I have no problem with Microsoft, infact they're a smart business... but their latest decision is very very very dangerous. The PC was so popular because it was open, because you could add hardware... run whatever you wanted, and had an incredible wealth of software. This is part of the reason Apple wasn't so successful... people don't want closed systems with little software. And the feeling in my gut is that Microsoft is trying to reverse the decision that the ibm developers at Boca Raton originally released the PC under. Of course Microsoft exploited IBM in the beginning, but setting a standard which they did with DOS/Windows isn't such a bad thing. Now though, by telling people what they can and can not do with their hardware, and also what they can and cannot do with their software (how long until Microsoft kills Sun, AOL, etc software compatiblity) they are overstepping their bounds. For the love of freedom of choice, I hope they fail... otherwise, if you think Microsoft is "evil" now, give them a few years. *sigh*
First a little (brief history):
IBM creates PC, needs OS decides to buy one goes with small company called Microsoft which it lets retain the rights to the OS. Microsoft goes out and buys OS off of seattle software company and sells DOS to IBM (and later Compaq and the rest of the clones), then fucks up a joint venuture with IBM to create 0S/2 (I'll always wonder how Gates could hate the 286 so much but still allow OS/2 to be written in Intel 286 Assembler when he knew for a fact C would be better). IBM gets fucked over by stupid management decisions and a very eager Microsoft that realizes that the key to the pc isn't so much hardware but software.
So after 20 years of being smacked around by Microsoft's thugish tactics... its good to see IBM standing up for something that it seems to believe in: open source. It makes me proud to be an employee.
Yes I know cable is regional, that wasn't my point. My point was in regards to the person that said there were no other cable isps in existance, which isn't true.
haha... they'll probably mark you as flamebait... oh well. Actually Compaq is the reason we graduated to the 386, with a little help from microsoft i'll give you. As in PC i guess I take for granted IBM-Compatible but thats basically what I mean... technically we could call a beowulf of gameboys a pc under your definition. Sorry, thats my mistake. As for windows stablility, this seems to be based on personal experience. My personal experience is that windows 2k is good (unless you run some buggy program, which then isn't microsofts fault). As for 9x, especially ME i've had immense amounts of problems with it... although alot of that could be my own fault because i can be hard very hard on OS's. As for development, i gave up on using windows... because unless it was 2k it woulnd't work. Hell, thats how i got into linux... ibm gave me a win95 box to do server programming on, and i got sick of having to reboot everytime i wanted to test my search engine.
Hmmm... i'm all for opening peoples eyes, however I do not believe in doing it for exploitation. Yeah sure they've opened peoples eyes, but for what purpose? To put blinders on them... so they can only see straight down the Microsoft/AOL path. Windows stable? That is foolish. I personally do not care who uses Linux. If I was the only person left in the world using it, i still would. However, I do not like when people complain about having no choice because I find it ignorant. However those were all your opinions, just as i have mine.
ps - the mac is not a PC... it is not an open standard and in no way could be called or compared to a pc running windows, linux, bsd, OS/2 or anything else
Now that is just plain silly. You being a/. reader, should very well know that you DO NOT HAVE TO USE any Microsoft or AOL products. Saying that you have no choice is rediculous. Yeah sure 25 million people use AOL and countless use Microsoft, but that doesn't mean they have to. I don't. I have never touched AOL besides AIM (which is free anyway and relatively stable, i'm sure they ripped it off someone else) and as for Microsoft I'm a linux user, except for the occasional Win2K box (which isn't a horrible product). As you said leaving me with my only choice as a shitty product at a mediocre price yeah thats pretty true... but its not the only choice. Linux is free. Other isps maybe alittle more than aol without the hassle or restrictions. Now of course you could be talking in the 3rd person, talking as if you were brand new to computers and only knew what old Gateway and its like give you. And if thats the case, then I'm sorry if you feel the need to stand up for those that choose to remain ignorant and exploited. As for me and a great many/. readers, if we don't like it... we don't use it. We do some research look around, find something else (Why not Windows...??? How does Linux, BSD, OS/2, etc sound), or hell we create our own. So my friend, there is a choice... its just a matter of taking it.
As if anyone would be surprised by this. Aol and Microsoft (choose your evil) have been doing this since day 1, using a basic formula: Through cut throat tactics gain a rather good size market share, cut prices or hell give it away free raising market share again. Now merge with, finance, buyout or just plain destroy (Microsoft and Apple anyone???) your competitors and make a lot of money for along time. Money doesn't come from being the good guy folks, it comes from exploiting every possible expense or obstacle you have until it doesn't matter anymore. That is why companies like Microsoft and AOl have gotten so big... not because they're good software but because they've stood on the shoulders of others (IBM, Xerox, AT&T, etc) picking up scraps until all of a sudden they were the giants. Hate them as much as you want, but they do do one thing right: business.
ps- i'm not saying they're right in what they do... however they really haven't screwed over the consumers... just other companies (which yes is very very bad, and I apologize to any programmer who had the bad luck of getting in the way of AOL or Microsoft and their goals).
Is there anything they haven't tried to port NetBSD to? Seriously... they're going to run out processors soon. Now if they start porting NetBSD to other stuff... oh lets say people, cars, trees, etc then I might be impressed.
I don't see what the big deal is... I've had one of these convergence boxes for quite awhile, its called a "computer".
With it I can
1)Watch DVD and VHS
2)Play any game I wish (through emulators or directly from any system itself)
3)Full stereo with CD support and also this really neat thing that allows you to get music from other people
4)Watch cable and network television
5)Like tivo, choose what shows I want to see when i want to see them by using some special software to "download" them
6)get pay-per-view movies... without paying or renting them
7)dolby digital sound on everything
8)back-up all media formats I want to (including DVDS and CDs)
9)use as a telephone
10)send "email" which is like sending a letter only it gets there quicker and only gets lost 1% of the time
11)Listen to the radio...
12)make my own cds
13)full sound studio
14)full movie studio
15)camera built in, saving the pictures that can be "emailed" later or viewed whenever i want without risk of being damaged
16)using the internet, i can have access to all the information my head can hold if i'm willing to look
17)has a phone book build in
18)a map of the world with direction generators built in
I could go on forever about all the features of this box... but I just recommend you get one...
Well... expectations are just that... expectations, and have nothing to do with realitistic attitudes. Its sad that car companies publish statistics that support their wanting to make things cheaper. Its even sadder that noone is surprised anymore. Why should universities be any different? They are just as competitive and PR greedy as any corporation I've ever known.
Well lets think about this from a security position here...
1) Kernel = most important part of Operating System (if its down the system is down, fact of life)
2) Web Server = usually most compromisable service to an attack
3) Database = can contain extremely sensitive data
and also relativly prone to attacks
So... unless they're going to invest extremely heavily into security... I'd rather not see this Database intregrated into the kernel.
ps - I realize speed is an issue with kernel intregation... but hasn't anyone noticed why linux is more robust than windows??? hmm... could it have anything to do with user/application land vs kernel land?
So it turns out that when Microsoft (this is an example, not a Linux-YAY!!! Microsoft-BOO!!! post) does a "research" comparison that says that Microsoft Access on Windows 3.1 is faster than IBM DB2 on kernel 2.4, that I shouldn't believe them??? Well frankly I'm shocked, my world is now shattered *yawn*.
I don't want to sound crazy... but Red Hat making their database sounds kind of Micro$oft-istic *ack, gasp*. Hear me out here... lets see... we have Oracle... we have mySQL, we have DB2 (which runs great on Redhat), basically we have a vast number of databases. Yet RedHat decides to make their own. I question their intentions... hopefully they haven't been looking towards Redmond for a business model. The day Red Hat tells me I can only use the Red Hat Database connected to Red Hat Tux 2.0 is the day I tell Red Hat that they can keep their damn ISO.
I was thinking about it... we'd need to either 1)find a way to dump the linux kernel to a gameboy cartridge... or actually we'd need to build a gameboy net hub (gameboys already have "networking" capablilites built in through that little port on the bottom)... which we could possibly put the boot image on... haha... interesting idea though... i mean... we'd probably need a few hundred gameboys to get a ps2
Ok we get a back-pack and about 20 gameboys... we then port Linux to the 32-bit ARM processor (if its not already...;-)) and beowulf cluster them. Distributed Portable Computing (say that 3 times fast).
Re:...I thought open source was bad for business??
on
Red Hat In The Black
·
· Score: 1
Yes out of how many thousands that went under. You can compare raw numbers all you want, but they really don't mean anything. I think thousands is a generous figure, but thats out of tens of thousands that try. That is my point... 3 profiting open source companies out 30 is just as impressive as "thousands" of profitting commercial companies out of tens of thousands.
Well pac-man was the good guy so I'll take that as a compliment...;-)
Re:...I thought open source was bad for business??
on
Red Hat In The Black
·
· Score: 2
Well technically noone is really making money right now... besides what, maybe IBM, Microsoft and Oracle. Sun is hurting, and lets not forget the dot-coms. The thing about the open source companies is that they are new, where in the US I think its 1/10 success rate for new companies. And we're not talking mom and pop corner stores, we're talking about trying to create million dollar corporations. So yeah they destined to fail. However, I promise you that the failure rate of Open Source companies (your Redhats, VAs, Mandrakes, etc) is probably not all that far off from the failure rates of Commercial Companies. Its easy to look at microsoft the king of commercial software and then look at Red Hat the king of open source (sorry to anyone that dislikes redhat, but redhat is the most successful so far) and laugh and doom Open Source to failure. But I have a suspicion that now that Red Hat has gotten its foot in the door, that it should continue to turn a profit. Ultimately thats what corporations need to do, make money. And that is why companies such as IBM, Microsoft, etc are still around... because they some how managed to be that 1 company that was able to make some money.
Re:...I thought open source was bad for business??
on
Red Hat In The Black
·
· Score: 1
Well, Yes and No. Its not that the software is crap like Micro$oft and needs patches etc (although all major software projects have bugs). Its more along the lines of training, Sorry I didn't choose my words wisely enough. So yes the software needs support, but for the most part its due to people whos servers go down, or any problems that come from running a server (as opposed to Microsoft which yes supports servers, but seems like they mostly deal with support of desktop and workstation)
Slashdot Mirror
I have no problem with Microsoft, infact they're a smart business... but their latest decision is very very very dangerous. The PC was so popular because it was open, because you could add hardware... run whatever you wanted, and had an incredible wealth of software. This is part of the reason Apple wasn't so successful... people don't want closed systems with little software. And the feeling in my gut is that Microsoft is trying to reverse the decision that the ibm developers at Boca Raton originally released the PC under. Of course Microsoft exploited IBM in the beginning, but setting a standard which they did with DOS/Windows isn't such a bad thing. Now though, by telling people what they can and can not do with their hardware, and also what they can and cannot do with their software (how long until Microsoft kills Sun, AOL, etc software compatiblity) they are overstepping their bounds. For the love of freedom of choice, I hope they fail... otherwise, if you think Microsoft is "evil" now, give them a few years. *sigh*
First a little (brief history): IBM creates PC, needs OS decides to buy one goes with small company called Microsoft which it lets retain the rights to the OS. Microsoft goes out and buys OS off of seattle software company and sells DOS to IBM (and later Compaq and the rest of the clones), then fucks up a joint venuture with IBM to create 0S/2 (I'll always wonder how Gates could hate the 286 so much but still allow OS/2 to be written in Intel 286 Assembler when he knew for a fact C would be better). IBM gets fucked over by stupid management decisions and a very eager Microsoft that realizes that the key to the pc isn't so much hardware but software. So after 20 years of being smacked around by Microsoft's thugish tactics... its good to see IBM standing up for something that it seems to believe in: open source. It makes me proud to be an employee.
Yes I know cable is regional, that wasn't my point. My point was in regards to the person that said there were no other cable isps in existance, which isn't true.
haha... they'll probably mark you as flamebait... oh well. Actually Compaq is the reason we graduated to the 386, with a little help from microsoft i'll give you. As in PC i guess I take for granted IBM-Compatible but thats basically what I mean... technically we could call a beowulf of gameboys a pc under your definition. Sorry, thats my mistake. As for windows stablility, this seems to be based on personal experience. My personal experience is that windows 2k is good (unless you run some buggy program, which then isn't microsofts fault). As for 9x, especially ME i've had immense amounts of problems with it... although alot of that could be my own fault because i can be hard very hard on OS's. As for development, i gave up on using windows... because unless it was 2k it woulnd't work. Hell, thats how i got into linux... ibm gave me a win95 box to do server programming on, and i got sick of having to reboot everytime i wanted to test my search engine.
AT&T offer cable service from what I've seen. So do most cable companies. Time Warner/AOL is not the only cable company in the world.
Hmmm... i'm all for opening peoples eyes, however I do not believe in doing it for exploitation. Yeah sure they've opened peoples eyes, but for what purpose? To put blinders on them... so they can only see straight down the Microsoft/AOL path. Windows stable? That is foolish. I personally do not care who uses Linux. If I was the only person left in the world using it, i still would. However, I do not like when people complain about having no choice because I find it ignorant. However those were all your opinions, just as i have mine.
ps - the mac is not a PC... it is not an open standard and in no way could be called or compared to a pc running windows, linux, bsd, OS/2 or anything else
Now that is just plain silly. You being a /. reader, should very well know that you DO NOT HAVE TO USE any Microsoft or AOL products. Saying that you have no choice is rediculous. Yeah sure 25 million people use AOL and countless use Microsoft, but that doesn't mean they have to. I don't. I have never touched AOL besides AIM (which is free anyway and relatively stable, i'm sure they ripped it off someone else) and as for Microsoft I'm a linux user, except for the occasional Win2K box (which isn't a horrible product). As you said leaving me with my only choice as a shitty product at a mediocre price yeah thats pretty true... but its not the only choice. Linux is free. Other isps maybe alittle more than aol without the hassle or restrictions. Now of course you could be talking in the 3rd person, talking as if you were brand new to computers and only knew what old Gateway and its like give you. And if thats the case, then I'm sorry if you feel the need to stand up for those that choose to remain ignorant and exploited. As for me and a great many /. readers, if we don't like it... we don't use it. We do some research look around, find something else (Why not Windows...??? How does Linux, BSD, OS/2, etc sound), or hell we create our own. So my friend, there is a choice... its just a matter of taking it.
As if anyone would be surprised by this. Aol and Microsoft (choose your evil) have been doing this since day 1, using a basic formula: Through cut throat tactics gain a rather good size market share, cut prices or hell give it away free raising market share again. Now merge with, finance, buyout or just plain destroy (Microsoft and Apple anyone???) your competitors and make a lot of money for along time. Money doesn't come from being the good guy folks, it comes from exploiting every possible expense or obstacle you have until it doesn't matter anymore. That is why companies like Microsoft and AOl have gotten so big... not because they're good software but because they've stood on the shoulders of others (IBM, Xerox, AT&T, etc) picking up scraps until all of a sudden they were the giants. Hate them as much as you want, but they do do one thing right: business. ps- i'm not saying they're right in what they do... however they really haven't screwed over the consumers... just other companies (which yes is very very bad, and I apologize to any programmer who had the bad luck of getting in the way of AOL or Microsoft and their goals).
Is there anything they haven't tried to port NetBSD to? Seriously... they're going to run out processors soon. Now if they start porting NetBSD to other stuff... oh lets say people, cars, trees, etc then I might be impressed.
They have a partnership with mp3.com to distribute music, etc...
Maybe fitness centers can start doubling as power companies... a beowulf cluster of these could definitly help out a place like california
i can't but compaq and gateway can
;-)
I don't see what the big deal is... I've had one of these convergence boxes for quite awhile, its called a "computer".
With it I can
1)Watch DVD and VHS
2)Play any game I wish (through emulators or directly from any system itself)
3)Full stereo with CD support and also this really neat thing that allows you to get music from other people
4)Watch cable and network television
5)Like tivo, choose what shows I want to see when i want to see them by using some special software to "download" them
6)get pay-per-view movies... without paying or renting them
7)dolby digital sound on everything
8)back-up all media formats I want to (including DVDS and CDs)
9)use as a telephone
10)send "email" which is like sending a letter only it gets there quicker and only gets lost 1% of the time
11)Listen to the radio...
12)make my own cds
13)full sound studio
14)full movie studio
15)camera built in, saving the pictures that can be "emailed" later or viewed whenever i want without risk of being damaged
16)using the internet, i can have access to all the information my head can hold if i'm willing to look
17)has a phone book build in
18)a map of the world with direction generators built in
I could go on forever about all the features of this box... but I just recommend you get one...
Well... expectations are just that... expectations, and have nothing to do with realitistic attitudes. Its sad that car companies publish statistics that support their wanting to make things cheaper. Its even sadder that noone is surprised anymore. Why should universities be any different? They are just as competitive and PR greedy as any corporation I've ever known.
Well lets think about this from a security position here... 1) Kernel = most important part of Operating System (if its down the system is down, fact of life) 2) Web Server = usually most compromisable service to an attack 3) Database = can contain extremely sensitive data and also relativly prone to attacks So... unless they're going to invest extremely heavily into security... I'd rather not see this Database intregrated into the kernel.
ps - I realize speed is an issue with kernel intregation... but hasn't anyone noticed why linux is more robust than windows??? hmm... could it have anything to do with user/application land vs kernel land?
So it turns out that when Microsoft (this is an example, not a Linux-YAY!!! Microsoft-BOO!!! post) does a "research" comparison that says that Microsoft Access on Windows 3.1 is faster than IBM DB2 on kernel 2.4, that I shouldn't believe them??? Well frankly I'm shocked, my world is now shattered *yawn*.
I was going to flame you but nevermind... time to find my gameboy...
I don't want to sound crazy... but Red Hat making their database sounds kind of Micro$oft-istic *ack, gasp*. Hear me out here... lets see... we have Oracle... we have mySQL, we have DB2 (which runs great on Redhat), basically we have a vast number of databases. Yet RedHat decides to make their own. I question their intentions... hopefully they haven't been looking towards Redmond for a business model. The day Red Hat tells me I can only use the Red Hat Database connected to Red Hat Tux 2.0 is the day I tell Red Hat that they can keep their damn ISO.
I was thinking about it... we'd need to either 1)find a way to dump the linux kernel to a gameboy cartridge... or actually we'd need to build a gameboy net hub (gameboys already have "networking" capablilites built in through that little port on the bottom)... which we could possibly put the boot image on... haha... interesting idea though... i mean... we'd probably need a few hundred gameboys to get a ps2
Ok we get a back-pack and about 20 gameboys... we then port Linux to the 32-bit ARM processor (if its not already... ;-)) and beowulf cluster them. Distributed Portable Computing (say that 3 times fast).
Yes out of how many thousands that went under. You can compare raw numbers all you want, but they really don't mean anything. I think thousands is a generous figure, but thats out of tens of thousands that try. That is my point... 3 profiting open source companies out 30 is just as impressive as "thousands" of profitting commercial companies out of tens of thousands.
Well pac-man was the good guy so I'll take that as a compliment... ;-)
Well technically noone is really making money right now... besides what, maybe IBM, Microsoft and Oracle. Sun is hurting, and lets not forget the dot-coms. The thing about the open source companies is that they are new, where in the US I think its 1/10 success rate for new companies. And we're not talking mom and pop corner stores, we're talking about trying to create million dollar corporations. So yeah they destined to fail. However, I promise you that the failure rate of Open Source companies (your Redhats, VAs, Mandrakes, etc) is probably not all that far off from the failure rates of Commercial Companies. Its easy to look at microsoft the king of commercial software and then look at Red Hat the king of open source (sorry to anyone that dislikes redhat, but redhat is the most successful so far) and laugh and doom Open Source to failure. But I have a suspicion that now that Red Hat has gotten its foot in the door, that it should continue to turn a profit. Ultimately thats what corporations need to do, make money. And that is why companies such as IBM, Microsoft, etc are still around... because they some how managed to be that 1 company that was able to make some money.
Well, Yes and No. Its not that the software is crap like Micro$oft and needs patches etc (although all major software projects have bugs). Its more along the lines of training, Sorry I didn't choose my words wisely enough. So yes the software needs support, but for the most part its due to people whos servers go down, or any problems that come from running a server (as opposed to Microsoft which yes supports servers, but seems like they mostly deal with support of desktop and workstation)