Sure, you can layer a Linux compatibility suite or a huge set of languages/libraries on top of Windows to make it act like Linux, but in that case, why bother with Windows?
"besides the SQL server, which can usually be replaced with MSDE for small to medium shops"
I've looked at MSDE. It's missing quite a bit.
"how much of this savings really cut DEVELOPMENT costs?"
Let's see here - I wrote a section of code that goes through a template and replaces special variables with data lists from another source (kind of like an advanced mail merge for non-mail documents). It took all of 3 lines of code.
Perl (one of many great languages) has hundreds of features that greatly reduce both the amount and complexity of code. Look up Perl's flip-flop operator for an absolute stroke of genius. In addition, the ability for functions to return tuples instead of single-values saves me time every single time I sit down to write code, not to mention the ease of viewing it later. Perl has numerous features, each of which can save huge amounts of programming time and prevent you from making stupid mistakes that happen when you have to code long sections of tedius, common routines. Regular Expressions (specifically, Perl's implementation of them) is awesome. On top of that, the ability to create closures is awesome. The only thing Perl is missing is continuations, but if you need that there's always a scheme installation on Linux. Plus, scheme and Lisp both have awesome macro abilities which basically allow you to have a completely programmable programming language.
Emacs' Lisp environment makes it real easy to script common tasks of code writing.
I used to have a collection like that in my basement:)
I had a few VAX's, NeXT's, an Apple Mac Classic, an HP PA-RISC box, and a Sun NeWS box, among other things. I had to sell it in a garage sale when I left Illinois, but thankfully it went to a good home (some guy from NCSA or something). I thought I was going to have to throw it away.
As I mentioned earlier, it's EASIER to develop and deploy for Linux than Windows. I've done both, and the number of languages and tools readily available for Linux vs Windows makes doing pretty much anything in Linux easier.
Linux has, by default:
* better documentation, including the availability of source code
* better languages
* more readily available libraries
* easier deployment mechanisms
* better code-editting environments
Also, you just mentioned Windows as a license cost. I friend of mine has a company of 16 people who saved between $26,000 and $46,000 in one year on license costs alone by using Linux-based tools. That included using Postgres instead of MS SQL Server, using PHP Groupware instead of Exchange, using a Linux PDF writer instead of Acrobat. And this was from switching ONE machine (the server) from Windows to Linux (thankfully this was done BEFORE needless money was wasted on extra licenses). The non-development clients are still Windows-based, since their primary vendor has not yet ported the tools they use daily over. However, almost everyone uses Mozilla, because it saves time (popup blocking, tab-based interface, stuff like that).
Slackware is what taught me about open-source and free software. I've been trying to teach others about it ever since. Somehow the concept of sharing has gotten so lost in the Christian community that it's taken a atheist to remind us what it is.
Slack appeals to the "traditional UNIX" group of people. I actually started on Slack 3.(5|6) that came bundled with a book. The book said it came with a complete UNIX system. I didn't really believe it - I was assuming it was some sort of trialware - and learning about people who actually shared code with each other freely really changed my perception of the field of computer science while I was in college.
Slackware today still has a lot going for it:
* it doesn't assume much about you, except that you know what you're doing
* it is built for speed - it attempts to be cruft-less (and from what I've seen it succeeds quite well)
* it's packages are backwards-compatible w/.tar.gz formats
* BSD-style init for those who like it (I'm a SysV guy, myself)
* a competent community
It's kind of a do-it-yourself kind of environment, which, for some reason, Linux people often enjoy:)
Incorrect. Modifications are often done separately, and is bid out. My company does this for small/med-sized companies all the time. Using open-source software means that we can usually BOTH have the lower priced system AND have a higher profit margin.
"Patenting the genome of an existing organism sounds like it should be wrong, until you realize that mapping isn't obvious at all"
So should that organism now have to pay the people who mapped it's genome to live? Should it have to pay to have offspring?
Several points:
1) We are talking about _life_, not inanimate objects. The ballgame is very different here.
2) You can't patent something that already exists. I can't patent something that exists in nature just because noone knew about it before.
3) Minor variations don't really qualify for patents/copyright. For example, you can't copyright fonts. What you create would have to be different enough to qualify as a new creative work, and I'm not sure than any of the modifications we're doing should qualify, anyway.
"That being said, I don't see a problem with a company owning rights to the DNA. After a company spends millions of dollars to develop genetically superior modified wheat, they should have the rights to do whatever they want with it."
If you buy corn at the store, instead of eating it, should it be legal to plant it?
If your answer is yes (even for "normal" corn), realize that even with "normal" corn, it's been bred specifically for maximum yield, just in a more low-tech manner. Saying that just because someone used technique Y or Z to create the corn, it magically becomes unusable for planting, means that no corn anywhere is safe for planting.
This is a really dangerous game, and it needs to be stopped, and quick. Life simply cannot be copyrighted/patented.
"If there is no profit, they will have no incentive to do the R&D and it will never get made."
BS. You don't think a group of farmers would ever make a cooperative to develop this stuff? Perhaps instead what would happen is that the incentive would be to benefit the _farmers_ rather than the patent-holders.
"Perhaps the best way would be in the middle somewhere, like they do with drugs. The company has exclusive rights for a certain number of years then other companies can make generic versions"
It's called patents. It's not really industry-specific. However, patents have caused the drug industry to focus entirely on patentable products, rather than more natural products which, while having fewer side-effects, aren't as easy to cover with patent law. Patents and copyrights also benefit those creating "new" things rather than making "old" things more workable and usable. This has caused a great amount of instability, since rather than doing research to make old treatments be more useful (unprofitable), we are simply doing research on new treatments whose side-effects and problems are likewise new and unknown. The patent system makes this more profitable than making old things workable.
Anyway, I don't buy it. In a free economy, those with needs will find a way to get what they want. You don't often have to create special laws to prop up specific industries, especially since it prevents new ways of producing ideas and products from coming forward.
"As it has been mentioned earlier in this thread, with the current difficulty of installing Linux and making sure all of the applications run correctly, IT departments installing a Linux base would have their hands full."
I must have missed that part of the thread. However, I've worked with IT staffs with Linux installed base, and there wasn't any big hurdles in doing so.
"Linux programs do not install as easily as Windows programs"
You're right, it's usually easier w/ Linux, especially on a large network.
"it is often necessary to tweak things to get them to work right."
And tweaking on a large network is almost always easier w/ Linux.
It _is_ true that IT staffs who don't know Linux will be able to do Windows better than Linux. However, I haven't ever found, given similar levels of competence, that Windows was easier to administer on any level than Linux. In fact, for ease of use and operation, you should check out K12LTSP. It's being run all over the US and the world by non-technical staff who use it because it's easier to deploy and manage than Windows.
"If Linux becomes easier to configure, then we will see many more IT depts switching to Linux."
It already is. The real impedence is actually vertical applications. Our office will probably switch a lot of its workstations once Macromedia's tools are available on Linux.
"Developers make that choice because Microsoft bends over backward for them."
You mean "pays them money"? In what way were early versions of DirectX bending over backwards for developers?
DirectX was a piece of crap for a looooong time, while OpenGL was still excellent. So why did developers use DirectX? A lot of early DirectX games were co-op funded by Microsoft, if I remember correctly.
"Linux sticks out their tounges at them and their "corporate" software."
In what way? Almost all Linux software _is_ corporate software.
" Big businesses exist outside the software relm."
You're right. I was specifically NOT talking about software businesses.
"Hospitals, Car Companies, Shipping companies are all large corporation status."
With the exception of hospitals, all of the company types you mention generally write a lot of their own software. Now, some of them have outsourced the actual program writing, but it is still custom software developed specifically for them, and would be cheaper done on Linux.
"So again, what advantages does Linux give these companies who dont' care about development and only want to run the programs (Hyperion, Peachtree, Citrix, Cerner, Peoplesoft, SAP, etc)"
Most companies who use the programs you mention run customized versions. I just finished writing a customization for Peachtree for a small company (8 people), and almost ALL Peoplesoft, SAP, and Oracle Applications installations include custom software development. Your argument simply does not hold water. Successful companies run on custom software, because successful companies do not run their operations in a cookie-cutter fashion.
"It is not cheap to build applications in Linux OR in Windows."
I disagree. It takes us an average of 3 months to build and deploy applications using a single developer (by application I mean a self-contained web-based application that can be sold to other companies for use).
"If the business is running Linux, the IT dept will have to work even harder to keep the systems running. "
????? By what logic do you come up with this?
"but for now, it is not as easy as you claim to build applications within an IT department to replace *overpriced* applications in Windows"
This is true if your staff is not very good, which is true of a lot of IT departments. Many people think that good staff costs more than bad staff, but the truth is that it usually just requires better hiring practices (like not involving your HR department, which knows nothing about the needs of IT).
"What if you're not in the business of building applications?"
Then your company is not running as efficiently as it could, or you're really small. There is not much difference between the way a company's data moves and a company operates. If you only use standard, off-the-shelf software for operations, it is likely that your operations are not optimal. Custom software is the lifeblood of most successful businesses.
You are wrong to claim that tax cuts necessarily mean borrow money. It is more like a store giving a sale, but it's a sale on money rather than on goods.
Remember, after Reagan's tax cut revenues to the government DOUBLED. The surge in the economy caused by the tax cuts caused MORE money to be available, not less. The government is overpriced, and is weighing down the economy. That's why people want taxes lowered. At some point, you will hit the point where taxes are too low, but we are WAY far away from that now.
Indeed, we also need to lower our spending habits. This is even more true than lowering our taxes. Probably a better approach would be just to audit the funding we already give out.
"Or maybe Microsoft is the premier platform to RUN APPLICATIONS"
Possibly in a broad sense. However, Linux is becoming the premier platform to BUILD AND DEPLOY APPLICATIONS. It is built for that. When you can deploy applications quickly and cheaply, and can build customized applications quickly and cheaply, you can move ahead of your competitors who are running on yesterday's overpriced applications quickly and cheaply, and afford to make your IT department a revenue generator rather than just a cost sink.
Re:But why would non-geeks want to run Linux?
on
Linux for Non-Geeks
·
· Score: 1
You cannot keep Windows secure as long as you are running IE and Outlook.
"and thus ones acquired skills are not portable to many other common and standard *nix platforms"
Of course this is only true if that is your only source of knowledge. On the other hand, if you want to know how to best work with Red Hat Linux, I imagine this would be the place to teach you. You'd probably learn some tricks you wouldn't know just knowing the generics.
I think the point was that Transgaming made a nice request, and Gentoo was congenial and complied. I don't think there was any threatening of court action.
Because by now they are cheap and at used game stores.
I'm a cheap bastard, and what has kept me from buying a console are two things: (1) cost and (2) time. If I ever wind up with time to play games, I'll want to buy a console that has both new games to play, and a lot of cheap games available at second-hand stores, too.
PPC is just much better overall. Better instruction set, lower power consumption, less heat, smaller die size, etc. When you get into game consoles you realize just how much x86 sucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, you can layer a Linux compatibility suite or a huge set of languages/libraries on top of Windows to make it act like Linux, but in that case, why bother with Windows?
"besides the SQL server, which can usually be replaced with MSDE for small to medium shops"
I've looked at MSDE. It's missing quite a bit.
"how much of this savings really cut DEVELOPMENT costs?"
Let's see here - I wrote a section of code that goes through a template and replaces special variables with data lists from another source (kind of like an advanced mail merge for non-mail documents). It took all of 3 lines of code.
Perl (one of many great languages) has hundreds of features that greatly reduce both the amount and complexity of code. Look up Perl's flip-flop operator for an absolute stroke of genius. In addition, the ability for functions to return tuples instead of single-values saves me time every single time I sit down to write code, not to mention the ease of viewing it later. Perl has numerous features, each of which can save huge amounts of programming time and prevent you from making stupid mistakes that happen when you have to code long sections of tedius, common routines. Regular Expressions (specifically, Perl's implementation of them) is awesome. On top of that, the ability to create closures is awesome. The only thing Perl is missing is continuations, but if you need that there's always a scheme installation on Linux. Plus, scheme and Lisp both have awesome macro abilities which basically allow you to have a completely programmable programming language.
Emacs' Lisp environment makes it real easy to script common tasks of code writing.
Deployment via ssh and RPM is waaay too simple.
Anyway, I could go on, but I'm going to bed.
I used to have a collection like that in my basement :)
I had a few VAX's, NeXT's, an Apple Mac Classic, an HP PA-RISC box, and a Sun NeWS box, among other things. I had to sell it in a garage sale when I left Illinois, but thankfully it went to a good home (some guy from NCSA or something). I thought I was going to have to throw it away.
See my other post:
9 51 5199
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=112043&cid=
As I mentioned earlier, it's EASIER to develop and deploy for Linux than Windows. I've done both, and the number of languages and tools readily available for Linux vs Windows makes doing pretty much anything in Linux easier.
Linux has, by default:
* better documentation, including the availability of source code
* better languages
* more readily available libraries
* easier deployment mechanisms
* better code-editting environments
Also, you just mentioned Windows as a license cost. I friend of mine has a company of 16 people who saved between $26,000 and $46,000 in one year on license costs alone by using Linux-based tools. That included using Postgres instead of MS SQL Server, using PHP Groupware instead of Exchange, using a Linux PDF writer instead of Acrobat. And this was from switching ONE machine (the server) from Windows to Linux (thankfully this was done BEFORE needless money was wasted on extra licenses). The non-development clients are still Windows-based, since their primary vendor has not yet ported the tools they use daily over. However, almost everyone uses Mozilla, because it saves time (popup blocking, tab-based interface, stuff like that).
Slackware is what taught me about open-source and free software. I've been trying to teach others about it ever since. Somehow the concept of sharing has gotten so lost in the Christian community that it's taken a atheist to remind us what it is.
Slack appeals to the "traditional UNIX" group of people. I actually started on Slack 3.(5|6) that came bundled with a book. The book said it came with a complete UNIX system. I didn't really believe it - I was assuming it was some sort of trialware - and learning about people who actually shared code with each other freely really changed my perception of the field of computer science while I was in college.
.tar.gz formats
:)
Slackware today still has a lot going for it:
* it doesn't assume much about you, except that you know what you're doing
* it is built for speed - it attempts to be cruft-less (and from what I've seen it succeeds quite well)
* it's packages are backwards-compatible w/
* BSD-style init for those who like it (I'm a SysV guy, myself)
* a competent community
It's kind of a do-it-yourself kind of environment, which, for some reason, Linux people often enjoy
Incorrect. Modifications are often done separately, and is bid out. My company does this for small/med-sized companies all the time. Using open-source software means that we can usually BOTH have the lower priced system AND have a higher profit margin.
"Patenting the genome of an existing organism sounds like it should be wrong, until you realize that mapping isn't obvious at all"
So should that organism now have to pay the people who mapped it's genome to live? Should it have to pay to have offspring?
Several points:
1) We are talking about _life_, not inanimate objects. The ballgame is very different here.
2) You can't patent something that already exists. I can't patent something that exists in nature just because noone knew about it before.
3) Minor variations don't really qualify for patents/copyright. For example, you can't copyright fonts. What you create would have to be different enough to qualify as a new creative work, and I'm not sure than any of the modifications we're doing should qualify, anyway.
"That being said, I don't see a problem with a company owning rights to the DNA. After a company spends millions of dollars to develop genetically superior modified wheat, they should have the rights to do whatever they want with it."
If you buy corn at the store, instead of eating it, should it be legal to plant it?
If your answer is yes (even for "normal" corn), realize that even with "normal" corn, it's been bred specifically for maximum yield, just in a more low-tech manner. Saying that just because someone used technique Y or Z to create the corn, it magically becomes unusable for planting, means that no corn anywhere is safe for planting.
This is a really dangerous game, and it needs to be stopped, and quick. Life simply cannot be copyrighted/patented.
"If there is no profit, they will have no incentive to do the R&D and it will never get made."
BS. You don't think a group of farmers would ever make a cooperative to develop this stuff? Perhaps instead what would happen is that the incentive would be to benefit the _farmers_ rather than the patent-holders.
"Perhaps the best way would be in the middle somewhere, like they do with drugs. The company has exclusive rights for a certain number of years then other companies can make generic versions"
It's called patents. It's not really industry-specific. However, patents have caused the drug industry to focus entirely on patentable products, rather than more natural products which, while having fewer side-effects, aren't as easy to cover with patent law. Patents and copyrights also benefit those creating "new" things rather than making "old" things more workable and usable. This has caused a great amount of instability, since rather than doing research to make old treatments be more useful (unprofitable), we are simply doing research on new treatments whose side-effects and problems are likewise new and unknown. The patent system makes this more profitable than making old things workable.
Anyway, I don't buy it. In a free economy, those with needs will find a way to get what they want. You don't often have to create special laws to prop up specific industries, especially since it prevents new ways of producing ideas and products from coming forward.
"As it has been mentioned earlier in this thread, with the current difficulty of installing Linux and making sure all of the applications run correctly, IT departments installing a Linux base would have their hands full."
I must have missed that part of the thread. However, I've worked with IT staffs with Linux installed base, and there wasn't any big hurdles in doing so.
"Linux programs do not install as easily as Windows programs"
You're right, it's usually easier w/ Linux, especially on a large network.
"it is often necessary to tweak things to get them to work right."
And tweaking on a large network is almost always easier w/ Linux.
It _is_ true that IT staffs who don't know Linux will be able to do Windows better than Linux. However, I haven't ever found, given similar levels of competence, that Windows was easier to administer on any level than Linux. In fact, for ease of use and operation, you should check out K12LTSP. It's being run all over the US and the world by non-technical staff who use it because it's easier to deploy and manage than Windows.
"If Linux becomes easier to configure, then we will see many more IT depts switching to Linux."
It already is. The real impedence is actually vertical applications. Our office will probably switch a lot of its workstations once Macromedia's tools are available on Linux.
"Developers make that choice because Microsoft bends over backward for them."
You mean "pays them money"? In what way were early versions of DirectX bending over backwards for developers?
DirectX was a piece of crap for a looooong time, while OpenGL was still excellent. So why did developers use DirectX? A lot of early DirectX games were co-op funded by Microsoft, if I remember correctly.
"Linux sticks out their tounges at them and their "corporate" software."
In what way? Almost all Linux software _is_ corporate software.
And tying up distirubtion channels and OEMs.
" Big businesses exist outside the software relm."
You're right. I was specifically NOT talking about software businesses.
"Hospitals, Car Companies, Shipping companies are all large corporation status."
With the exception of hospitals, all of the company types you mention generally write a lot of their own software. Now, some of them have outsourced the actual program writing, but it is still custom software developed specifically for them, and would be cheaper done on Linux.
"So again, what advantages does Linux give these companies who dont' care about development and only want to run the programs (Hyperion, Peachtree, Citrix, Cerner, Peoplesoft, SAP, etc)"
Most companies who use the programs you mention run customized versions. I just finished writing a customization for Peachtree for a small company (8 people), and almost ALL Peoplesoft, SAP, and Oracle Applications installations include custom software development. Your argument simply does not hold water. Successful companies run on custom software, because successful companies do not run their operations in a cookie-cutter fashion.
"It is not cheap to build applications in Linux OR in Windows."
I disagree. It takes us an average of 3 months to build and deploy applications using a single developer (by application I mean a self-contained web-based application that can be sold to other companies for use).
"If the business is running Linux, the IT dept will have to work even harder to keep the systems running. "
????? By what logic do you come up with this?
"but for now, it is not as easy as you claim to build applications within an IT department to replace *overpriced* applications in Windows"
This is true if your staff is not very good, which is true of a lot of IT departments. Many people think that good staff costs more than bad staff, but the truth is that it usually just requires better hiring practices (like not involving your HR department, which knows nothing about the needs of IT).
"What if you're not in the business of building applications?"
Then your company is not running as efficiently as it could, or you're really small. There is not much difference between the way a company's data moves and a company operates. If you only use standard, off-the-shelf software for operations, it is likely that your operations are not optimal. Custom software is the lifeblood of most successful businesses.
You are wrong to claim that tax cuts necessarily mean borrow money. It is more like a store giving a sale, but it's a sale on money rather than on goods.
E _C ORRUPT-O-CRATS.htm
t ml
Remember, after Reagan's tax cut revenues to the government DOUBLED. The surge in the economy caused by the tax cuts caused MORE money to be available, not less. The government is overpriced, and is weighing down the economy. That's why people want taxes lowered. At some point, you will hit the point where taxes are too low, but we are WAY far away from that now.
Indeed, we also need to lower our spending habits. This is even more true than lowering our taxes. Probably a better approach would be just to audit the funding we already give out.
http://federaltimes.com/index.php?S=1868885
http://www.regularguy.com/notebook/ENRON_AND_TH
http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/9948-1.h
"Or maybe Microsoft is the premier platform to RUN APPLICATIONS"
Possibly in a broad sense. However, Linux is becoming the premier platform to BUILD AND DEPLOY APPLICATIONS. It is built for that. When you can deploy applications quickly and cheaply, and can build customized applications quickly and cheaply, you can move ahead of your competitors who are running on yesterday's overpriced applications quickly and cheaply, and afford to make your IT department a revenue generator rather than just a cost sink.
You cannot keep Windows secure as long as you are running IE and Outlook.
My lemonade-stand prevented me from ever drinking orange juice again. I just couldn't figure out how.
"and thus ones acquired skills are not portable to many other common and standard *nix platforms"
Of course this is only true if that is your only source of knowledge. On the other hand, if you want to know how to best work with Red Hat Linux, I imagine this would be the place to teach you. You'd probably learn some tricks you wouldn't know just knowing the generics.
Freedom is not the same as not having moral obligations.
I think the point was that Transgaming made a nice request, and Gentoo was congenial and complied. I don't think there was any threatening of court action.
Because by now they are cheap and at used game stores.
I'm a cheap bastard, and what has kept me from buying a console are two things: (1) cost and (2) time. If I ever wind up with time to play games, I'll want to buy a console that has both new games to play, and a lot of cheap games available at second-hand stores, too.
Yeah, but who knew that?
PPC is just much better overall. Better instruction set, lower power consumption, less heat, smaller die size, etc. When you get into game consoles you realize just how much x86 sucks.