What I don't get is why don't these projects realize the kind of coup they could score by releasing a Mandrake/RedHatesque installer that even the average marketting drone could use to setup a fully operational installation.
1) Do you really want a "marketing drone" establishing your critical network infrastructure? Average people shouldn't be meddling with the systems that can really make or break a company. This is serious stuff.
2) The OpenBSD installer really is quite easy when you sit back and think about it. It's basically a well-thought-out shell script with prompts for necessary information. It's also very quick; OpenBSD installations are fast, since there isn't a quasi-stable GUI driving everything. It's also more dependable than a GUI. GUIs are complex from a software engineering point of view, and it is harder to guarantee their function. If you have questions about how OpenBSD goes about it's business...just look a the scripts.
I'm still just a novice with *NIX...
Don't let OpenBSD intimidate you, as it can provide a very fruitful learning experience about UNIX systems. OpenBSD really is one of the most directly and thoughtfully documented systems out there (at least for the userland stuff), but it just isn't an in-your-face system like Red Hat. Once the system installs, there is a helpful e-mail sitting in the root inbox, the installation CDs have very good README files, and the 'intro' and 'afterboot' man pages are also good. The OpenBSD website hosts a FAQ and links to mailing list archives that covers many questions for new users.
All this over 25 licenses? Who cares about 25 licenses? This isn't even worth the "evil lawyers" fees?
Microsoft is supporting what they believe in. They obviously think expending the resources over small-time licensing issues helps them sleep at night. Money isn't a factor, here, nor does it matter that BlueLight is an MSN competitor. Yeah, that's it.
But what about sites that let you dynamically monitor distributed processes?
What do application-specific used-by-ten-people websites have to do with the WWW? The WWW is intended to be public and accessible, just like the public library or a local department store. Would you go to a store that denied you access because of the brand of shoes you happend to be wearing (even though shoes are a standard interface used in moving about the store)? What if you need to use an elevator but the only way to the second floor is a spinning neon escalator?
Or how about a little thing you've obviously never heard of called "e-commerce?"
The absolute best e-commerce sites are very light on DHTML. They follow a "Just the facts, Mam" philosophy of well-organized data entry (forms) and an intuitive work flow from beginning to end. They don't need DHTML for efficiently browsing catalogs, nor do they need DHTML for data entry, nor do they need DHTML for actually performing the transaction.
Why would programmatically updating a select list or providing collapsable text sections turn someone into "human scrap"?
It wouldn't. Even I will admit that there are totally legitimate uses for DHTML. Select lists are self-contained on the web page and updating it behind the scenes isn't a big deal. Form validation and text-field updates are also not a big deal. However, many intranet websites push all this all way too far.
The WWW is really going through an adolesence right now, where very very many web developer simply don't get it. I have seen full-blown GUIs generated in my browser on-the-fly with JavaScript, and these websites (intranet ones, too) were obviously developed with pretty much no regard to anyone who: 1) uses something other than IE, 2) can't move a mouse around to see all the fancy-shmancy pop-ups, dialogs, and menus drawn directly into the browser window. Given that these sites are barely accessible to me (they are annoying as hell), I can't imagine how a person disabled in some manner would deal with them. And this comes back to my original question about intranets not fully accomidating otherwise totally valuable employees. It'll be another several years before the Public really understands what the WWW is about and what it always has been about: information sharing in a platform-agnostic and accessible (both browsers and people) manner.
2) most computer systems today always runs multiple threads (i.e. utilization will be good).
It is true that pretty much all the modern operating systems support treads on multiple CPUs, but I have found that it doesn't guarantee good utilization. Most desktop applications are single-threaded effectively due to the user being single threaded. I saw this while working on a 2 CPU workstation: the second CPU was idle perhaps 90 to 95% of the time.
This would be different if a specific application were designed to automatically divide work among multiple CPUs, but those sorts of applications are not common outside of image/video editing, engineering, science, and mathematics. Perhaps games will take better advantage of multiple CPUs, but that is probably a little ways off. Servers, especially UNIX ones, will almost always find a second CPU useful, since servers are supposed to be multi-user multi-processing environments.
Multi-core architectures are naturally appropriate for servers, but I still think most desktop users are best served by one fast processor (even hyperthreading will be largely irrelevant).
Look at floating-point SMP throughput (the earlier post mentions things like engineering apps, etc.). That is where Sun systems shine. For integer stuff...well, if you are compiling a really large software application, that is important, but, otherwise, it isn't terribly relevant.
Sun systems are known for throughput, which is a better measure of work done. Quake FPS isn't terribly useful in the real world.
Anyone who develops sites for corporates is going to be using DHTML to make it appealing and easy to use.
What if one of the users is blind or can't use a mouse, but, otherwise, is a perfectly competent and valuable employee? Would you suggest this person be dismissed as human scrap just because you like to make everything "appealing and easy to use"?
For example, we use Microsoft word with built in excell spreadsheets and ODBC queries that update charts in real time from an Oracle database as well as include visio stencils and other good stuff.
This is just a mistake. What's Microsoft's support lifecycle for Word, Excel, and Visio? Oracle shouldn't be a problem, but Microsoft just prefers to shove, shove, shove.
You don't provide any real data (just run times). It is most likely that you are comparing apples (new PCs) to oranges (older Suns). You really don't provide anything meaningful in your post.
Anyone with their choice of a PC 'workstation' running Win32/linux versus a IRIX/SUN workstation will choose the PC hands down if they have used both.
I wouldn't. I guess that makes your "anyone" argument a bit off the mark.
Nearly every application runs significantly faster on a PC than a workstation [large CAD packages, image processing, databases, etc].
Not true (just as valid an argument as the one you just made).
What is your definition of "faster"? Intel workstations need to run at 2.8GHz+ to approach the computational throughput of a Sun Blade 2000 with 1GHz CPUs. And that is just for debatably-useful benchmark (SPECcpu2000). Considering that the Sun also comes with FibreChannel disks and doesn't use mere PC133 RAM, it will beat your PC in real-world usage--that's what Sun designs them to do. Sun workstations are also more reliable and easier to maintain (you would know if you worked with them).
...our "Enterprise Class Systems" (Win2k application servers) can use all the CPU we can throw at them. Everyone has different needs, and for a lot of folks, faster processors are a good thing.
right click on desktop --> "Properties" --> "Effects" --> uncheck "Use transition effects"
That should make your XPerience a bit snappier.
Seriously, I suppose it really depends on site needs, but I still see whole offices run their e-mail on SPARCstations (less than 200MHz CPUs) and websites on Ultra Enterprise 250s (bleeding edge in 1997). And...they perform just fine.
A single server with Quad Xeons really should be sufficient for a company with many thousands of employees. Well, with Windows, perhaps a few hundred. Regardless, that's a hell of a lot of data-processing capability.
But these days, you can get an Ultra 5 (I think it's being replaced by the Ultra 60 now) for the price of a PC, and it's a real SPARC, so Solaris x86 is less useful for that purpose.
The Ultra 5 is quite a few years old, now. For the Ultra 5's market, the modern replacements are the Blade 100 (500MHz USIIe) and the Blade 150 (550MHz or 650MHz USIIi). The Ultra 60 (2x 450MHz USIIi) was marketed as an engineering workstation, which has been obseleted by the Blade 1000 and Blade 2000 (2x 1GHz+ USIII).
The Blade 100 and Blade 150 are inexpensive ($1000 to $2000), but the Blade 2000 is the no-holds-barred version ($7000+). Regardless, even the Blade 100 is well engineered and a good workstation, but it's overall performance makes it suitable for administration and productivity tasks. For software development and real engineering work, the Blade 150 and especially the Blade 2000 are better options.
Solaris shares the advantage of FreeBSD in that it's a known platform.
Very true. I consider each Linux distribution to be a different operating system, since they vary down to the system startup run-control level (rc scripts in/etc).
This is very largely true for small computers (and companies with many small computers). However, Sun does appear to charge a progressively higher fee on the larger computers. At least, this is how it is presented at store.sun.com; however, I'm sure real customers negotiate a better price.
I do wish Solaris 9 were free up to two processors, since that would open up basic SMP experimentation to hobbyists who like Solaris.
One thing that is nice about Solaris is that Sun ensures that there are tangible benefits to each major release. Solaris 8 had a better memory subsystem (among other things). Solaris 9 bundles lots of nice things (among other things). And Sun does it without bringing on the skepticism that Microsoft seems to ignite with each release or EULA upgrade.
It takes a lONG time to get a usable system with Solaris.
No, it does not.
A default install is practically useless.
Not true.
GNU tools
The freeware "bonus" CD shipped with Solaris 8 and 9 might help you here. Oh, what about sunfreeware.com or freeware4sun.com? Things come as source code, too (GCC is on the "bonus" CD).
Apache
Solaris 8 has/usr/apache,/usr/perl5,/usr/java,/usr/ucb,/usr/xpg4, and/usr/ccs (don't forget/usr/bin!). What are you looking for?
...edit 2 files to change the IP. (/etc/ifconfig and/etc/nsswitch)
What version of Solaris are you using??? This is untrue, because updating DNS, NIS, or/etc/hosts is all that is needed (/etc/hostname. can use symbolic hostnames)./etc/ifconfig doesn't even exist under Solaris 8, and/etc/nsswitch is used only for configuring datasources.
Why??? It is optional. Besides, there are mailing lists and documentation available for free (docs.sun.com and sunsolve.sun.com are really very good). Formal support is really only necessary if the cost of a very quick problem resolution is cheaper than the support itself (i.e., situations where the support pays for itself).
...buying more expensive, used hardware with an old version of Solaris.
You don't quite understand. New versions of Solaris, such as 8 and 9, work fine on older hardware. Sun does discontinue support for really old hardware, but they are up-front about it in their release notes. A good example: I run Solaris 8 on an early-90's-vintage SPARCstation 10.
Also, used Sun hardware is very reasonably priced if you shop around. Some vendors are arrogant and still think they can charge like-new prices, but other vendors are very competitive. If you don't mind a little more risk, there are incredible deals on auction sites, like EBay.
There are genuine advantages of Sun-branded hardware over most x86 hardware. OpenBoot firmware (OS-independent configuration and diagnostics), very rugged enclosures, redundant cooling fans, clean component layout, and SCSI on the real workstations (modern low-end Sun's have IDE).
Linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD run on Sun hardware, too, in addition to Solaris, but Solaris will consistently provide the best hardware support, except, perhaps, for a few older peripherals (24-bit 3-slot SBus graphics, for example).
Don't forget, what I said above also applies to other used RISC-based hardware, as SGI, HP, DEC, etc. have active secondary markets.
The only advantage of x86 is really percieved cost, but that isn't always true. I've had much more "top quality" x86-based hardware (motherboards and modems mainly) fail than Sun-branded hardware seeing similar use. Support costs for Sun hardware really can be quite low (formal Sun support is very optional; if you don't know whether you need it, you probably don't).
the database they were using faulted on a divide by zero. nothing to do with NT.
Well, I suppose the original problem is that Windows NT was chosen in the first place. Using a rather poor commercial-grade operating system in a military setting is simply a recipe for disaster. Hell, I'm not even sure I would trust an out-of-the-box UNIX or mainframe OS for a military setting (although pretty much anything would be better than NT).
Whoever chose NT for a Navy ship's systems should be very publicly humiliated. Is the story that Bill Gates himself chose it true? I had read that the Windows NT choice came soon after his majority stake in the company building the ship.
In 5 years, there will be only Linux, BSD and Solaris - with BSD and Solaris being binary and source compatible to Linux. Linux has reunited Unix...
Linux will be the non-proprietary and completely open foundataion for the next generation of software. The UNIX philosophy is the common thread, where Solaris, Linux, and BSD will be differently-targeted implementations. Microsoft will be playing catch-up in this new era.
I also hope that the portability of Linux will keep fueling the intense competition among hardware vendors. For one, I don't want the RISC architectures, such as SPARC, PowerPC, and MIPS, to go away. SPARC, for example, is a completely open standard with only a $99 license fee for new implementations. If there is any safe-haven from Intel, AMD, and Palladium, SPARC might be it. These architectures need to be commoditized further to head off any complete domination by x86. They simply cannot be marginalized out of existence by Intel.
...X-Windows is never going to cut it in the desktop world.
What is so wrong with X Windows? If anything, it should be refined to smooth out things people complain about. I'd hate to throw out X's abstractions (client-server; layered architecture: server, window manager, applications) in favor of something new and flashy but architecturally neutered.
I think the fundamental concepts behind X Windows are sound. If there are implementation issues, address those before trying to reinvent everything badly.
On the first page of the report, I noticed something odd. All of the study's (largely non-hacker) participants rated themselves as "expert" Windows users but utterly helpless at UNIX. Interesting thing is, to a pure end user, CDE/GNOME/KDE aren't too far removed from Windows as far as available tools, etc., go--the main difference is that Windows is flashy and expertly marketed. I think that people, in general, perceive UNIX as "hard" regardless whether it actually is. This psychological barrier is artificial, yet it makes up the biggest obstacle to getting through to most people about UNIX and Linux.
Me thinks Sun and the GNOME foundation need to crank up their respective marketing machines to further dismantle Microsoft's dominance in the global perception about computers and software. Whenever Sun is ready with their GNOME/Linux business PCs, they should get full page ads in the major PHB-oriented and business-oriented periodicals. The word really needs to get out there.
It doesn't. That's why they chose a ball-point pen instead of a pencil. As with an ordinary pen, erasing is accomplished by scribbling out what isn't wanted.
No offense, but why must EVERYTHING be ported to Linux?
Because it really doesn't involve much effort if the software developers make the right choices. This means saying "no" to.NET and using a much better platform, such as Java/Swing or C++/Qt. By choosing.NET, all Logitech communicates to me is that they are trendy, narrow-minded, naive, and possible arrogant or bigoted against non-Windows users.
Slashdot Mirror
What I don't get is why don't these projects realize the kind of coup they could score by releasing a Mandrake/RedHatesque installer that even the average marketting drone could use to setup a fully operational installation.
1) Do you really want a "marketing drone" establishing your critical network infrastructure? Average people shouldn't be meddling with the systems that can really make or break a company. This is serious stuff.
2) The OpenBSD installer really is quite easy when you sit back and think about it. It's basically a well-thought-out shell script with prompts for necessary information. It's also very quick; OpenBSD installations are fast, since there isn't a quasi-stable GUI driving everything. It's also more dependable than a GUI. GUIs are complex from a software engineering point of view, and it is harder to guarantee their function. If you have questions about how OpenBSD goes about it's business...just look a the scripts.
I'm still just a novice with *NIX...
Don't let OpenBSD intimidate you, as it can provide a very fruitful learning experience about UNIX systems. OpenBSD really is one of the most directly and thoughtfully documented systems out there (at least for the userland stuff), but it just isn't an in-your-face system like Red Hat. Once the system installs, there is a helpful e-mail sitting in the root inbox, the installation CDs have very good README files, and the 'intro' and 'afterboot' man pages are also good. The OpenBSD website hosts a FAQ and links to mailing list archives that covers many questions for new users.
All this over 25 licenses? Who cares about 25 licenses? This isn't even worth the "evil lawyers" fees?
Microsoft is supporting what they believe in. They obviously think expending the resources over small-time licensing issues helps them sleep at night. Money isn't a factor, here, nor does it matter that BlueLight is an MSN competitor. Yeah, that's it.
Very true. Here is a +1 moderation point I don't have right now.
The whole thing is very usable, reusable, and efficient, and could not have been made without DHTML and JavaScript.
Does this site require Internet Explorer, or is the DHTML organized to work with other JavaScript/DOM enabled browsers?
But what about sites that let you dynamically monitor distributed processes?
What do application-specific used-by-ten-people websites have to do with the WWW? The WWW is intended to be public and accessible, just like the public library or a local department store. Would you go to a store that denied you access because of the brand of shoes you happend to be wearing (even though shoes are a standard interface used in moving about the store)? What if you need to use an elevator but the only way to the second floor is a spinning neon escalator?
Or how about a little thing you've obviously never heard of called "e-commerce?"
The absolute best e-commerce sites are very light on DHTML. They follow a "Just the facts, Mam" philosophy of well-organized data entry (forms) and an intuitive work flow from beginning to end. They don't need DHTML for efficiently browsing catalogs, nor do they need DHTML for data entry, nor do they need DHTML for actually performing the transaction.
Why would programmatically updating a select list or providing collapsable text sections turn someone into "human scrap"?
It wouldn't. Even I will admit that there are totally legitimate uses for DHTML. Select lists are self-contained on the web page and updating it behind the scenes isn't a big deal. Form validation and text-field updates are also not a big deal. However, many intranet websites push all this all way too far.
The WWW is really going through an adolesence right now, where very very many web developer simply don't get it. I have seen full-blown GUIs generated in my browser on-the-fly with JavaScript, and these websites (intranet ones, too) were obviously developed with pretty much no regard to anyone who: 1) uses something other than IE, 2) can't move a mouse around to see all the fancy-shmancy pop-ups, dialogs, and menus drawn directly into the browser window. Given that these sites are barely accessible to me (they are annoying as hell), I can't imagine how a person disabled in some manner would deal with them. And this comes back to my original question about intranets not fully accomidating otherwise totally valuable employees. It'll be another several years before the Public really understands what the WWW is about and what it always has been about: information sharing in a platform-agnostic and accessible (both browsers and people) manner.
2) most computer systems today always runs multiple threads (i.e. utilization will be good).
It is true that pretty much all the modern operating systems support treads on multiple CPUs, but I have found that it doesn't guarantee good utilization. Most desktop applications are single-threaded effectively due to the user being single threaded. I saw this while working on a 2 CPU workstation: the second CPU was idle perhaps 90 to 95% of the time.
This would be different if a specific application were designed to automatically divide work among multiple CPUs, but those sorts of applications are not common outside of image/video editing, engineering, science, and mathematics. Perhaps games will take better advantage of multiple CPUs, but that is probably a little ways off. Servers, especially UNIX ones, will almost always find a second CPU useful, since servers are supposed to be multi-user multi-processing environments.
Multi-core architectures are naturally appropriate for servers, but I still think most desktop users are best served by one fast processor (even hyperthreading will be largely irrelevant).
This is the int result...
Look at floating-point SMP throughput (the earlier post mentions things like engineering apps, etc.). That is where Sun systems shine. For integer stuff...well, if you are compiling a really large software application, that is important, but, otherwise, it isn't terribly relevant.
Sun systems are known for throughput, which is a better measure of work done. Quake FPS isn't terribly useful in the real world.
Anyone who develops sites for corporates is going to be using DHTML to make it appealing and easy to use.
What if one of the users is blind or can't use a mouse, but, otherwise, is a perfectly competent and valuable employee? Would you suggest this person be dismissed as human scrap just because you like to make everything "appealing and easy to use"?
For example, we use Microsoft word with built in excell spreadsheets and ODBC queries that update charts in real time from an Oracle database as well as include visio stencils and other good stuff.
This is just a mistake. What's Microsoft's support lifecycle for Word, Excel, and Visio? Oracle shouldn't be a problem, but Microsoft just prefers to shove, shove, shove.
You don't provide any real data (just run times). It is most likely that you are comparing apples (new PCs) to oranges (older Suns). You really don't provide anything meaningful in your post.
Anyone with their choice of a PC 'workstation' running Win32/linux versus a IRIX/SUN workstation will choose the PC hands down if they have used both.
I wouldn't. I guess that makes your "anyone" argument a bit off the mark.
Nearly every application runs significantly faster on a PC than a workstation [large CAD packages, image processing, databases, etc].
Not true (just as valid an argument as the one you just made).
What is your definition of "faster"? Intel workstations need to run at 2.8GHz+ to approach the computational throughput of a Sun Blade 2000 with 1GHz CPUs. And that is just for debatably-useful benchmark (SPECcpu2000). Considering that the Sun also comes with FibreChannel disks and doesn't use mere PC133 RAM, it will beat your PC in real-world usage--that's what Sun designs them to do. Sun workstations are also more reliable and easier to maintain (you would know if you worked with them).
...our "Enterprise Class Systems" (Win2k application servers) can use all the CPU we can throw at them. Everyone has different needs, and for a lot of folks, faster processors are a good thing.
right click on desktop --> "Properties" --> "Effects" --> uncheck "Use transition effects"
That should make your XPerience a bit snappier.
Seriously, I suppose it really depends on site needs, but I still see whole offices run their e-mail on SPARCstations (less than 200MHz CPUs) and websites on Ultra Enterprise 250s (bleeding edge in 1997). And...they perform just fine.
A single server with Quad Xeons really should be sufficient for a company with many thousands of employees. Well, with Windows, perhaps a few hundred. Regardless, that's a hell of a lot of data-processing capability.
But these days, you can get an Ultra 5 (I think it's being replaced by the Ultra 60 now) for the price of a PC, and it's a real SPARC, so Solaris x86 is less useful for that purpose.
/etc).
The Ultra 5 is quite a few years old, now. For the Ultra 5's market, the modern replacements are the Blade 100 (500MHz USIIe) and the Blade 150 (550MHz or 650MHz USIIi). The Ultra 60 (2x 450MHz USIIi) was marketed as an engineering workstation, which has been obseleted by the Blade 1000 and Blade 2000 (2x 1GHz+ USIII).
The Blade 100 and Blade 150 are inexpensive ($1000 to $2000), but the Blade 2000 is the no-holds-barred version ($7000+). Regardless, even the Blade 100 is well engineered and a good workstation, but it's overall performance makes it suitable for administration and productivity tasks. For software development and real engineering work, the Blade 150 and especially the Blade 2000 are better options.
Solaris shares the advantage of FreeBSD in that it's a known platform.
Very true. I consider each Linux distribution to be a different operating system, since they vary down to the system startup run-control level (rc scripts in
Companies simply don't pay for Solaris.
This is very largely true for small computers (and companies with many small computers). However, Sun does appear to charge a progressively higher fee on the larger computers. At least, this is how it is presented at store.sun.com; however, I'm sure real customers negotiate a better price.
I do wish Solaris 9 were free up to two processors, since that would open up basic SMP experimentation to hobbyists who like Solaris.
One thing that is nice about Solaris is that Sun ensures that there are tangible benefits to each major release. Solaris 8 had a better memory subsystem (among other things). Solaris 9 bundles lots of nice things (among other things). And Sun does it without bringing on the skepticism that Microsoft seems to ignite with each release or EULA upgrade.
It takes a lONG time to get a usable system with Solaris.
/usr/apache, /usr/perl5, /usr/java, /usr/ucb, /usr/xpg4, and /usr/ccs (don't forget /usr/bin!). What are you looking for?
...edit 2 files to change the IP. (/etc/ifconfig and /etc/nsswitch)
/etc/hosts is all that is needed (/etc/hostname. can use symbolic hostnames). /etc/ifconfig doesn't even exist under Solaris 8, and /etc/nsswitch is used only for configuring datasources.
No, it does not.
A default install is practically useless.
Not true.
GNU tools
The freeware "bonus" CD shipped with Solaris 8 and 9 might help you here. Oh, what about sunfreeware.com or freeware4sun.com? Things come as source code, too (GCC is on the "bonus" CD).
Apache
Solaris 8 has
What version of Solaris are you using??? This is untrue, because updating DNS, NIS, or
Is your post a troll?
The catcher is the support.
Why??? It is optional. Besides, there are mailing lists and documentation available for free (docs.sun.com and sunsolve.sun.com are really very good). Formal support is really only necessary if the cost of a very quick problem resolution is cheaper than the support itself (i.e., situations where the support pays for itself).
...buying more expensive, used hardware with an old version of Solaris.
You don't quite understand. New versions of Solaris, such as 8 and 9, work fine on older hardware. Sun does discontinue support for really old hardware, but they are up-front about it in their release notes. A good example: I run Solaris 8 on an early-90's-vintage SPARCstation 10.
Also, used Sun hardware is very reasonably priced if you shop around. Some vendors are arrogant and still think they can charge like-new prices, but other vendors are very competitive. If you don't mind a little more risk, there are incredible deals on auction sites, like EBay.
There are genuine advantages of Sun-branded hardware over most x86 hardware. OpenBoot firmware (OS-independent configuration and diagnostics), very rugged enclosures, redundant cooling fans, clean component layout, and SCSI on the real workstations (modern low-end Sun's have IDE).
Linux, NetBSD, and OpenBSD run on Sun hardware, too, in addition to Solaris, but Solaris will consistently provide the best hardware support, except, perhaps, for a few older peripherals (24-bit 3-slot SBus graphics, for example).
Don't forget, what I said above also applies to other used RISC-based hardware, as SGI, HP, DEC, etc. have active secondary markets.
The only advantage of x86 is really percieved cost, but that isn't always true. I've had much more "top quality" x86-based hardware (motherboards and modems mainly) fail than Sun-branded hardware seeing similar use. Support costs for Sun hardware really can be quite low (formal Sun support is very optional; if you don't know whether you need it, you probably don't).
...I would be happy to see you carry it FOR A MILE!
No problem, I accept only credit or personal checks.
the database they were using faulted on a divide by zero. nothing to do with NT.
Well, I suppose the original problem is that Windows NT was chosen in the first place. Using a rather poor commercial-grade operating system in a military setting is simply a recipe for disaster. Hell, I'm not even sure I would trust an out-of-the-box UNIX or mainframe OS for a military setting (although pretty much anything would be better than NT).
Whoever chose NT for a Navy ship's systems should be very publicly humiliated. Is the story that Bill Gates himself chose it true? I had read that the Windows NT choice came soon after his majority stake in the company building the ship.
In 5 years, there will be only Linux, BSD and Solaris - with BSD and Solaris being binary and source compatible to Linux. Linux has reunited Unix...
Linux will be the non-proprietary and completely open foundataion for the next generation of software. The UNIX philosophy is the common thread, where Solaris, Linux, and BSD will be differently-targeted implementations. Microsoft will be playing catch-up in this new era.
I also hope that the portability of Linux will keep fueling the intense competition among hardware vendors. For one, I don't want the RISC architectures, such as SPARC, PowerPC, and MIPS, to go away. SPARC, for example, is a completely open standard with only a $99 license fee for new implementations. If there is any safe-haven from Intel, AMD, and Palladium, SPARC might be it. These architectures need to be commoditized further to head off any complete domination by x86. They simply cannot be marginalized out of existence by Intel.
...X-Windows is never going to cut it in the desktop world.
What is so wrong with X Windows? If anything, it should be refined to smooth out things people complain about. I'd hate to throw out X's abstractions (client-server; layered architecture: server, window manager, applications) in favor of something new and flashy but architecturally neutered.
I think the fundamental concepts behind X Windows are sound. If there are implementation issues, address those before trying to reinvent everything badly.
The Gnome Usability Report
On the first page of the report, I noticed something odd. All of the study's (largely non-hacker) participants rated themselves as "expert" Windows users but utterly helpless at UNIX. Interesting thing is, to a pure end user, CDE/GNOME/KDE aren't too far removed from Windows as far as available tools, etc., go--the main difference is that Windows is flashy and expertly marketed. I think that people, in general, perceive UNIX as "hard" regardless whether it actually is. This psychological barrier is artificial, yet it makes up the biggest obstacle to getting through to most people about UNIX and Linux.
Me thinks Sun and the GNOME foundation need to crank up their respective marketing machines to further dismantle Microsoft's dominance in the global perception about computers and software. Whenever Sun is ready with their GNOME/Linux business PCs, they should get full page ads in the major PHB-oriented and business-oriented periodicals. The word really needs to get out there.
How does it handle erasing?
It doesn't. That's why they chose a ball-point pen instead of a pencil. As with an ordinary pen, erasing is accomplished by scribbling out what isn't wanted.
No offense, but why must EVERYTHING be ported to Linux?
.NET and using a much better platform, such as Java/Swing or C++/Qt. By choosing .NET, all Logitech communicates to me is that they are trendy, narrow-minded, naive, and possible arrogant or bigoted against non-Windows users.
Because it really doesn't involve much effort if the software developers make the right choices. This means saying "no" to