Re:Any Open Source/Linux/BSD Companies doing well?
on
Lineo near Death
·
· Score: 2
However, you have to remember that most of that is "paper-money", not a cash loss.
When you buy a company for stock, the cost of that transaction is based on the value of the stock when you bought it, and it gets depreciated over a few years. When Red Hat bought Cygnus, it's stock was worth around $300/share. So, for the next several quarters, Red Hat had to expense off that transaction, resulting in a paper (not real) loss. Had Red Hat made the purchase when their stock was worth $10/share, over 100 million of those "expenses" would not have been recorded.
Many software vendors have been _HUGELY_ succesful for other platforms.
***
I don't think we are going to see ANY software companies become HUGELY successful ever again. Why were they that successful? Because they had complete control of their customers. And customers are much smarter these days.
Here's another question - name a software startup (ANY PLATFORM) after 1999 that was hugely successful.
Actually, there are many, many businesses that have done well selling free software. However, they don't make the news because they are smaller. That's right, Linux puts power in the hands of the small business. And there is nothing wrong with that, nor anything anti-corporate or anti-capitalistic about that, though some would have you think otherwise. Successful Linux companies include:
Cygnus, before being bought by Red Hat.
Ada Core Technologies
Many, many, many local consultants
Hardware companies (though these tend to not be solely Linux-oriented, you would think that if the Linux options weren't generating profits they would be cut, wouldn't they?)
I saw this guy on CNBC. What made me mad is that he only tried it on one computer, and then didn't ask the vendor what's up. That computer also happened to be running XP.
What I'm getting at is this - noone in the history of software has written a program that works in all versions of Windows no matter how you have it set up. It just doesn't happen. In addition "most" people don't have Windows XP. They run Windows 95. So, to base a review on the fact that he couldn't get the software to run on _his_ computer seems a bit fishy to me.
If this were his standard, would he _ever_ recommend buying a Windows upgrade (not a new computer, but an upgrade to an existing on). If he ever has, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Whatever the problem, it should be fixed. But the fact that he didn't take the time to find out what the problem was is stupid.
1. It is never as fast as native rpc solutions in my experience. You can cut down on the size of the response by using gzip or deflate with http 1.1, but there is no facility for compression on the inbound side. The need to minimize round trips is directly at odds with this lack of functionality because:
***
If you look at the contents of a simple SOAP request, it's over 1k!
I don't see why people didn't choose CORBA as a web service protocol. It's supported by multiple vendors on many platforms, is easy to program in, and has a ton more userful features. The Simple Object Access Protocol doesn't even have support for remote object references. Blah!
No, soap is a horrid protocol. And, despite the name, it explicitly says in its documentation that it doesn't provide support for remote object references. Basically, when you compare a system like SOAP to something mature, featureful, and powerul like CORBA, you see that SOAP is just barely a level above direct network access from a programming perspective.
In addition, there is no set standard encoding for data. How on earth is that supposed to promote interoperability?
The problem with "the top 30 user-agents" is that almost every Linux box has a different user-agent. Each kernel revision gets a different user-agent. The amount of choice available on Linux prevents it from every really getting in the top 30 user-agents. Event if Linux were _the_ most widely used client, it still wouldn't make it there, based solely on the diversity within that group.
Re:Server share data for working sites
on
March Netcraft survey
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If people choose apache because they are smart, and choose IIS because they are sheep, why do people choose Netscape, Zeus, Webstar and Website? What do those people know that we don't or are those people stuck by vendor lock-in? Are there certain webserving applications that are better suited to something besides Apache?
*********
I think the point is, people who use IIS are sheep. There are many good webservers out there, Apache being an excellent example. For a quick list of features:
1) Apache - excellent security, modularity, and customizability
2) Netscape - excellent scalability (Apache might win here, though, when it hits 2.0)
3) Zeus - very, very fast
I don't know about the others. Basically, a lot of people have put out good webservers. Microsoft just isn't one of them.
I don't think they were going to port it to GTK, but enable to use them as Bonobo Components (so you can embed them in other Gnome documents). I believe this is actually working to some degree.
Look, buddy, for real, proprietary Unix is indeed dead. I guess Mac OS X is the exception that proves the rule, then. It's not Linux, it's not GPL, and it will soon be running on more machines than all other Un*x variants combined.
***
Actually, Darwin is open-source (not GPL, but open-source nonetheless).
I agree completely. MSFT has fooled numerous businesses by simply competing with themselves and ignoring the fact that there are actually others. I have seen many ads which trash Win95 to promote NT. That leaves the customer thinking that their only alternatives are Win95 or NT. Now that they are admitting that there are others out there, I think this will lend more credibility and recognition to their competition than it will convince people to switch.
Microsoft, previously, has been in the position that they didn't have to compete with anybody. In fact, if you look at all of their advertisements in magazines, you see that they only refer to themselves when trying to pump one product over another (NT vs 95). It seems that now they are facing competition that just isn't moving, and they are having to actually face that competition.
It puts them in a position of weakness, not of strength. This ad campaign will do more for UNIX than it does for Microsoft, because Microsoft will have to admit that it is facing competition, and UNIX is being chosen by experts. This will be the biggest blow to Microsoft's corporate image in many years.
all that needs to be done is support an API that is now almost 7 years old.
***
Bzzzzt. wrong. Almost every microsoft application installs basically a whole new set of DLLs to replace the old ones. So, you basically get a complete OS upgrade with the release. That makes it REALLY hard because you have to fight with the new dll's it installs, plus the fact that parts of office run in kernel space (i think).
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.
********
I don't think this will happen. I think they'll just wise up and start running open, instead of proprietary, operating systems. They'll also have to lower their price to a reasonable level. I don't see this as such a problem.
What gets me is why is switching to Linux such a "last resort" type option? It seems that everyone agrees it will save money and leave a stable system, but people are only willing to make the move in dire straights. It's like having a million-dollar-bill just sitting next to you, and you are just too lazy to grab it.
That is how EVERY OTHER OS solves the problem. The way to get realtime rendering is realtime scheduling. Period. The way to almost-realtime rendering is super-high priority scheduling. If you can think of an OS that solves this problem a different way, I'm all for hearing about it.
Yes, all of the gnome people SHOULD have quit bitching and joined KDE. This ceaseless reduplication of efforts hurts the community and damages the prospects of an open-source system ever evolving real standards or gaining mass-market mindshare.
***
I've always preferred GNOME. There are many, many reasons to prefer each over the other. So why only have one?
Try renicing your X server to -20. Also consider renicing the panel and the window manager, and maybe even your applications. THIS is how you achieve a responsive desktop - give it the priority.
I dont care about network transparency at HOME, and as more people use linux, more people will begin to agree with me and less with you.
**********
The fact that YOU don't care about this doesn't mean that X shouldn't be used. Name a PROBLEM that would be solved by removing network transparency. If removing it doesn't solve a problem, why cripple the many, many users that use it successfully?
Also, assuming that it only matters for business people, why bother porting all the apps to a different GUI? Is there that much of an advantage to be gained? I don't see any advantage to be gained.
By the way, I'm going to guess that most of what they want to do could be easily handled by an X extension.
Microsoft has finally realized that network transparency is a good thing, and built it into XP.
Copyright law has very specific advantages. It was designed to offer an incentive to creaters to release their content being granted a limited term monopoly on its distribution with the understanding that it will become free after a period of time (of course our stupid politicians have completely subverted that by extending them for 72 years)
***
Exactly. However, Microsoft DOES have a monopoly on the Windows operating system. That monopoly is granted by the government. If Microsoft uses that monopoly for things that don't benefit the public, they have the right to restrict them. The fact that others have the right to develop their own OSs is immaterial.
One is a monopoly that was granted by government fiat. A natural consequence of that is that the government has the authority to regulate it and impose restrictions. Verizon didn't build its monopoly by building a unique business model or providing unique service. Its monopoly was granted to it by the government.
Microsofts "monopoly", on the other hand was built without government assistance.
***
WRONG. By all historic accounts, copyright is a government-granted monopoly. By relying on copyright, they were relying on the government's enforcement of their monopoly, and therefore are subject to it's demands.
Slashdot Mirror
However, you have to remember that most of that is "paper-money", not a cash loss.
When you buy a company for stock, the cost of that transaction is based on the value of the stock when you bought it, and it gets depreciated over a few years. When Red Hat bought Cygnus, it's stock was worth around $300/share. So, for the next several quarters, Red Hat had to expense off that transaction, resulting in a paper (not real) loss. Had Red Hat made the purchase when their stock was worth $10/share, over 100 million of those "expenses" would not have been recorded.
Many software vendors have been _HUGELY_ succesful for other platforms.
***
I don't think we are going to see ANY software companies become HUGELY successful ever again. Why were they that successful? Because they had complete control of their customers. And customers are much smarter these days.
Here's another question - name a software startup (ANY PLATFORM) after 1999 that was hugely successful.
Actually, there are many, many businesses that have done well selling free software. However, they don't make the news because they are smaller. That's right, Linux puts power in the hands of the small business. And there is nothing wrong with that, nor anything anti-corporate or anti-capitalistic about that, though some would have you think otherwise. Successful Linux companies include:
Cygnus, before being bought by Red Hat.
Ada Core Technologies
Many, many, many local consultants
Hardware companies (though these tend to not be solely Linux-oriented, you would think that if the Linux options weren't generating profits they would be cut, wouldn't they?)
I saw this guy on CNBC. What made me mad is that he only tried it on one computer, and then didn't ask the vendor what's up. That computer also happened to be running XP.
What I'm getting at is this - noone in the history of software has written a program that works in all versions of Windows no matter how you have it set up. It just doesn't happen. In addition "most" people don't have Windows XP. They run Windows 95. So, to base a review on the fact that he couldn't get the software to run on _his_ computer seems a bit fishy to me.
If this were his standard, would he _ever_ recommend buying a Windows upgrade (not a new computer, but an upgrade to an existing on). If he ever has, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Whatever the problem, it should be fixed. But the fact that he didn't take the time to find out what the problem was is stupid.
1. It is never as fast as native rpc solutions in my experience. You can cut down on the size of the response by using gzip or deflate with http 1.1, but there is no facility for compression on the inbound side. The need to minimize round trips is directly at odds with this lack of functionality because:
***
If you look at the contents of a simple SOAP request, it's over 1k!
I don't see why people didn't choose CORBA as a web service protocol. It's supported by multiple vendors on many platforms, is easy to program in, and has a ton more userful features. The Simple Object Access Protocol doesn't even have support for remote object references. Blah!
No, soap is a horrid protocol. And, despite the name, it explicitly says in its documentation that it doesn't provide support for remote object references. Basically, when you compare a system like SOAP to something mature, featureful, and powerul like CORBA, you see that SOAP is just barely a level above direct network access from a programming perspective.
In addition, there is no set standard encoding for data. How on earth is that supposed to promote interoperability?
The problem with "the top 30 user-agents" is that almost every Linux box has a different user-agent. Each kernel revision gets a different user-agent. The amount of choice available on Linux prevents it from every really getting in the top 30 user-agents. Event if Linux were _the_ most widely used client, it still wouldn't make it there, based solely on the diversity within that group.
If people choose apache because they are smart, and choose IIS because they are sheep, why do people choose Netscape, Zeus, Webstar and Website? What do those people know that we don't or are those people stuck by vendor lock-in? Are there certain webserving applications that are better suited to something besides Apache?
*********
I think the point is, people who use IIS are sheep. There are many good webservers out there, Apache being an excellent example. For a quick list of features:
1) Apache - excellent security, modularity, and customizability
2) Netscape - excellent scalability (Apache might win here, though, when it hits 2.0)
3) Zeus - very, very fast
I don't know about the others. Basically, a lot of people have put out good webservers. Microsoft just isn't one of them.
I don't think they were going to port it to GTK, but enable to use them as Bonobo Components (so you can embed them in other Gnome documents). I believe this is actually working to some degree.
Look, buddy, for real, proprietary Unix is indeed dead. I guess Mac OS X is the exception that proves the rule, then. It's not Linux, it's not GPL, and it will soon be running on more machines than all other Un*x variants combined.
***
Actually, Darwin is open-source (not GPL, but open-source nonetheless).
I agree completely. MSFT has fooled numerous businesses by simply competing with themselves and ignoring the fact that there are actually others. I have seen many ads which trash Win95 to promote NT. That leaves the customer thinking that their only alternatives are Win95 or NT. Now that they are admitting that there are others out there, I think this will lend more credibility and recognition to their competition than it will convince people to switch.
Microsoft, previously, has been in the position that they didn't have to compete with anybody. In fact, if you look at all of their advertisements in magazines, you see that they only refer to themselves when trying to pump one product over another (NT vs 95). It seems that now they are facing competition that just isn't moving, and they are having to actually face that competition.
It puts them in a position of weakness, not of strength. This ad campaign will do more for UNIX than it does for Microsoft, because Microsoft will have to admit that it is facing competition, and UNIX is being chosen by experts. This will be the biggest blow to Microsoft's corporate image in many years.
Try renicing your X server to -20
I love your sig!
all that needs to be done is support an API that is now almost 7 years old.
***
Bzzzzt. wrong. Almost every microsoft application installs basically a whole new set of DLLs to replace the old ones. So, you basically get a complete OS upgrade with the release. That makes it REALLY hard because you have to fight with the new dll's it installs, plus the fact that parts of office run in kernel space (i think).
Now, it doesn't seem so trivial now, does it?
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.
********
I don't think this will happen. I think they'll just wise up and start running open, instead of proprietary, operating systems. They'll also have to lower their price to a reasonable level. I don't see this as such a problem.
What gets me is why is switching to Linux such a "last resort" type option? It seems that everyone agrees it will save money and leave a stable system, but people are only willing to make the move in dire straights. It's like having a million-dollar-bill just sitting next to you, and you are just too lazy to grab it.
That is how EVERY OTHER OS solves the problem. The way to get realtime rendering is realtime scheduling. Period. The way to almost-realtime rendering is super-high priority scheduling. If you can think of an OS that solves this problem a different way, I'm all for hearing about it.
Yes, all of the gnome people SHOULD have quit bitching and joined KDE. This ceaseless reduplication of efforts hurts the community and damages the prospects of an open-source system ever evolving real standards or gaining mass-market mindshare.
***
I've always preferred GNOME. There are many, many reasons to prefer each over the other. So why only have one?
Try renicing your X server to -20. Also consider renicing the panel and the window manager, and maybe even your applications. THIS is how you achieve a responsive desktop - give it the priority.
I dont care about network transparency at HOME, and as more people use linux, more people will begin to agree with me and less with you.
**********
The fact that YOU don't care about this doesn't mean that X shouldn't be used. Name a PROBLEM that would be solved by removing network transparency. If removing it doesn't solve a problem, why cripple the many, many users that use it successfully?
Also, assuming that it only matters for business people, why bother porting all the apps to a different GUI? Is there that much of an advantage to be gained? I don't see any advantage to be gained.
By the way, I'm going to guess that most of what they want to do could be easily handled by an X extension.
Microsoft has finally realized that network transparency is a good thing, and built it into XP.
Copyright law has very specific advantages. It was designed to offer an incentive to creaters to release their content being granted a limited term monopoly on its distribution with the understanding that it will become free after a period of time (of course our stupid politicians have completely subverted that by extending them for 72 years)
***
Exactly. However, Microsoft DOES have a monopoly on the Windows operating system. That monopoly is granted by the government. If Microsoft uses that monopoly for things that don't benefit the public, they have the right to restrict them. The fact that others have the right to develop their own OSs is immaterial.
Thanks!
Where is this standard? I've never heard of it. Link please.
donutello said:
One is a monopoly that was granted by government fiat. A natural consequence of that is that the government has the authority to regulate it and impose restrictions. Verizon didn't build its monopoly by building a unique business model or providing unique service. Its monopoly was granted to it by the government.
Microsofts "monopoly", on the other hand was built without government assistance.
***
WRONG. By all historic accounts, copyright is a government-granted monopoly. By relying on copyright, they were relying on the government's enforcement of their monopoly, and therefore are subject to it's demands.