I think we're talking apples and oranges a bit here. I'm not opposed to patents. But I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that the W3C patents were to ensure that EVERYONE had access to them. As a standard they would be available to ALL and not be controlled by any one entity or company.
It would seem to me that charging people to implement these standards would violate this premise. Perhaps I was reading this incorrectly, but this proposal raised an awful lot of havoc in the OSS community
As I recall, there were numerous stories on both/. and the Reg about W3C planning on implementing a licensing fee for those whoimplement patents owned by the W3C.
Isn't that the same thing? We have put together this great new standard in an open forum, but to actually implement it, you have to pay, even a MINOR fee. This would effectively knock out every OSS-type implementation. The $$$ wouldn't be a problem for MS, IBM, Oracle, etc. But for Linux and others it's a deal-killer.
It's my personal opinion that to develop a standard in the open forums and then charge for them is self-defeating. It's not really helped the OMG group very much.
My other beef with the W3C is that I feel they have "lost their edge". How long have various XML standards been sitting on desks? Where is SOAP as a standard? I really don't know. I became irritated and stopped watching last year. They may be done with 1.0, but is there any provision for security? Validation? Or is this to be left to the implementor exclusively?
I've seen this with other groups as well. As a Java code-monkey, I've watched the Java Community Process grind to a near halt as well. The Java SOAP spec is not yet finished, JAXM is farther along, but still not at 1.0. Is there any coherency between JAXM and message-driven EJBs?
Sorry about that long-winded response/rant, but I feel that as these standards organizations embrace more-and-more of a corporate influence they adopt more-and-more of the beurocratic overhead and other issues associated with these corporations. Ultimately they lose their effectiveness.
To the other responder, I really don't know much about JPEG2000. I don't know if your post was a real question or a statement.
Between this absurdity and the W3C (talk about yet another organization which has become utterly worthless) trying to implment licensing fees on thier stuff we're going to end up in an open world.
Am I a zealot? Perhaps. But, think of it this way - why did TCP/IP become "the" networking standard? Because IBM was sucking the life out of people with SNA. The same will happen here.
There is no "value added" (nice little overused consulting term) when people use a technology that has this kind of licensing scheme. In the end, technology like this is used to support a service. In this case: Streaming Video. If there's an Open or free (as in beer) alternative, why not use that technology instead?
These guys are setting the precedent for their own demise. They do not have the clout to demand such license arrangements and maintain market share. Such an absurd tactic will only add fuel to the fire to use other standards, perhaps such as the Ogg Vorbis effort...
Not wanting to needlessly bring up the Beast here, but they too have been trying to establish a similar control over electronic media through their wma (is that right?) standard. This is NOT a one front attack, but one with many seperate, but similar, efforts to control and hence, bill a new industry (eletronic &| streaming media).
I'm not anti-captialistic, quite the contrary, but I don't see the need to pay for something where it brings little or no value to me...
HOLD ON THERE TIGER. What is NOT shown in that number is that MSN has purchased many of those users. Take Qwest (Q-worst?) for example. I was fat, dumb and happy using Qwest DSL and qwest.net. Then the BORG, Redmond division, came in and purchased the Qwest.net subscriber base.
We were told of this marvelous "Upgrade" to the garbage that is MSN. I work from home and have had as many as 5 machines (Linux, Solaris and a windows box) networked and connected to the net at a time.
I now pay $20 more a month to remain a qwest user so I can actually use the service.
/rant
Sorry, blood pressure rose there for a moment... The point is that MSN BOUGHT many of those users, or there were people foolish enough to USE the 6-month free MSN subscription with their new computers.
This is absolutely right. We were doing some J2EE development to be deployed on Solaris/SPARC and so wanted to do testing on Solaris/x86 since the alternative was Windows (yeeech). The Unix guys wouldn't loan us a SPARC box (which I understand). First off, Sun didn't have a Solaris/x86 J2EE jar. Unreal.
Then, we did some testing on simple RPC calls using RMI (same code) on Windows, Solaris/x86 and Linux (older RH 6.2). All on similar HW except the Linux box had less RAM. Windows and Solaris were neck and neck and Linux soundly beat them both. Simple test, but still...
I expected Linux and Windows to be neck-and-neck with Solaris giving them a sound thumping. I suppose I don't blame Sun (since they don't see any real revenue from Solaris/x86), but it was disappointing to see that OS relegated to "red-haired stepchild" on the x86.
Even in good economic times, I don't think it makes great sense to be buring dollars half-way supporting something that doesn't make you money and doesn't really fit into an overall corporate strategy. With the economy hurting...
I think that's one of the biggedt downfalls of Word. It tries to "think" for you...
No, no, no, you want the tabs over here.
BAH! My project team for a grad school project spent almost as much time during crunch undoing Word's brilliant formatting decisions as we did proofreading. That's the biggest draw (IMHO) of both KWord and StarOffice...
This is BULLSHIT, plain and simple. Let them TRY to claim those intellectual property rights in court. See how far THAT gets em. They'd get their asses kicked right out of the courtroom. IP is not easy to enforce if there is legit reason for ownership to be transitioned. With something like "if it travels over our lines, we own it"...
Secondly, I know people who regularly SSH back to thier *nix boxes at home to check e-mail, upload stuff to work on at night, over the weekend, etc. Most of these guys don't know their @ss from a hole in the ground. They're on cable - no sweat.
As we're actually beginning to SEE some competition in this space, these guys aren't going to want to eliminate customers. Either they'll look the other way OR they'll start offering more competative prices.
Oh, and as a side note to the clowns who are posting: Quit whining and get over it, I have one very simple thing to say: STFU and go get yourself steamrolled. If consumers DON'T bitch, we DON'T complain, we DON'T push the limits, we'd never get better service! You morons! If you don't DEMAND better service &| prices, you WON'T GET THEM!
Only when consumers demand better, does it happen, nobody, not even the Great Redmond Evil can ignore customers for long. Eventaully the consumer really IS king.
AND with that in mind, who's going to use locked down crap that you aren't able to access in the way you please.
Either:
People will just not use content using the BS licensing (in the same way a record company had to pull the copyrighted Imbruglia albuk b/c so many folks were pissed off)
or
EVENTUALLY a consumer right group will start going against it and the consumer will win some rights back
Personally, I'd rather see the first choice, I'd LOVE to these these jerks get knocked on their ass profit wise for this kind of garbage.
but he falls victim to th edesire to overstate something and make it into an absoute.
Very few places where a total re-write is justified is one. While IMHO, this should be very carefully decided upon, all those little hairs and bug fixes add up. Eventually the code loses it's maintainability because it's so hard to read. What's the point of going through and maintaining code that's held together with duct tape (if you're lucky) or bubble-gum.
Further, what about improvements in HW and SW development tools/languages/methods? I think each has a viable arguement for re-writing code. If your code isn't too tightly coupled you can do the re-write piecemeal, module at a time. This is obvoiusly better than trying to re-write an entire project.
The other argument against his theory IS MS. I mean this seriously, not in the traditional screw-MS mentality. Do people REALLY think folks are getting the VALUE they should out of Windows, esp given its SIZE?
Let's not forget that NT was originally written by the same guy who led the VMS effort. VMS - dead or not - was an excellent OS - stable and multitasking. I don't really believe that MS has taken advantage of the skill of this gentleman (forget his name) and worked to make Windows have those same qualities...
But the alternative (in the US) is f*cking advertisers sending phones messages when they're in the vicinity of certian stores.
Anyone remember reading about the test of this little "technology" in Boulder CO (of all places)? The advertiser was "very pleased" with the number of people who READ the ad.
Great, so they can trace who read the &^$%*& things as well. I think my Sprint phone gets 100 free text messages before I have to start _paying_. Which is great - the recipient gets to pay to be spammed...
You have a point, I was assuming that that he was talking about OSS projects in general, my mistake.
From that standpoint, I'm not convinced that OSS-based companies can't make money, but the business process for doing so has not been firmly established...
The biggest problem with his statements is that he completely ignores why successful OSS projects are successful. If it was the bubble, then OSS would be dead. OSS was around long before and and will be around long after the "bubble". There are plenty of examples of OSS projects which are succeeding despite this "mass-delusion" -> Apache, Tomcat, Linux, MySQL, PostGRES...
The fallacy being spread is that OSS projects cannot, in his words organize and focus enormous human and financial resources on creating and deploying software technology sustained over the long term has been proven false over the lifespan of Linux. To say that great finances are critical also ignores aforementioned success.
A great product sells itself. Otherwise OSS really would be out the door.
Here's where the real difference lies - the strength big players is not (and does not need to be) in their coding,. MS has proven this to be true. But the rest of his statement blurs why popular OSS projects are so - they are so because they have been able to produce high-quality products. Last I checked, coding was pretty key here, as is focus and efficient utilization of resources. Can they maintain it over the long term? Linux is 10 uears old, Apache is up there, BSD...
...a form of collective geek madness. My favorite, a dismissal of success under the ambiguous "Those silly geeks". On the contrary, history will look back on it as a maturation of software development. OSS projects which serve useful puposes have, since the beginning of the "movement", been successful. Why? Because of they ARE useful and widely available without increased and wasteful overhead expense on "support" and "maintenance" which go largely unused...
dissolved into a flame war, I think that the ending evaluation is that C# will be doomed to 2nd or 3rd place unless they can address multi-platform use. If that happens, well then the gloves are OFF.
MS needs to hurry however, as Java continues to gain in acceptance (regardless of it's problems) in more mainstream sw arenas (Oracle, IBM). Let's not forget that technical superiority alone does NOT a successful product make. There are plenty of SmallTalk coders who think Java should have gone STRAIGHT to the junk heap.
I, like many others, do not particularly care for MS. I feel they provide low-quality product and user clever marketing combined with arm-twisting to maintain market dominance in the areas they control.
That said, as a Java programmer I'd really like to see some competition with Java. Who knows, Sun just may open in up to ensure that MS can't get a foothold!
"Troll" this dipshit. My Win2K machine doesn't handle 327MB very well. My MANDRAKE box running X, enlightenment (or BackBox) + multiple Konqueror windows + Tomcat and Apache and it's running great...
You're posting like a troll is the problem, you may have a point on SOME things but...
The statement that Linux will have to go proprietary to become more user-firendly / idiot-proof hasn't been established yet. Until recently, idiot-proof wasn't a requirement or even a focus in the OSS world.
Now that it IS a focus, we're seeing projects like KDE and others (Open Office) trying to address those concerns. Give it more time and we'll see. The most recent KDE is very impressive, Mozilla is making some good progress, the list keeps growing...
I'm rather suprised to see some of the comments above: areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast)
According to whom? MS? I think not, as these OSs grow they are also growing in bloat, stability may be increased, but the ratio of people needed to babysit those machines is far greater than *nix. Also the overhead of running those system means that you need more hardware to achieve desired performance. Neither is a big TCO plus. For large scale systems, I don't know of anyone who's pushing MS for TCO reasons. They're simply not viable
areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast)
WHAT?!? Which VMs are you speaking of? We justified migration to Linux based solely on speed tests (very basic tests) of Java on MS vs. Linux and Sun. Sun on SPARC wasn't really fair given HW differences, but Solaris and MS on Intel were neck and neck with Linux outperforming both by a comfortable margin (which suprised me all around).
I haven't seen many J2EE deployments on MS. Developed - yes, deployed - no. Why would someone want to? You develop something that runs on multiple plaforms and then deploy on the Lowest Common Denominator. Why?
I agree with you on the *nix front though. I think that much of the growth of Linux has been at the expense of lower-end *nix systems. The word is that Linux may not be eating away much at MS server numbers.
However, I've had 3 projects in the last 1.5 years replacing MS solutions for J2EE on Solaris and Linux, so I think there is migration which will catch up to MS at some point. This is not a battle to be won overnight...
and be done with it. He's babbling and making absurd accusations.
Yeah in Linux-world you do have to make SOME compromises for the sake of secutiy, BUT you mindless dolt, you don't have to hamstring your system to the point that you can't access needed resources (*like updates*).
Can we PLEASE get over the election fiasco. Neither side had clean hands in that entire affair. "Every vote should count!" - Yeah, like the 5000 military votes that got thrown out. They were both bad there.
Either way, did MS act in a monopolistic fashion? Is it a debate - of course they did? But do you want gov't regulation of the sw industry? I shudder at that. Once they get a foot in the door...
So they let MS off, big deal. Rep or Dem, they weren't going to accomplish much anyway. Let them compete (probably unfairly) against OSS anyway. I've replaced 3 MS "solutions" in as many years. J2EE on UNIX and now Linux
Look, if the product is sh!tty, the product is sh!tty, great marketing only serves as dressing up a pig. In the end, it's still a pig. But let the market decide.
If you go with MS, you get everything they offer - a nice pretty easy-to-use interface which crashes except when being used by the script kiddie across the street. Or go with and OSS solution. Yeah you need a little more knowledge than point-and-click but it just MAY be worth the effort
Mark this moron as flamebait. Perhaps he hasn't seen the latest KDE or KOffice? How about Open Office?
This guy seems to me like he's part of the "grass-roots" marketing effort MS is throwing out there. Why? How about:
Microsoft is loudly proclaiming XP as the messiah of operating systems (and why should we care what MS thinks?)
Because of the restrictions placed on it by the GPL, none of the software can become a commercial success (ask RedHat, SUSE, Mandrake, NuSphere, etc how well they're doing)
No one wishes the programmer hobbyists harm, but those hobbyists who think they can beat Microsoft at its own game while wearing "Free" handcuffs are going to be disappointed everytime. (linux and apache, end of debate)
As long as they only wear their OSS blinders and get their news from Slashdot (as opposed to an unbiased source like msn.com?)
Perhaps if he wasn't so obvious, he'd be more effective?
Are these morons part of some MS Grass-Roots marketing campaign? It seems like more and more that we're seeing posts which are pushing MS technology under the auspices of technical discussion
Running an NTFS filesystem under Linux seems to redefine the limits of stupidity IMHO (and I AM humble!;) ). You have ext3, RieserFS among others which offer some great features running on an OS which has very good stability (Linux), so what do you do? We'll go use a FS from EvilEmpire Inc and import some of their problems. I'm sure THAT will be high-quality!
That's like breeding a chihuahua with a doberman. I don't know what will come out of such a union, and I doubt I want to...
OK, I'll admit I'm a *nix snob, no bones about it, but please...
If you don't mind my saying, developers are usually smarter than the IT support staff... I worked in a "locked down" environment. We installed Mandrake over the worthless NT install and the MSCE (My Career is Still Endangered) Thought Police never noticed. Of course they picked up 3 "renegade" Win2K Server installs within days... The *nix guys just looked down on the wanna-be UNIX. Of course THEY wouldn't share any Sun boxes - the selfish bastards!;)
In the end, mgmt SHOULD be looking towards what is making/saving money. About a month after implementing this policy, they'll see that the development producivity is ~zero and reconsider.
It's a rarity when dev staff needs IT Support anyway. Eventually they just look the other way...
I've generally had GREAT experience with HP - the machine I bought ~8 years ago still has tons of info on the website, including technical info and drivers! As for components, well, it's 8 years old, nobody even makes SIMMS anymore!
And then my beloved Aptiva. Ah yes, while working for Big Blue I was suckered into buying one of these black beauties for a discount. The first 2 things I did was realize how AWFUL the sound and video cards really were. The website? What a joke, only 2 years old and there is nary a piece of useful info.
In general I've heard good things about Dell, although I suspect that every manufacturer has their glitches. I tend to think that after 2 years of use, requesting a replacement is a bit absurd...
Slashdot Mirror
It would seem to me that charging people to implement these standards would violate this premise. Perhaps I was reading this incorrectly, but this proposal raised an awful lot of havoc in the OSS community
Isn't that the same thing? We have put together this great new standard in an open forum, but to actually implement it, you have to pay, even a MINOR fee. This would effectively knock out every OSS-type implementation. The $$$ wouldn't be a problem for MS, IBM, Oracle, etc. But for Linux and others it's a deal-killer.
It's my personal opinion that to develop a standard in the open forums and then charge for them is self-defeating. It's not really helped the OMG group very much.
My other beef with the W3C is that I feel they have "lost their edge". How long have various XML standards been sitting on desks? Where is SOAP as a standard? I really don't know. I became irritated and stopped watching last year. They may be done with 1.0, but is there any provision for security? Validation? Or is this to be left to the implementor exclusively?
I've seen this with other groups as well. As a Java code-monkey, I've watched the Java Community Process grind to a near halt as well. The Java SOAP spec is not yet finished, JAXM is farther along, but still not at 1.0. Is there any coherency between JAXM and message-driven EJBs?
Sorry about that long-winded response/rant, but I feel that as these standards organizations embrace more-and-more of a corporate influence they adopt more-and-more of the beurocratic overhead and other issues associated with these corporations. Ultimately they lose their effectiveness.
To the other responder, I really don't know much about JPEG2000. I don't know if your post was a real question or a statement.
Am I a zealot? Perhaps. But, think of it this way - why did TCP/IP become "the" networking standard? Because IBM was sucking the life out of people with SNA. The same will happen here.
There is no "value added" (nice little overused consulting term) when people use a technology that has this kind of licensing scheme. In the end, technology like this is used to support a service. In this case: Streaming Video. If there's an Open or free (as in beer) alternative, why not use that technology instead?
These guys are setting the precedent for their own demise. They do not have the clout to demand such license arrangements and maintain market share. Such an absurd tactic will only add fuel to the fire to use other standards, perhaps such as the Ogg Vorbis effort...
Not wanting to needlessly bring up the Beast here, but they too have been trying to establish a similar control over electronic media through their wma (is that right?) standard. This is NOT a one front attack, but one with many seperate, but similar, efforts to control and hence, bill a new industry (eletronic &| streaming media).
I'm not anti-captialistic, quite the contrary, but I don't see the need to pay for something where it brings little or no value to me...
HOLD ON THERE TIGER. What is NOT shown in that number is that MSN has purchased many of those users. Take Qwest (Q-worst?) for example. I was fat, dumb and happy using Qwest DSL and qwest.net. Then the BORG, Redmond division, came in and purchased the Qwest.net subscriber base.
We were told of this marvelous "Upgrade" to the garbage that is MSN. I work from home and have had as many as 5 machines (Linux, Solaris and a windows box) networked and connected to the net at a time.
I now pay $20 more a month to remain a qwest user so I can actually use the service.
/rant
Sorry, blood pressure rose there for a moment... The point is that MSN BOUGHT many of those users, or there were people foolish enough to USE the 6-month free MSN subscription with their new computers.
We didn't need distributed networks and mirroring to find a stained dress...
This is absolutely right. We were doing some J2EE development to be deployed on Solaris/SPARC and so wanted to do testing on Solaris/x86 since the alternative was Windows (yeeech). The Unix guys wouldn't loan us a SPARC box (which I understand). First off, Sun didn't have a Solaris/x86 J2EE jar. Unreal.
Then, we did some testing on simple RPC calls using RMI (same code) on Windows, Solaris/x86 and Linux (older RH 6.2). All on similar HW except the Linux box had less RAM. Windows and Solaris were neck and neck and Linux soundly beat them both. Simple test, but still...
I expected Linux and Windows to be neck-and-neck with Solaris giving them a sound thumping. I suppose I don't blame Sun (since they don't see any real revenue from Solaris/x86), but it was disappointing to see that OS relegated to "red-haired stepchild" on the x86.
Even in good economic times, I don't think it makes great sense to be buring dollars half-way supporting something that doesn't make you money and doesn't really fit into an overall corporate strategy. With the economy hurting...
I can't say that I blame Sun...
I think that's one of the biggedt downfalls of Word. It tries to "think" for you...
.
No, no, no, you want the tabs over here
BAH! My project team for a grad school project spent almost as much time during crunch undoing Word's brilliant formatting decisions as we did proofreading. That's the biggest draw (IMHO) of both KWord and StarOffice...
This is BULLSHIT, plain and simple. Let them TRY to claim those intellectual property rights in court. See how far THAT gets em. They'd get their asses kicked right out of the courtroom. IP is not easy to enforce if there is legit reason for ownership to be transitioned. With something like "if it travels over our lines, we own it"...
Secondly, I know people who regularly SSH back to thier *nix boxes at home to check e-mail, upload stuff to work on at night, over the weekend, etc. Most of these guys don't know their @ss from a hole in the ground. They're on cable - no sweat.
As we're actually beginning to SEE some competition in this space, these guys aren't going to want to eliminate customers. Either they'll look the other way OR they'll start offering more competative prices.
Oh, and as a side note to the clowns who are posting: Quit whining and get over it, I have one very simple thing to say: STFU and go get yourself steamrolled. If consumers DON'T bitch, we DON'T complain, we DON'T push the limits, we'd never get better service! You morons! If you don't DEMAND better service &| prices, you WON'T GET THEM!
Only when consumers demand better, does it happen, nobody, not even the Great Redmond Evil can ignore customers for long. Eventaully the consumer really IS king.
IBM found this out the hard way in the 80s...
Either:
or
Personally, I'd rather see the first choice, I'd LOVE to these these jerks get knocked on their ass profit wise for this kind of garbage.
but he falls victim to th edesire to overstate something and make it into an absoute.
Very few places where a total re-write is justified is one. While IMHO, this should be very carefully decided upon, all those little hairs and bug fixes add up. Eventually the code loses it's maintainability because it's so hard to read. What's the point of going through and maintaining code that's held together with duct tape (if you're lucky) or bubble-gum.
Further, what about improvements in HW and SW development tools/languages/methods? I think each has a viable arguement for re-writing code. If your code isn't too tightly coupled you can do the re-write piecemeal, module at a time. This is obvoiusly better than trying to re-write an entire project.
The other argument against his theory IS MS. I mean this seriously, not in the traditional screw-MS mentality. Do people REALLY think folks are getting the VALUE they should out of Windows, esp given its SIZE?
Let's not forget that NT was originally written by the same guy who led the VMS effort. VMS - dead or not - was an excellent OS - stable and multitasking. I don't really believe that MS has taken advantage of the skill of this gentleman (forget his name) and worked to make Windows have those same qualities...
But the alternative (in the US) is f*cking advertisers sending phones messages when they're in the vicinity of certian stores.
Anyone remember reading about the test of this little "technology" in Boulder CO (of all places)? The advertiser was "very pleased" with the number of people who READ the ad.
Great, so they can trace who read the &^$%*& things as well. I think my Sprint phone gets 100 free text messages before I have to start _paying_. Which is great - the recipient gets to pay to be spammed...
You have a point, I was assuming that that he was talking about OSS projects in general, my mistake.
From that standpoint, I'm not convinced that OSS-based companies can't make money, but the business process for doing so has not been firmly established...
The biggest problem with his statements is that he completely ignores why successful OSS projects are successful. If it was the bubble, then OSS would be dead. OSS was around long before and and will be around long after the "bubble". There are plenty of examples of OSS projects which are succeeding despite this "mass-delusion" -> Apache, Tomcat, Linux, MySQL, PostGRES...
...a form of collective geek madness. My favorite, a dismissal of success under the ambiguous "Those silly geeks". On the contrary, history will look back on it as a maturation of software development. OSS projects which serve useful puposes have, since the beginning of the "movement", been successful. Why? Because of they ARE useful and widely available without increased and wasteful overhead expense on "support" and "maintenance" which go largely unused...
The fallacy being spread is that OSS projects cannot, in his words organize and focus enormous human and financial resources on creating and deploying software technology sustained over the long term has been proven false over the lifespan of Linux. To say that great finances are critical also ignores aforementioned success.
A great product sells itself. Otherwise OSS really would be out the door.
Here's where the real difference lies - the strength big players is not (and does not need to be) in their coding,. MS has proven this to be true. But the rest of his statement blurs why popular OSS projects are so - they are so because they have been able to produce high-quality products. Last I checked, coding was pretty key here, as is focus and efficient utilization of resources. Can they maintain it over the long term? Linux is 10 uears old, Apache is up there, BSD...
dissolved into a flame war, I think that the ending evaluation is that C# will be doomed to 2nd or 3rd place unless they can address multi-platform use. If that happens, well then the gloves are OFF.
MS needs to hurry however, as Java continues to gain in acceptance (regardless of it's problems) in more mainstream sw arenas (Oracle, IBM). Let's not forget that technical superiority alone does NOT a successful product make. There are plenty of SmallTalk coders who think Java should have gone STRAIGHT to the junk heap.
I, like many others, do not particularly care for MS. I feel they provide low-quality product and user clever marketing combined with arm-twisting to maintain market dominance in the areas they control.
That said, as a Java programmer I'd really like to see some competition with Java. Who knows, Sun just may open in up to ensure that MS can't get a foothold!
"Troll" this dipshit. My Win2K machine doesn't handle 327MB very well. My MANDRAKE box running X, enlightenment (or BackBox) + multiple Konqueror windows + Tomcat and Apache and it's running great...
You're posting like a troll is the problem, you may have a point on SOME things but...
The statement that Linux will have to go proprietary to become more user-firendly / idiot-proof hasn't been established yet. Until recently, idiot-proof wasn't a requirement or even a focus in the OSS world.
Now that it IS a focus, we're seeing projects like KDE and others (Open Office) trying to address those concerns. Give it more time and we'll see. The most recent KDE is very impressive, Mozilla is making some good progress, the list keeps growing...
Give it a little more time.
I'm rather suprised to see some of the comments above:
areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast)
According to whom? MS? I think not, as these OSs grow they are also growing in bloat, stability may be increased, but the ratio of people needed to babysit those machines is far greater than *nix. Also the overhead of running those system means that you need more hardware to achieve desired performance. Neither is a big TCO plus. For large scale systems, I don't know of anyone who's pushing MS for TCO reasons. They're simply not viable
areas in which many people believe Unix has a clear advantage (altho' Windows 2K and XP are catching up fast)
WHAT?!? Which VMs are you speaking of? We justified migration to Linux based solely on speed tests (very basic tests) of Java on MS vs. Linux and Sun. Sun on SPARC wasn't really fair given HW differences, but Solaris and MS on Intel were neck and neck with Linux outperforming both by a comfortable margin (which suprised me all around).
I haven't seen many J2EE deployments on MS. Developed - yes, deployed - no. Why would someone want to? You develop something that runs on multiple plaforms and then deploy on the Lowest Common Denominator. Why?
I agree with you on the *nix front though. I think that much of the growth of Linux has been at the expense of lower-end *nix systems. The word is that Linux may not be eating away much at MS server numbers.
However, I've had 3 projects in the last 1.5 years replacing MS solutions for J2EE on Solaris and Linux, so I think there is migration which will catch up to MS at some point. This is not a battle to be won overnight...
Linux needs J2EE to compete in with Microsoft in this arena
Linux HAS J2EE, I'm coding on it now. Both WebSphere and WebLogic as Linux versions.
and be done with it. He's babbling and making absurd accusations.
Yeah in Linux-world you do have to make SOME compromises for the sake of secutiy, BUT you mindless dolt, you don't have to hamstring your system to the point that you can't access needed resources (*like updates*).
Can we PLEASE get over the election fiasco. Neither side had clean hands in that entire affair. "Every vote should count!" - Yeah, like the 5000 military votes that got thrown out. They were both bad there.
Either way, did MS act in a monopolistic fashion? Is it a debate - of course they did? But do you want gov't regulation of the sw industry? I shudder at that. Once they get a foot in the door...
So they let MS off, big deal. Rep or Dem, they weren't going to accomplish much anyway. Let them compete (probably unfairly) against OSS anyway. I've replaced 3 MS "solutions" in as many years. J2EE on UNIX and now Linux
Look, if the product is sh!tty, the product is sh!tty, great marketing only serves as dressing up a pig. In the end, it's still a pig. But let the market decide.
If you go with MS, you get everything they offer - a nice pretty easy-to-use interface which crashes except when being used by the script kiddie across the street. Or go with and OSS solution. Yeah you need a little more knowledge than point-and-click but it just MAY be worth the effort
This guy seems to me like he's part of the "grass-roots" marketing effort MS is throwing out there. Why? How about:
Perhaps if he wasn't so obvious, he'd be more effective?
Are these morons part of some MS Grass-Roots marketing campaign? It seems like more and more that we're seeing posts which are pushing MS technology under the auspices of technical discussion
;) ). You have ext3, RieserFS among others which offer some great features running on an OS which has very good stability (Linux), so what do you do? We'll go use a FS from EvilEmpire Inc and import some of their problems. I'm sure THAT will be high-quality!
Running an NTFS filesystem under Linux seems to redefine the limits of stupidity IMHO (and I AM humble!
That's like breeding a chihuahua with a doberman. I don't know what will come out of such a union, and I doubt I want to...
OK, I'll admit I'm a *nix snob, no bones about it, but please...
yeah, that's cute. still developing. J2EE, *nix and Oracle!.
g-night!
If you don't mind my saying, developers are usually smarter than the IT support staff... I worked in a "locked down" environment. We installed Mandrake over the worthless NT install and the MSCE (My Career is Still Endangered) Thought Police never noticed. Of course they picked up 3 "renegade" Win2K Server installs within days... The *nix guys just looked down on the wanna-be UNIX. Of course THEY wouldn't share any Sun boxes - the selfish bastards! ;)
In the end, mgmt SHOULD be looking towards what is making/saving money. About a month after implementing this policy, they'll see that the development producivity is ~zero and reconsider.
It's a rarity when dev staff needs IT Support anyway. Eventually they just look the other way...
I've generally had GREAT experience with HP - the machine I bought ~8 years ago still has tons of info on the website, including technical info and drivers! As for components, well, it's 8 years old, nobody even makes SIMMS anymore!
And then my beloved Aptiva. Ah yes, while working for Big Blue I was suckered into buying one of these black beauties for a discount. The first 2 things I did was realize how AWFUL the sound and video cards really were. The website? What a joke, only 2 years old and there is nary a piece of useful info.
In general I've heard good things about Dell, although I suspect that every manufacturer has their glitches. I tend to think that after 2 years of use, requesting a replacement is a bit absurd...