able to resolve all of them, if A) they don't conflict with each other, B) they don't conflict with ICANN, and C) they don't have technical problems (unreliable servers, config problems, etc.). I don't necessarily want any new ones to be created - there are plenty already - but I do want the existing ones to resolve. It looks like OpenNIC is the only organization attempting to make this happen.
One other thing. You should be encouraging everyone to run BIND, and if security is a concern, mirror a copy of the chroot howto on your site.
A TLD organization, be it ICANN or OpenNIC or AlterDNS or whatever, should not be recommending what particular software I use. It is certainly reasonable to expect that only nameservers will directly use the service. However, it's nice of them that they also provide public nameservers, for those lacking the technical competence to run their own nameserver and whose ISP has a differing philosophy regarding alternate TLDs.
Also, I feel you are missing an opportunity, in not trying to implement dyndns from the ground up.
I get the distinct impression that you're trying to create a TLD that behaves like a second-level domain. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but be aware that that's what you're trying to do.
I'm not a total communist. There is a place for money in such things, a large commercial site is an appropriate candidate. But when AT&T suggests that I should pay for a business account for using port 80, is wrong.
I couldn't agree more, which is why I chose an ISP that allows me to run services on a residential connection.
Similarly, why should I pay for webhosting, if it's just a small dumb site?
If you're going to host it yourself, you shouldn't - the ability to do that should be included as part of what you pay for Internet connectivity. If you want someone else to host it, you should not expect it to be free.
Geocities, tripod, etc... just another way to keep us all down. I'd really love to see them wither and die.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Last I checked, they offered "free" Web hosting in exchange for plastering ads all over your site. Not something I'm interested in personally, but I strongly support their right to offer that service, provided the user knows what they're getting into and can choose alternatives if they wish.
Besides, I like the idea of taking money out of the equation entirely.
It's great that you're willing to volunteer your time and resources. On a large scale, it starts getting expensive.
Sorry, this post wasn't very well thought out. Just trying to point out problems with yours.
Linux already has more market share than MacOS, but what a great victory it will be when Linux has more market share among Apple users than MacOS does!
It won't happen. The Mac OS is the primary reason why I'm running PPC hardware to begin with. On top of that, why would you uninstall Mac OS X (with a FreeBSD-based userland) in favor of Linux?
Linux may become more widely used than Mac OS/Mac OS X, but not on PPC hardware.
Well, it stands to reason that if she were a witch, she would obviously be made out of wood (after all, you burn witches at the stake, and you also burn wood). Since wood floats in water, and ducks also float in water, all you have to do to confirm whether she is indeed a witch is to get a scale, and compare her weight to that of a duck.
I wish they'd put an automated notice about that. I noticed the problem, but confirmation would have made me feel better - just below "Stuff that matters" and above the first article would be fine. I'm assuming the Slashcode has some way to tell when the DB is broke?
Wasn't one of the new features that we can create our own threads or something to discuss this? How do you do that?
Re:Ignorant whiner fanboys cant bother to comprehe
on
The New Zelda
·
· Score: 1
Wait, are you going to jump on me for not using double space after a period?
Oh come on, HTML renders double spaces as single spaces anyway, so on a Web page it doesn't make a difference.
niether damn it! It should be an overhead view with beeps for sounds and very blocky characters... why do they have to ruin a good game!
This is EXACTLY the direction Nintendo is moving towards. The "realistic" approach is getting lame, so they're moving back to more basic conceptual graphics and focusing on gameplay.
The attack exploited a known vulnerability in certain Microsoft software that some Cisco products were running. Other Cisco products also were vulnerable due to unexpected side effects.
Since when do Cisco products run Microsoft software?
I think a journalist is confused...
Code Red affects Microsoft Windows systems running IIS, and I believe the exploit used also crashes some Cisco 67x DSL routers with old firmware. Cisco won't provide firmware patches because Cisco doesn't sell 67x routers to consumers directly, and Qwest won't provide firmware patches because Qwest doesn't care.
which is a different Ask Slashdot: why is there no version 4 of so many things? No DX4, No Palm 4, no Voodoo 4, no Borland C++ Builder 4... all skipped straight to 5... go figure
Was there an MS-DOS 4?
Not only was there no MS Word 4, but they skipped 3 and 5 too.
But, considering this, what does this say *REALLY* about M$ and its XBox? Arent they in fact cutting off PeeCee sellers from a market - the would-be-desktop-computer gamers market? Isnt M$ REALLY competing with its own customers in this case? With M$ focusing on realeasing a box themseleves - wont that mean decreased sales for their own customers?
When has Microsoft ever hesitated to screw their customers?
That just made me think, is there such a thing as an OpenGL for gaming consoles? Imagine how much nicer it would be if you could program your game once for one API, and run it on PS2, N64, GC, etc, etc. That would be really kickass!
Microsoft wants the API to be DirectX, and the gaming console to be the X-Box.
The "you" is the above quote refers to the licensee, and not the author of the code, the copyright holder, the licensor. The option to copy, distribute, modify, etc. code licensed under a GPL or LGPL license that includes the "or any later version" language lies with the licensee, not the licensor.
Huh?
Obviously that's talking about the licensee being able to use the old version of the GPL instead of a newer version, if RMS decides to do something nutty with the new version.
However, as a developer, I can still release my code under any license I like. If I want to release it under the old version of the GPL, fine. If I want to release it under a new version, fine. If I want to release it under a BSD license, fine. If I want to release closed-source binaries, fine. It's my code. All GPL'd code I have previously released may be modified and distributed under the old GPL, or optionally under the new GPL, but I can always release it again, under a new license, because it's my code, and neither RMS nor anyone else can do anything to change that.
The sole reason for DSL is, DSL uses existing wiring to your house. Most people only have three wires to their house: electric power, telephone, and sometimes cable TV. Power companies have been investigating the possibility of providing broadband Internet access through existing power lines, but as far as I know, none of them have implemented anything yet. Obviously, cable companies are offering cable modem services. That leaves the phone lines, which are owned and controlled by the telephone companies.
Also, the "or any later version" provision of the (L)GPL does not allow RMS to "to screw you when it pleases him", because the license explicitly states that "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version."
More importantly, "OR any later version" means you can keep using the old one if you prefer.
often when people discuss about "linux vs microsoft" they see it as just a discussion on technical merits. they do not understand that what it is all about is a matter of freedom.
I suspect that most of us use Linux for technical reasons, for the availability of the source code and the flexibility that that brings, and the constant contributions by the community. For some, add free-as-in-beer to that list. BSD would give me all these things just as well as Linux does.
Alright, this looks like a troll, but what the heck, it's time to try out the new improved Slashdot.
One of them is keeping every part of "GNU/Linux" as cheap as possible. This is really necessary, if you look at the facts:
Necessary to whom?
If you put Linux next to some other operating systems out there for a cost comparison, the conclusions are devastating for Linux.
By "some other operating systems", are you including the likes of Windows NT? Mac OS? Or just other UNIX variants like FreeBSD or Solaris? Are you referring to servers or desktop machines? Do you have any numbers to back up your claim?
Linux costs not only more because of the frequent updates which require new cdrom's to be bought if you don't have a high speed Internet connection.
What frequent updates are you talking about? Security patches? I certainly hope you're not suggesting that a system administrator using ANY operating system not keep up to date on security patches. After all, look at Code Red - the patch has been available for months, but there are still infected machines spreading the worm to this day. If you're suggesting that an update is required every time anyone releases a new version of something, you're out of your mind.
Another factor in Linux cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously.
My experience has been quite the opposite. Some initial setup work is certainly required, but once you've got everything configured, it stays the way you left it. Linux is comparable to other UNIX variants in this regard - quite a contrast from Windows, which generally needs constant babysitting.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose loses water, when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
I really can't comment on this; perhaps someone else will shed some light. It should be noted, however, that FreeBSD uses the UFS filesystem, as do many other BSD variants including (optionally) Mac OS X.
Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally.
A regular thing? I don't believe I've ever seen a crash on a Linux box that couldn't be attributed to outside influences or hardware failure (note to self: when hot-plugging SCSI drives, take care that you plug the power connector in straight, and don't inadvertently touch a hot connector to ground). If you've had regular crashes under Linux, maybe you have flakey hardware, or maybe your distribution has made buggy modifications (*cough*RedHat?*cough*), or maybe you are simply incompetent.
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I've noticed that most people who think Linux has a steep learning curve are those who already have previous experience with another system, and are forced to unlearn years of habit. To me, configuring Apache is a cinch, but put me in front of IIS and I don't know where to begin. Slackware seems pretty logical to me, but many things in SunOS feel backwards and strange. If you're referring to desktop systems, I've seen several people with no prior Linux experience sit down in front of KDE and feel fairly comfortable immediately.
Again you mention random data corruption - I have to question both your hardware and your software, since I have not heard of this being a common problem. Childish and unprofessional? Sometimes I believe a personal touch is appropriate, but perhaps you could provide some examples?
I can go on and on and on, but the message is clear. In this world, there is no place for Linux. It's not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc. The best place it should ever reach is the toy store, and even that would be flattering.
You, sir, are a troll. I'm not denying that other OSes may be better suited to certain tasks, but Linux suits me just fine for now.
Slashdot Mirror
When I was bored in high school, my friend and I created the beginnings of a programming language and wrote a compiler for it. The compiler reads source files in our invented language, outputs x86 assembly code in the format of a script to pipe into DOS DEBUG, then pipes it into DEBUG and the result is saved as a .COM file. The compiler was written in QBASIC.
We never got far enough to be useful, but it does actually work.
According to a source at Cox, Cox has been thinking of offering consumers a choice of multiple ISPs. Cox doesn't like @Home any more than the rest of us, but they had an exclusive contract, which it seems has now expired, or will soon expire. Cox has already done testing with Earthlink, so it's pretty much guaranteed that Earthlink will be one of the ISPs Cox offers. Whether or not they'll actually offer consumer choice remains to be seen, and I don't know about Comcast or AT&T.
It appears that I spoke out without really understanding what you were saying. Let me see if I understand you:
.com domain, here's how it would normally work: the root server says .com is handled by the gTLD server. The gTLD server says mysite.com is handled by the nameservers listed on the domain registration, which are operated by a dynamic DNS hosting service I have signed up with. When I get a new IP, I run a script that contacts my DNS hosting service, and they update the DNS information.
.com, .uk, etc. should not be affected in the slightest (because the official TLDs should still use the official root servers). This is what would make me the most comfortable as a DNS admin. From your previous post it sounds like you agree. I noticed that new.net offers this as an option; do you know who else does?
If my Web server were on a dynamic IP and I wanted my own
What I first thought you were proposing was, you run the root servers, the aTLD servers, and the DNS servers, and I connect to you with a script when my IP changes. The only difference to me is, I'm using a different TLD (which of course only works for a handful of my friends).
What I now think you're proposing is, you run the root and aTLD servers, and I run my own DNS server on my dynamic IP. When my IP changes, I update my own zone files, etc. Once I've done that and reloaded, my script contacts your aTLD server, and you now point my domain to my server on the correct IP.
This is a very interesting idea that I had not considered seriously before. It would only work with aTLDs, because the NSI Registry doesn't update on the fly, which would be required for this proposal.
Biggest issue I see is that too many people aren't competent enough to run a DNS server, but like your idea, so would do it anyway. The question is, what's the worst thing they can possibly do? If they hose their config, are they just hurting themselves, or do they cause problems for others? If they can potentially cause problems for others, can you set up your system to ensure that doesn't happen? How will you deal with irate users who are upset because your service doesn't work, when in fact it's their own fault?
Now, assuming all the technical details are worked out and this is in fact a good idea: I have to recommend that you coordinate with the existing aTLD organizations out there, such as OpenNIC or New.net or whoever. Reason: too many groups trying to manage TLDs is a Bad Thing(tm). Your aTLD is useless if you don't have a broad user base, or if you conflict with another aTLD (because you don't know about each other or whatever). You'd still be authoritative for your own TLD (and able to do the dyndns thing), but let someone else manage the root.
By the way, the way I think aTLDs should be handled is a config file included from named.conf that contains a list of aTLDs and aTLD servers. Everything else should drop back to the official root servers. If all aTLD-related services were to drop offline, or if the data on their servers became corrupt, or whatever, my ability to resolve
Also, I have concerns about creating new TLD's. Certainly more are needed, but ideally, I think that excluding ccTLD's, there need be no more than 70-80 TLD's. Any more than that, and they all lose meaning.
There are several alternate TLD organizations. Each has their own list of TLDs. I want to be able to resolve all of them, if A) they don't conflict with each other, B) they don't conflict with ICANN, and C) they don't have technical problems (unreliable servers, config problems, etc.). I don't necessarily want any new ones to be created - there are plenty already - but I do want the existing ones to resolve. It looks like OpenNIC is the only organization attempting to make this happen.
One other thing. You should be encouraging everyone to run BIND, and if security is a concern, mirror a copy of the chroot howto on your site.
A TLD organization, be it ICANN or OpenNIC or AlterDNS or whatever, should not be recommending what particular software I use. It is certainly reasonable to expect that only nameservers will directly use the service. However, it's nice of them that they also provide public nameservers, for those lacking the technical competence to run their own nameserver and whose ISP has a differing philosophy regarding alternate TLDs.
Also, I feel you are missing an opportunity, in not trying to implement dyndns from the ground up.
I get the distinct impression that you're trying to create a TLD that behaves like a second-level domain. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose, but be aware that that's what you're trying to do.
I'm not a total communist. There is a place for money in such things, a large commercial site is an appropriate candidate. But when AT&T suggests that I should pay for a business account for using port 80, is wrong.
I couldn't agree more, which is why I chose an ISP that allows me to run services on a residential connection.
Similarly, why should I pay for webhosting, if it's just a small dumb site?
If you're going to host it yourself, you shouldn't - the ability to do that should be included as part of what you pay for Internet connectivity. If you want someone else to host it, you should not expect it to be free.
Geocities, tripod, etc... just another way to keep us all down. I'd really love to see them wither and die.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Last I checked, they offered "free" Web hosting in exchange for plastering ads all over your site. Not something I'm interested in personally, but I strongly support their right to offer that service, provided the user knows what they're getting into and can choose alternatives if they wish.
Besides, I like the idea of taking money out of the equation entirely.
It's great that you're willing to volunteer your time and resources. On a large scale, it starts getting expensive.
Sorry, this post wasn't very well thought out. Just trying to point out problems with yours.
At least it's not QuickTime. ;-)
(personally I'd rather it were, but I'm on a Mac.)
Linux already has more market share than MacOS, but what a great victory it will be when Linux has more market share among Apple users than MacOS does!
It won't happen. The Mac OS is the primary reason why I'm running PPC hardware to begin with. On top of that, why would you uninstall Mac OS X (with a FreeBSD-based userland) in favor of Linux?
Linux may become more widely used than Mac OS/Mac OS X, but not on PPC hardware.
So where can we pirate this game?
Well, it stands to reason that if she were a witch, she would obviously be made out of wood (after all, you burn witches at the stake, and you also burn wood). Since wood floats in water, and ducks also float in water, all you have to do to confirm whether she is indeed a witch is to get a scale, and compare her weight to that of a duck.
"two wrongs don't make a right"
...but three lefts do.
I wish they'd put an automated notice about that. I noticed the problem, but confirmation would have made me feel better - just below "Stuff that matters" and above the first article would be fine. I'm assuming the Slashcode has some way to tell when the DB is broke?
Wasn't one of the new features that we can create our own threads or something to discuss this? How do you do that?
Wait, are you going to jump on me for not using double space after a period?
Oh come on, HTML renders double spaces as single spaces anyway, so on a Web page it doesn't make a difference.
niether damn it! It should be an overhead view with beeps for sounds and very blocky characters... why do they have to ruin a good game!
This is EXACTLY the direction Nintendo is moving towards. The "realistic" approach is getting lame, so they're moving back to more basic conceptual graphics and focusing on gameplay.
For those of you too lazy to click the link:
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it."
- Linus Torvalds
Microsoft would probably just offer everyone a free month of MSN Internet connectivity. :-)
Actually, qwest.net is being sold to MSN.
The attack exploited a known vulnerability in certain Microsoft software that some Cisco products were running. Other Cisco products also were vulnerable due to unexpected side effects.
Since when do Cisco products run Microsoft software?
I think a journalist is confused...
Code Red affects Microsoft Windows systems running IIS, and I believe the exploit used also crashes some Cisco 67x DSL routers with old firmware. Cisco won't provide firmware patches because Cisco doesn't sell 67x routers to consumers directly, and Qwest won't provide firmware patches because Qwest doesn't care.
This is why I always type drunk.
On the downside, you tend to type "rm" when you mean "mv" and "mke2fs" when you mean "e2fsck", but that's a small price to pay for security!
Perhaps this is because Microsoft's implementation of a GUI is so poor?
Your mother's preference for DOS is similar to many Mac users' preference for the Mac OS, which (unlike Windows) always does what you tell it to.
which is a different Ask Slashdot: why is there no version 4 of so many things? No DX4, No Palm 4, no Voodoo 4, no Borland C++ Builder 4 ... all skipped straight to 5... go figure
Was there an MS-DOS 4?
Not only was there no MS Word 4, but they skipped 3 and 5 too.
Slackware Linux had 4, but skipped 5 and 6.
Anything else?
But, considering this, what does this say *REALLY* about M$ and its XBox? Arent they in fact cutting off PeeCee sellers from a market - the would-be-desktop-computer gamers market? Isnt M$ REALLY competing with its own customers in this case? With M$ focusing on realeasing a box themseleves - wont that mean decreased sales for their own customers?
When has Microsoft ever hesitated to screw their customers?
That just made me think, is there such a thing as an OpenGL for gaming consoles? Imagine how much nicer it would be if you could program your game once for one API, and run it on PS2, N64, GC, etc, etc. That would be really kickass!
Microsoft wants the API to be DirectX, and the gaming console to be the X-Box.
The "you" is the above quote refers to the licensee, and not the author of the code, the copyright holder, the licensor. The option to copy, distribute, modify, etc. code licensed under a GPL or LGPL license that includes the "or any later version" language lies with the licensee, not the licensor.
Huh?
Obviously that's talking about the licensee being able to use the old version of the GPL instead of a newer version, if RMS decides to do something nutty with the new version.
However, as a developer, I can still release my code under any license I like. If I want to release it under the old version of the GPL, fine. If I want to release it under a new version, fine. If I want to release it under a BSD license, fine. If I want to release closed-source binaries, fine. It's my code. All GPL'd code I have previously released may be modified and distributed under the old GPL, or optionally under the new GPL, but I can always release it again, under a new license, because it's my code, and neither RMS nor anyone else can do anything to change that.
The sole reason for DSL is, DSL uses existing wiring to your house. Most people only have three wires to their house: electric power, telephone, and sometimes cable TV. Power companies have been investigating the possibility of providing broadband Internet access through existing power lines, but as far as I know, none of them have implemented anything yet. Obviously, cable companies are offering cable modem services. That leaves the phone lines, which are owned and controlled by the telephone companies.
Also, the "or any later version" provision of the (L)GPL does not allow RMS to "to screw you when it pleases him", because the license explicitly states that "Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version."
More importantly, "OR any later version" means you can keep using the old one if you prefer.
often when people discuss about "linux vs microsoft" they see it as just a discussion on technical merits. they do not understand that what it is all about is a matter of freedom.
I suspect that most of us use Linux for technical reasons, for the availability of the source code and the flexibility that that brings, and the constant contributions by the community. For some, add free-as-in-beer to that list. BSD would give me all these things just as well as Linux does.
Alright, this looks like a troll, but what the heck, it's time to try out the new improved Slashdot.
One of them is keeping every part of "GNU/Linux" as cheap as possible. This is really necessary, if you look at the facts:
Necessary to whom?
If you put Linux next to some other operating systems out there for a cost comparison, the conclusions are devastating for Linux.
By "some other operating systems", are you including the likes of Windows NT? Mac OS? Or just other UNIX variants like FreeBSD or Solaris? Are you referring to servers or desktop machines? Do you have any numbers to back up your claim?
Linux costs not only more because of the frequent updates which require new cdrom's to be bought if you don't have a high speed Internet connection.
What frequent updates are you talking about? Security patches? I certainly hope you're not suggesting that a system administrator using ANY operating system not keep up to date on security patches. After all, look at Code Red - the patch has been available for months, but there are still infected machines spreading the worm to this day. If you're suggesting that an update is required every time anyone releases a new version of something, you're out of your mind.
Another factor in Linux cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously.
My experience has been quite the opposite. Some initial setup work is certainly required, but once you've got everything configured, it stays the way you left it. Linux is comparable to other UNIX variants in this regard - quite a contrast from Windows, which generally needs constant babysitting.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose loses water, when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
I really can't comment on this; perhaps someone else will shed some light. It should be noted, however, that FreeBSD uses the UFS filesystem, as do many other BSD variants including (optionally) Mac OS X.
Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally.
A regular thing? I don't believe I've ever seen a crash on a Linux box that couldn't be attributed to outside influences or hardware failure (note to self: when hot-plugging SCSI drives, take care that you plug the power connector in straight, and don't inadvertently touch a hot connector to ground). If you've had regular crashes under Linux, maybe you have flakey hardware, or maybe your distribution has made buggy modifications (*cough*RedHat?*cough*), or maybe you are simply incompetent.
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I've noticed that most people who think Linux has a steep learning curve are those who already have previous experience with another system, and are forced to unlearn years of habit. To me, configuring Apache is a cinch, but put me in front of IIS and I don't know where to begin. Slackware seems pretty logical to me, but many things in SunOS feel backwards and strange. If you're referring to desktop systems, I've seen several people with no prior Linux experience sit down in front of KDE and feel fairly comfortable immediately.
Again you mention random data corruption - I have to question both your hardware and your software, since I have not heard of this being a common problem. Childish and unprofessional? Sometimes I believe a personal touch is appropriate, but perhaps you could provide some examples?
I can go on and on and on, but the message is clear. In this world, there is no place for Linux. It's not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc. The best place it should ever reach is the toy store, and even that would be flattering.
You, sir, are a troll. I'm not denying that other OSes may be better suited to certain tasks, but Linux suits me just fine for now.