Well, it is, albeit slowly. There are some U.S. government agencies that do use Open Source software to some degree, such as the Postal Service (so I've heard) and the Defense Department (they deployed StarOffice a while back).
However, there are still many "old school" type organizations that still want to have big proprietary software contracts with big software companies. They look for "vendors" of software that can spoon-feed them software solutions, and they probably haven't yet found what they are looking for in the Open Source arena.
There are still many frontiers for Open Source in the U.S., but all frontiers are conquered in time.
Java is no less immune to bad programmers than any other programming language.
C#'s advanced features like better encapsulation (you don't need to call set() and get() methods, you can map them to the = operator, for example).
This isn't an advanced feature nor is it better encapsulation. It is sugar that probably becomes bitter-tasting in time.
Java has never really been a mature technology IMHO and it's about time to replace it with something better
Java is very mature. Don't confuse Java and its VM with the plethora of half-assed "me too" APIs that come and go. At its core, Java is solid.
The only people who should worry about this are Sun and their followers. And maybe RMS.
Add the many users of GNOME who avoid Microsoft software out of principle. There are many people who view anything Microsoft-flavored as a genuine risk (sort of like a flea-infested rat--does it carry the plague?). A.NET presence in GNOME will force these users to find a new desktop environment, and they will do so without hesitation.
I think Sun would either drop GNOME entirely or fork it before they submit to Miquel's wishes. If I ever find myself loading a.NET-based desktop onto a Sun workstation, that's the time to check myself into the nut house (either I'm hallucinating, or Microsoft finally owns the entire planet).
Or, at least, make.NET into the hellish quagmire that HTML is (W3C vs. M$ vs. Netscape...). Then,.NET will stagnate into something few people enjoy using for development and something that works well nowhere.
Microsoft and Netscape undermined the potential of HTML, why not have Microsoft, Ximian, and the GNOME Foundation undermine the potential of.NET?
This might be better than Microsoft having.NET all to themselves, so they can make it work well enough for the same old marketing spin to clinch the deal. On the other hand, I'm not sure it is worth sacrificing GNOME in the process.
If you've got a perfectly good working PC, why you would go through the angst of replacing it?
This is a fallacy, assuming "PC"=="PC w/ M$ Windows". M$ Windows is actually the source of much angst; my therapist recommends confrontation followed by a thorough spiritual cleansing.
So our opportunity is not to replace Microsoft on the PC.
He sounds in the interview as if he were kidnapped by Microsoft and put through mind-altering torture. I wonder if he is on the M$ marketing department payroll?
Seriously, he should pick something with the potential of.NET, just not.NET.
World War 3? It isn't too far fetched to think that this would be between the nations of the world and Microsoft. Pretty scary.
Yes it is. Anyway, go look in a U.S. telephone book and report back to us the genuine "American" names you find. I'd be suprised if you report any, because the U.S.A. is almost entirely a country of immigrants. Just looking around my office...Eastern Europe, UK, Africa, Southern Europe...
I used Linux on a SPARCStation for a while, and I am aware of the ports to Alpha, PPC, etc. My comments above were mainly motivated by Ellison clamping onto Linux on Intel in the article.
Intel-based servers may be cheap and all, but I do not look forward to a future where the RISC-based manufacturers, such as Sun, IBM, and SGI, are totally displaced.
Reality is that traditional RISC-based workstations and servers, such as Sun's higher-end Ultra and Blade workstations, are really a joy to work with. They are amazingly robust and flexible, since they typically are the result of long and thorough development and testing efforts. They tend to have useful lifetimes of about a decade, where they keep finding new roles and finally get mothballed after enjoying a last hurrah as a print server. They have genuine firmware, so you don't have to jump through flaming hoops to bootstrap the system they way you want to. Their enclosures are very well engineered for easy maintainence, fewer moving parts, and good airflow. And on and on...
Whenever I see the inside of an Intel-based server, I am a bit disappointed. Working with one tends to be disappointing as well. Truth is: you do get what you pay for.
I hope Oracle doesn't learn too many hard lessons these next few years.
Re:... It's Microsoft's Software, Microsoft's Serv
on
AOL vs. Trillian
·
· Score: 1
So why should they Allow Netscape Browsers to run on their OS?
Because web browsers and operating systems really lie in different markets. Some people try to say, "Well, it's all just software it's all the same," but this is really a fallacy.
How would you feel if General Motors, for example, forced you to use GM tires, GM wiper blades, GM light bulbs, GM cup holders, GM oil, GM mufflers, ad nauseum. Quite upset, I bet. However, this is exactly what <insert-mega-software-company> is doing to people!
Does anyone else see the irony of this statement? =)
Well, this just gets back into the free != free ambiguity that the Open Source movement cites. English really is a wonderfully clear language ain't it?
It is right. Sony chose to organize a port of free software to their platform and, then, sell it to recoup their costs and possibly make a profit. Most free software licenses clearly allow this. Just be thankful that there is yet another platform on which free software is available.
If you don't like the facts that the PS2 is proprietary, DVDs are controlled by megacorporations, and you have to buy the Linux DVD for the PS2 from Sony, then just use another platform (such as a comparably inexpensive PC) to run the same software. You are not forced by anyone to pay for your own code.
RedHat is simply consolodating software that is already offered by many different people/companies. There is nothing stopping you from assembling your own Linux-based system from scratch, if you wish. There is nothing stopping you from choosing alternative kernels, either. The free-UNIX world is one of mix-and-match to your hearts desire, and no one will force upon you a fixed set of software offerings like Micro$oft's.
Now I can get in an accident with a SUV while the driver is surfing the net as well as talking on the phone.
This was modded as "Funny", but this is really a sad reality. Many accidents are caused by irresponsible drivers who don't think about how talking on a cell phone impairs their driving ability. This problem is big enough that some cities have passed or are debating rules about cell phone use in cars.
I observe daily that some people just don't care whether they put other lives at risk while driving. These people just aren't qualified to drive, yet they all do.
Apple's ultimate desktop success with Darwin/OSX will be because users who need that kind of OS power can now have it without the niggling driver details that plague Intel OS distributions.
Now that OS X is UNIX, I can imagine the Mac hardware/OS X combination being a sysadmin's dream come true. Sun hardware with Solaris is similar: it just works without the mind twisting neccessary to debug a M$ Windows installation, for example.
It is very good that these sort of OS/Hardware combinations are becoming more affordable ($X,XXX rather than $XX,XXX), so that the world's reliance on mediocre computers (Windows on Intel) will diminish more and more over time.
...develop a truly original interface, instead of immitating Windows.
I thought KDE was imitating CDE. Microsoft doesn't deserve credit for everything, even though they will probably own everything one day, and I will be fanning and serving grapes to the M$ executive board.
Nothing beats the freedom of hopping into my car, when I want to and not waiting for public transportation, on their schedule.
So, you are saying that hopping into your car and driving 30 minutes to go five miles is your idea of freedom? Many major cities are so disgustingly overcongested with cars (and undertrained incompetent drivers) that cars must be the most inefficient and dangerous method of mass transportation in use today. It is really bad when it is sometimes faster to walk or ride a bicycle than drive. The go-everywhere-by-car system is becoming less and less maintainable every day.
I'm not familiar with cities outside the USA, but, at least in the USA, if people can just let go of needing a car everwhere everytime, then many of the psychological woes of (sub)urban life would simply disappear.
...there are just too many games out there that use OpenGL that are too popular to be crushed.
It isn't just games. There is a lot of genuine industry-driving software out there based on OpenGL. For example, high-end CAD systems on UNIX workstations (that have OpenGL-accelerated graphics hardware).
If Microsoft denied a company, such as Sun Microsystems or IBM, the right to manufacture or distribute OpenGL graphics systems to run OpenGL-based CAD software, then, overnight, a whole enormous aspect of the world economy--mechanical design and manufaturing--needs to be done on Windows-based workstations. This really really really sucks.
If Microsoft builds a world where I have to do software development, mechanical design, everything using Microsoft software and hardware, then that's a world where I will quit my career and become a monk. Having nothing is better than having Microsoft-everything.
I'm not too worried, since Open Source licenses tend to have very clear "NO WARRANTY" clauses. They express, up front, that the users must deal with the non-zero risk of using free software.
So, you are saying that your organization is a nice little Microsoft utopia guided by the gentle hands of the Microsoft dictatorship?
The problem with standardizing on a proprietary documentation format is that, now, all of your important company documents are accessible through only one corporation's software. It just isn't good risk management. It is better to find a medium, such as plain text, that can capture most communication in an readable by anyone/anything/anywhere format and use more expressive file formats on an as-needed basis.
Plain text or LaTeX files under SCCS or CVS works even better and the files will never become corrupted. Lose a few bits in a Word file, and you are screwed.
Why is it that I feel like I'm moving backwards in time whenever I use Microsoft products?
Quite simply, no two MS Windows systems behave the same. The configuration control in Windows is so poor that MS Word might work great on one computer and never work well on another. If a person likes to install a variety of software from a variety of sources...well, then, pretty much all bets are off. In general, the less sofware installed on a Windows system, the better.
This isn't an argument for installing only Microsoft software; this is an argument that Microsoft produced an OS that can't be managed well.
...as for the article, LaTeX is always good (even for writing letters), Doxygen with C++ seems pretty good, too, but, as always, plain text is best.
Slashdot Mirror
Why isn't this happening in the US?
Well, it is, albeit slowly. There are some U.S. government agencies that do use Open Source software to some degree, such as the Postal Service (so I've heard) and the Defense Department (they deployed StarOffice a while back).
However, there are still many "old school" type organizations that still want to have big proprietary software contracts with big software companies. They look for "vendors" of software that can spoon-feed them software solutions, and they probably haven't yet found what they are looking for in the Open Source arena.
There are still many frontiers for Open Source in the U.S., but all frontiers are conquered in time.
I don't have experience with them, but I have seen that Sun markets Cobalt servers that might be appropriate for your needs.
Java's performance problems
.NET presence in GNOME will force these users to find a new desktop environment, and they will do so without hesitation.
Java is no less immune to bad programmers than any other programming language.
C#'s advanced features like better encapsulation (you don't need to call set() and get() methods, you can map them to the = operator, for example).
This isn't an advanced feature nor is it better encapsulation. It is sugar that probably becomes bitter-tasting in time.
Java has never really been a mature technology IMHO and it's about time to replace it with something better
Java is very mature. Don't confuse Java and its VM with the plethora of half-assed "me too" APIs that come and go. At its core, Java is solid.
The only people who should worry about this are Sun and their followers. And maybe RMS.
Add the many users of GNOME who avoid Microsoft software out of principle. There are many people who view anything Microsoft-flavored as a genuine risk (sort of like a flea-infested rat--does it carry the plague?). A
I think Sun would either drop GNOME entirely or fork it before they submit to Miquel's wishes. If I ever find myself loading a .NET-based desktop onto a Sun workstation, that's the time to check myself into the nut house (either I'm hallucinating, or Microsoft finally owns the entire planet).
dilute .NET with non-Microsoft content
.NET into the hellish quagmire that HTML is (W3C vs. M$ vs. Netscape ...). Then, .NET will stagnate into something few people enjoy using for development and something that works well nowhere.
.NET?
.NET all to themselves, so they can make it work well enough for the same old marketing spin to clinch the deal. On the other hand, I'm not sure it is worth sacrificing GNOME in the process.
Or, at least, make
Microsoft and Netscape undermined the potential of HTML, why not have Microsoft, Ximian, and the GNOME Foundation undermine the potential of
This might be better than Microsoft having
If you've got a perfectly good working PC, why you would go through the angst of replacing it?
This is a fallacy, assuming "PC"=="PC w/ M$ Windows". M$ Windows is actually the source of much angst; my therapist recommends confrontation followed by a thorough spiritual cleansing.
So our opportunity is not to replace Microsoft on the PC.
Why not?
He sounds in the interview as if he were kidnapped by Microsoft and put through mind-altering torture. I wonder if he is on the M$ marketing department payroll?
.NET, just not .NET.
Seriously, he should pick something with the potential of
World War 3? It isn't too far fetched to think that this would be between the nations of the world and Microsoft. Pretty scary.
It's not necessarily racist.
Yes it is. Anyway, go look in a U.S. telephone book and report back to us the genuine "American" names you find. I'd be suprised if you report any, because the U.S.A. is almost entirely a country of immigrants. Just looking around my office...Eastern Europe, UK, Africa, Southern Europe...
I used Linux on a SPARCStation for a while, and I am aware of the ports to Alpha, PPC, etc. My comments above were mainly motivated by Ellison clamping onto Linux on Intel in the article.
Intel-based servers may be cheap and all, but I do not look forward to a future where the RISC-based manufacturers, such as Sun, IBM, and SGI, are totally displaced.
Reality is that traditional RISC-based workstations and servers, such as Sun's higher-end Ultra and Blade workstations, are really a joy to work with. They are amazingly robust and flexible, since they typically are the result of long and thorough development and testing efforts. They tend to have useful lifetimes of about a decade, where they keep finding new roles and finally get mothballed after enjoying a last hurrah as a print server. They have genuine firmware, so you don't have to jump through flaming hoops to bootstrap the system they way you want to. Their enclosures are very well engineered for easy maintainence, fewer moving parts, and good airflow. And on and on...
Whenever I see the inside of an Intel-based server, I am a bit disappointed. Working with one tends to be disappointing as well. Truth is: you do get what you pay for.
I hope Oracle doesn't learn too many hard lessons these next few years.
So why should they Allow Netscape Browsers to run on their OS?
Because web browsers and operating systems really lie in different markets. Some people try to say, "Well, it's all just software it's all the same," but this is really a fallacy.
How would you feel if General Motors, for example, forced you to use GM tires, GM wiper blades, GM light bulbs, GM cup holders, GM oil, GM mufflers, ad nauseum. Quite upset, I bet. However, this is exactly what <insert-mega-software-company> is doing to people!
Does anyone else see the irony of this statement? =)
Well, this just gets back into the free != free ambiguity that the Open Source movement cites. English really is a wonderfully clear language ain't it?
I don't think thats quite right.
It is right. Sony chose to organize a port of free software to their platform and, then, sell it to recoup their costs and possibly make a profit. Most free software licenses clearly allow this. Just be thankful that there is yet another platform on which free software is available.
If you don't like the facts that the PS2 is proprietary, DVDs are controlled by megacorporations, and you have to buy the Linux DVD for the PS2 from Sony, then just use another platform (such as a comparably inexpensive PC) to run the same software. You are not forced by anyone to pay for your own code.
RedHat is simply consolodating software that is already offered by many different people/companies. There is nothing stopping you from assembling your own Linux-based system from scratch, if you wish. There is nothing stopping you from choosing alternative kernels, either. The free-UNIX world is one of mix-and-match to your hearts desire, and no one will force upon you a fixed set of software offerings like Micro$oft's.
Now I can get in an accident with a SUV while the driver is surfing the net as well as talking on the phone.
This was modded as "Funny", but this is really a sad reality. Many accidents are caused by irresponsible drivers who don't think about how talking on a cell phone impairs their driving ability. This problem is big enough that some cities have passed or are debating rules about cell phone use in cars.
I observe daily that some people just don't care whether they put other lives at risk while driving. These people just aren't qualified to drive, yet they all do.
Apple's ultimate desktop success with Darwin/OSX will be because users who need that kind of OS power can now have it without the niggling driver details that plague Intel OS distributions.
Now that OS X is UNIX, I can imagine the Mac hardware/OS X combination being a sysadmin's dream come true. Sun hardware with Solaris is similar: it just works without the mind twisting neccessary to debug a M$ Windows installation, for example.
It is very good that these sort of OS/Hardware combinations are becoming more affordable ($X,XXX rather than $XX,XXX), so that the world's reliance on mediocre computers (Windows on Intel) will diminish more and more over time.
...develop a truly original interface, instead of immitating Windows.
I thought KDE was imitating CDE. Microsoft doesn't deserve credit for everything, even though they will probably own everything one day, and I will be fanning and serving grapes to the M$ executive board.
Nothing beats the freedom of hopping into my car, when I want to and not waiting for public transportation, on their schedule.
So, you are saying that hopping into your car and driving 30 minutes to go five miles is your idea of freedom? Many major cities are so disgustingly overcongested with cars (and undertrained incompetent drivers) that cars must be the most inefficient and dangerous method of mass transportation in use today. It is really bad when it is sometimes faster to walk or ride a bicycle than drive. The go-everywhere-by-car system is becoming less and less maintainable every day.
I'm not familiar with cities outside the USA, but, at least in the USA, if people can just let go of needing a car everwhere everytime, then many of the psychological woes of (sub)urban life would simply disappear.
...a Linux workstation with every daemon in the world running?
Perhaps OpenBSD would suit your needs better?
...there are just too many games out there that use OpenGL that are too popular to be crushed.
It isn't just games. There is a lot of genuine industry-driving software out there based on OpenGL. For example, high-end CAD systems on UNIX workstations (that have OpenGL-accelerated graphics hardware).
If Microsoft denied a company, such as Sun Microsystems or IBM, the right to manufacture or distribute OpenGL graphics systems to run OpenGL-based CAD software, then, overnight, a whole enormous aspect of the world economy--mechanical design and manufaturing--needs to be done on Windows-based workstations. This really really really sucks.
If Microsoft builds a world where I have to do software development, mechanical design, everything using Microsoft software and hardware, then that's a world where I will quit my career and become a monk. Having nothing is better than having Microsoft-everything.
I'm not too worried, since Open Source licenses tend to have very clear "NO WARRANTY" clauses. They express, up front, that the users must deal with the non-zero risk of using free software.
My organization has standardizied on Word
So, you are saying that your organization is a nice little Microsoft utopia guided by the gentle hands of the Microsoft dictatorship?
The problem with standardizing on a proprietary documentation format is that, now, all of your important company documents are accessible through only one corporation's software. It just isn't good risk management. It is better to find a medium, such as plain text, that can capture most communication in an readable by anyone/anything/anywhere format and use more expressive file formats on an as-needed basis.
Do you trust it?
Plain text or LaTeX files under SCCS or CVS works even better and the files will never become corrupted. Lose a few bits in a Word file, and you are screwed.
Why is it that I feel like I'm moving backwards in time whenever I use Microsoft products?
...as for the article, LaTeX is always good (even for writing letters), Doxygen with C++ seems pretty good, too, but, as always, plain text is best.
I suggest you spend a few moments at Sun's website to learn some facts, so that you can actually include a few in your next post.