Yeah right, ask any marketing guy if consumers buy the best products. They will say consumers are frickin retards that succumb easily to basic principles of psychology. Unless of course they are selling you something.
Salespeople must love you.
another moron about tpc. tpc is the reason that database vendors do not improve their join capability , by basing benchnarks on simplistic data models. Believe me, none of these vendors can handle a higly normalized database, which is what relational databases are supposed to be for.
Believe me, try doing a complex 8 table data joins in sql server. it will die like a little bitch. dont know about oracle but im sure it cant handle it either.
so to say gnome or kde will never be ready for the consumer is ridiculous. kde has been around for only 4 years I believe.
I also believe if I am not mistaken that people do get paid for developing php web sites or jboss and tomcat. I also believe that a company like hancom sells quite a few linux word processing programs in asia.
On the server front, mysql (despite my reservations about its iodotic ideas about foreign keys) just kicked sql servers ass on PC mags benchmarks.
Youre just a microsoft fan boy that is afraid of the inevitable. Microsoft can't kill kde or gnome like it did to the vastly superior Beos, since it does not play by the rules of marketshare.
I also believe that pure libertarianism would allow a monopoly like microsoft to stand. I think the biggest myth you forgot to mention is that youre intelligent and have any insight at all.
um no, that is why a linux will always be more stable as a server. rendering a window on a server is unnecessary. it desont have to be "integrated" to work properly. just because linux isnt as easy to use yet does not mean to get there they have to use shitty engineering principles
With a 0.25% desktop marketshare any normal company would have been killed and buried already. but linux desktop(s) appear to get easier and easier (slowly though)to use nonehteless.
The mistake you make in your analysis is thinking linux is one monolithic entity.
linus trovalds et al have nothing to do with kde or gnome desktops, they continue to work on improving the kernal core for scalability and stability (such as adding asynch i/o to be on par with the iron clad unixes)
as far as stability, if you call an os that can run word wthout crashing is stable than i guess you are right. but to say that windows is easier to install than linux these days is a statement from a guy who has never installed windows and just bought his pc from best buy (which is a big problem for both linux and mac)
And what comes to performance, I'd recommend cheap Intel boxen to all customers instead of Sun, they're basically identical when it comes to capabilities and Intel just runs Java much better (just try WebSphere, ATG Dynamo or even Tomcat).
yeah will see after a few connections which dies like a bitch and it wont be sun
Alan Cox Interview | Preferences | Top | 174 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold: -1: 174 comments 0: 128 comments 1: 89 comments 2: 45 comments 3: 23 comments 4: 12 comments 5: 7 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Cost efficiency my ass. (Score:0, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, @12:09PM (#3013738)
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
An important 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, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, ext2fs, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts 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.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to ext2fs would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', ext3fs, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient ext2fs file system remain in ext3fs, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. 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. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
hmm my oracle box on linux has never crashed.
can you say the same for windows?
now linux runs on OS/390 , now it will never crash
you keep posting the smae message, and youre still a loser
Slashdot Mirror
the only exception and the amount of their transactions are pretty miniscule compared to many banks that run on mainframes
Yeah right, ask any marketing guy if consumers buy the best products. They will say consumers are frickin retards that succumb easily to basic principles of psychology. Unless of course they are selling you something.
Salespeople must love you.
from the chicago democratic party!
another moron about tpc. tpc is the reason that database vendors do not improve their join capability , by basing benchnarks on simplistic data models. Believe me, none of these vendors can handle a higly normalized database, which is what relational databases are supposed to be for.
Believe me, try doing a complex 8 table data joins in sql server. it will die like a little bitch. dont know about oracle but im sure it cant handle it either.
you fucking idiot what do half a billion people have to do with the backend servers. certainly not your stupid ass.
yout tried being sarcastic , but you ended up looking like a dipshit
thats wierd, Im pretty sure you can surf the net with a mac. looks like you have no thought either buddy.
so to say gnome or kde will never be ready for the consumer is ridiculous.
kde has been around for only 4 years I believe.
I also believe if I am not mistaken that people do get paid for developing php web sites or jboss and tomcat. I also believe that a company like hancom sells quite a few linux word processing programs in asia.
On the server front, mysql (despite my reservations about its iodotic ideas about foreign keys) just kicked sql servers ass on PC mags benchmarks.
Youre just a microsoft fan boy that is afraid of the inevitable. Microsoft can't kill kde or gnome like it did to the vastly superior Beos, since it does not play by the rules of marketshare.
I also believe that pure libertarianism would allow a monopoly like microsoft to stand.
I think the biggest myth you forgot to mention is that youre intelligent and have any insight at all.
try Qt
well he was in redmond, wa..
um no, that is why a linux will always be more stable as a server. rendering a window on a server is unnecessary. it desont have to be "integrated" to work properly. just because linux isnt as easy to use yet does not mean to get there they have to use shitty engineering principles
With a 0.25% desktop marketshare any normal company would have been killed and buried already. but linux desktop(s) appear to get easier and easier (slowly though)to use nonehteless.
The mistake you make in your analysis is thinking linux is one monolithic entity.
linus trovalds et al have nothing to do with kde or gnome desktops, they continue to work on improving the kernal core for scalability and stability (such as adding asynch i/o to be on par with the iron clad unixes)
as for more apps and games you are correct.
as far as stability, if you call an os that can run word wthout crashing is stable than i guess you are right.
but to say that windows is easier to install than linux these days is a statement from a guy who has never installed windows and just bought his pc from best buy (which is a big problem for both linux and mac)
Seems like the techno geek world is forever in this revolving reinvent everything because it feels cool to do mentality
why not? microsoft has done this quite well!
the standard does not mean good .. how bout ass kicked o?
go watch tech tv dork
uh linux is free . try thinking
shiznit
And what comes to performance, I'd recommend cheap Intel boxen to all customers instead of Sun, they're basically identical when it comes to capabilities and Intel just runs Java much better (just try WebSphere, ATG Dynamo or even Tomcat).
yeah will see after a few connections which dies like a bitch and it wont be sun
not as big an abomination as x86 architechtures
micorsoft appears to be another bloated amercan company that cant make reliabele product
microsoft is like GM , it dominated once, but it always made unreliable crap.
the japs should make their own OS. maybe they will finally get rid of the kludge knonw as
wintel once and for all
it would have been nice to have at least a half kludge system. instead its back to kludge/kludge with wintel
no its not at best buy.
things arent as simple as your brain
in order for linux to make inroads you have to have some conisitent and easy installs for people.
plus a company selling preinstalled linux machines at best buy would help a great deal as well
11
developers
Feb 14
(3 recent)
features
Feb 15
(1 recent)
interviews
Jan 16
radio
Jun 29
science
Feb 15
(3 recent)
yro
Feb 15
(6 recent)
Alan Cox Interview | Preferences | Top | 174 comments | Search Discussion
Threshold: -1: 174 comments 0: 128 comments 1: 89 comments 2: 45 comments 3: 23 comments 4: 12 comments 5: 7 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Cost efficiency my ass. (Score:0, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 15, @12:09PM (#3013738)
Let's have a close look at the costs involved when running a Linux system.
An important 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, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, ext2fs, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts 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.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to ext2fs would be ReiserFS. Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', ext3fs, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient ext2fs file system remain in ext3fs, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. 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. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
hmm my oracle box on linux has never crashed.
can you say the same for windows?
now linux runs on OS/390 , now it will never crash
you keep posting the smae message, and youre still a loser
ahead really in back end services, and even then only by a hair depending on who administers the box
um... yeah
sorry dude just because microsoft can finally run word without crashing doesnt make it iron clad.
stick to LANS, LAN boy
not only that, but the mouse and click interface has been around since 83, though if you count the star workstation then that was the 70's too