I try and compile your code with GCC and get tons of errors. (I get them all the time with Linux and so do you if you grab lots of source code, perhaps this was the core reason RPM was developed). You and I then spend lots of time working with people to resolve the issues. We generally find out that we don't have a recent library that is needed or we find out that we have too new of a library. We then have a fun option of going to "RPM hell". We start a long process of upgrading stuff in hopes that it will fix our problem.
Some of this is the same in JAVA but with one difference. You don't compile the source code on the machine. You send them a JAR file (zip compression) and in most cases they can just click(or double click) on that file and it runs. Doesn't that sound better? Send a file to a user, have them click on it and it runs? Heck you can even do one better. You can use Java's web start and have them go to a web page, launch the app from the page, it will check to see if you need a JVM installed, if so it will install one (major platforms only), then copy the application down to you and run it. The next time you try and run the app it will check the server automatically for updates and download them if needed. If for some reason the network is not available then it will run the local copy. Some people hate this, but a ton of developers and businesses love it. So now you have two ways of delivering your application. One with Webstart and one with sending a JAR file. No compile needed on either one. All the user needs to do is click on the file and they are off and running.
Lastly, I would also argue that if you have some basic users out there it will be far far easier to get them to load a JVM(with or without using webstart) than it is to get them to load a C compiler. The JVM installer has come a long way on all the major platforms.
Again though I ask you. Do you really care what the code was written in? When you click on your Instant messenger, Email client or CD/DVD burner and it runs, do you care what it was written in? If so then why?
Now I as a developer who wants to write a DVD burner have three options.
I only target Windows because they own 93+% of the desktop market? Most will answer yes to that question and use only Microsoft stuff, and lock the app in to the Win32 API set.
I can develop the application in JAVA and make the installer check to see if the user has a JVM installed. I then can focus my testing on Windows and the product should (without recompile) run on all other platforms.
I could write the software in C or C++ and force the user to have a compiler for their system, (good luck on the various windows versions), then compile the code on that system, create icons for them and they would be off an running.
Out of those options most developers choose options 1 (sucks but it is reality), a few pick option 2 and only open source people pick option 3.
lastly I want to point out that NOTHING is stopping the developers in option 1 or 2 from giving the source code away also. So those brave souls who wanted to compile it could. I can say that I run a quite a few JAVA applications from sourceforge that were written soley on Windows and tested on Windows but because they were written in JAVA I have had GREAT luck in getting them all to work on Linux. Specifically 64bit SuSe. Now getting C source code and compiling it.... Well that is another matter. I still don't have a working copy of Mondo, and can't compile it to save my life.
Ok what have you developed in JAVA that has caused you problems on other platforms? Could you give some specifics? Perhaps I do boring code, but I have developed many many many many many java applications and have had little issues moving from: NetWare 5.x Windows NT Windows 98 Windows XP Windows 2000 Solaris 7-8 Linux (various versions and distro's) Linux 64 bit (SuSe for X86-64) IPAQ (small apps, not much experience) Palm OS (again small apps not much experience) Macintosh OSX 10.2 and 10.3
and i am now looking at the Nokia cell phones.
I have not found any Major issue with any of those platforms. Granted I just do business applications, and don't make games, so perhaps I am missing something.
I, on a daily basis write code in Windows/Jdeveloper and then deploy to a mid tier running JBOSS/SuSe 64 bit, then deploy to production of both RedHat and SuSe 32 bit running both JBOSS and Resin. For me JAVA has achieved write once run anywhere. We still do test, but I can't honestly think of any issue that has been because of some JAVA incompatability on a particular platform. Are there quirks with different JVM's??? Yep, but I have found that to be the case on the same platform:-) The language isn't perfect, but for a lot of us it is by far the best language out there.
I normally don't reply to "Anonymous Cowards" but in this case I will make an exception.
If you are running OSX 10.3 you are running a very new version of the JVM. If you are running OSX 10.2 you are also running a very new version of the JVM. So I guess my question is what OS are you running on it?
Now you mention that you don't "miss" Java. I will argue that you don't care what an application is written in, as long as it looks good, is stable and does what you want. So I challenge you with this. How do you know what the application was written in? You probably don't. If you are a Linux/Macintosh/Windows/Netware/Solaris user and you launch your MP3 player and it works do you really care to see if it was written in C, C++, Java, Cobol?
JAVA runs on all MAJOR platforms. It doesn't require the user to "compile" any code to run. It has a rich GUI toolkit built in. It handles object cleanup well. It's speed has become excellent at most tasks It has excellent networking support built in. It has a giant developer base helping to add funcitonality.
Also they were FORCED by shareholders to give up some of that money.
Re:Nothing new
on
Linux, Inc.
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
1998: First Joe user goes online and most of the servers he hits are running Linux. He doesn't care.
~2000: Then Joe user goes out and buys a Tivo (or Tivo like) product. It runs Linux, again he doesn't care because it offers the apps he wants.
~2001: Then Joe user buys a new cell phone and it runs Linux. He doesn't care because it is cheap and gives him the functionality he needs.
1999-2004: Now over that time device drivers start to appear more frequently for Linux because of all the servers and appliances that need them....
2002-2004: Major players (Oracle, BEA, Novell, IBM, HP, Sun, heck all but Microsoft start to support their software on Linux servers.... Even Crystal reports now runs on Linux.
2004: Point of sale devices start to standardize on Linux....
2000-2005: Standard desktop applications start to become common on Linux. Apps like DVD burning, MP3 playing, Office, P2P, Web Browsing and some games become part of a standard Linux install.
2005-2006: Linux desktop market share grows to surpass that of new Apple Macintosh sales. This forces companies like Macromedia (Dreamweaver) to start seriously looking at offering a Linux version of their products.
2007-2008: New devices will start to ship Linux drivers and software with their products. These drivers and software will be more common than drivers and software offered for the Macintosh. Companies like Macromedia and Filemaker will reluctantly start to offer Linux versions of their software, but they will be downloadable only. They will go to great concerns to "protect" their software from being copied.
2010: The Linux desktop market share in the U.S. will be around 15 to 20%. Microsoft Longhorn will be released. At a 20% desktop marketshare OEM's will now start to offer Linux on every model of computer and have the quantity of scale needed to lower the cost of a new computer pre-loaded with Linux.
2011: Joe user will go to purchase a new machine. Machines will now cost almost nothing, and software cost will be the lions share of the total cost. The machine with Windows will cost more than the machine with Linux. Joe user will ask if both will do the job, and they will. Both will run his legacy apps. Joe user doesn't care, and buys the cheaper box. Microsoft will be forced to SIGNIFICANTLY lower their price of Windows and Office thus killing their profits.
2015-2016: Linux market share now soars to 50% and video game makers now target Linux first. Microsoft will start to lay people off.
2017: Duke Nukem Forever for Linux is released ahead of the Windows version by a year.
My point is this.... "IF" Linux gets a 10-15% marketshare of the desktops, the game is over for Windows. At that point they have a large enough marketshare that it will be very hard for any software vendor to ignor them. That is what scares Microsoft to death. A free competitor that is "good enough" cannot get that large for them to survive.
My second point is that this isn't going to happen overnight. Heck it isn't going to happen in the next 5 years. But look at how far Linux has come in just the last 5 years. It use to be that Joe user couldn't even use a nicely configured Linux box, now he can. He can probably even install SuSe or RedHat. If you installed Linux back in 1996, then you realize how far they have come. Think about that. In less than 10 years Linux has come from impossible for a noob to use - to an almost complete replacement to Windows. Now factor in that a lot more people are working on Linux than Windows and you begin to see what Microsoft is worried about. Yes they have 60+Billion in the bank. Now you know why they are doing that. They will need that money.
Their ONLY hope is to go after patents, and perhaps the "living room". If they loose this battle then they are in for a long and hard road ahead and they will need a HUGE amount of money to "get them by" until their next great idea comes along. I also expect them to dum
1. I believe you are wrong on this issue. I have intervied well over 400 people over different times and can tell you that there is almost always a best person for the job.
2. you are correct. I don't source my stats. I said many many many times to go look for yourself. So do it! Prove me wrong in a major university or fortion 100 company. People/companies don't like to give out stats that I just gave. Can you blame them?
3. Engineering departments is NOT the norm. You and I will agree with that. Now go look at your insureance company, drug company, agro-company, hospitals I.T. department and tell me that I am wrong. It is funny you mention that most of the people you know in I.T. don't have a degree in computer science. This goes to help prove my other point of companies "sticking" people in I.T. How many engineers do you know that don't have some degree in Engineering? One? Two?..... None? Why? Can't they just take someone and train them? Can't they just learn it on their own?
Last point - You seem to believe that people base their views off the world around them. You and I agree that this is probably the case. I would say in my case of 20+ years in I.T. (around the U.S.) and working with many of the top 500 companies around, I can say with some conviction that I am not far off on my stats. I will add that I was wrong on one major point. Most of the males in computer science now are not white. I was corrected on this mistake in another post....
Again I would love to know some major university that has say 50% of the top computer science students that are female.
I stand (well actually sit) corrected. You are correct in the last 4 years most have turned out not to be white males. As I said earlier "word gets around". However if you look at the last 25 years before that my statistics are almost dead on.
First I want to state that I always beleive in hiring the best person for the job no matter what. I hope that we can agree on that statement. If so then we both agree that afirmative action/quotas are bad.
Now on to my main point. I will have you look at most of the universities in your area. In those look who is in the top level computer science classes. What do you see? Almost all men. By almost I mean it will be around 90-95% men and a larg portion being white men. So looking at that statistic shouldn't most I.T. jobs be filled with 90-95% men? Now go in to most fortune 100 companies and look at their I.T. department. What percentage of that department is men? I think you will be shocked to see that a very large percentage are women (greater than 35%, and in a lot of cases greater than 50%). Now look at all the new hires that have taken place in the last 3 years in those companies. How many of those are white males?
It is my belief that most fortune 500 companies want to appear like they care about "diversity" but when it comes down to it they will put those hires in departments they don't think much about (I.T.). So then I.T. gets stuck with a bunch of underqualified people and then people start to say that their I.T. department suck and they need to outsouce it. Yet it is their fault for sticking underqaulfied people in there to begin with. I have yet to see any sales department be forced to take "underqualified" people. I have yet to see a marketing department take underqualified people. I have yet to see any scientific department be forced to take on lesser quality people.... yet I.T. gets it all the time.
Lastly I want to say again that all this can go away if companies start to hire the best person for the job. The only good news is that if they don't their competitors might:-) Also we do agree that word about people that do things like this gets around.... It is unfortunate that by trying to spread "diversity" they are promoting raceism.
Ok then where are the 3Ghz chips? They should have been here 6 months ago according to the article. It is one of a few possibilites. 1. Steve lied to everyone. 2. They can't do it. 3. They can do it but won't for some reason.
Lets assume it is option 3 above. What do you think their reason is for not giving out faster machines? Are the ones they have now selling great? Are they stuck in the channel and they want to clear out all the 2.x Ghz machines first? If so then wouln't 6 months be long enough?
Now please understand that I am a HUGE PPC fan and want nothing more than to see the PPC crush all X86 chips out there, but I am a bit skeptical about the future of PPC in PC's. I know first hand that Apple HATES putting two processors in their systems just to be competitive witht the X86 machines.
I would also be curious to see what will happen if the difference in performance gets worse than it is now. Specifically now that Intel has jumped on the X86-64 bandwangon and will start to focus their efforts on that chip, and AMD is not sitting still. I also wonder what the heck is in it for IBM? Granted their server chips will get better, but I can't see them caring much about the desktop market, and thus they will end up screwing Apple.
Lastly I wonder how long it will be before we see an X86-64 Macintosh. It will be a sad day but if the difference in performance continues to grow then they will be forced to do something, and shipping four way boxes isn't the answer...
I almost wonder if Sun/AMD/Apple should merge in to one company. Heck throw Novell in there as well.
They probably said something like "We could scale this chip up to 3GH by the end of the year if needed." Which ment something like "If you build a new fab, and invested BILLIONS of dollars we could probably get this thing up to 3Ghz."
I don't want to start a flame war, but I belive you are referring to threads. One processor can handle multiple threads just fine, and two or more usually better. By adding one or more processors to Windows, it will by no way "fix" the lock up issue. It might make the system perform better under certain loads, but if you have a bad video driver (ATI), it will still take down the entire system. If you have a bad network task (something trying to map a drive to a bogus address) then your system will still crawl down. Very Very Very Very (~Very) seldom does one thread/process take up 100% CPU and STOP you from killing it in Windows or Linux. However even in that case, it would still be possible for someone to write a bad app that spawned a bunch of threads that did the same to all your processors.
1. The ability to leverage their OS to push more Office sales (~30-40% of their income).
2. The ability to leverage their office app to push more desktop sales.
3. The ability to hinder their competiton by not disclosing their API's.
I agree that having the ability to play most windows games on Linux would be great, but I would prefer a group of people to improve the current opensource stuff to compete better. What I would love to see is the Playstation3 and or the next Nintendo system to use Linux as the OS. That would force developers to start working with Linux and thus make porting to X86 easier (from PPC or Cell). I would also love to see Sony "fill in the gaps" where OpenGL/ALSA stuff needs it.
Lastly, I need to say that perhaps OpenGL and Alsa have no "gaps", I honestly don't know, but it appears that most development shops avoid them in favor of DirectXyz. If that is the case then all that would be needed is for a major game system to ship with Linux installed. I realize that the PS3 is not going to ship with Linux, so my hope for this moves on to the PS4. What needs to happen though is that Sony remain the dominate player in the console market...
You Quote the article "Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example)."
I would somewhat agree but the main point is that companies are now putting large resources behind open source/Linux. Compare this to three years ago. So yes IBM will probably not open source Websphere and Oracle will not opensource their DB, but the fact remains that both companies are now working to improve the kernel and other features of the OS. Also companies like Oracle will now FULLY support a system like RedHat ES running their DB. They will provide you the RPM's and everything. So if you are like say 99% of the mid size companies that run a pure DB server (nothing else special loaded on the server) this is a good thing.
You quote: "Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid."
I call you out on this. We need to define value for the money. This is the ambiguous TCO that is talked about. I will gladly put Linux and open source products against most of Microsofts. But before we debate on that issue we need to define TCO. Also, I would like to add that I have been part of one of the worlds largest I.T./Microsoft only shops. I have also been in a pure Linux environment as well. I will say that both technologies have "issues", but if you want to talk about "value" and TCO I would love to debate you on it.
You quote: "Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems."
I would agree that some of Microsofts products do provide some value. Would you agree that they also provide vendor lock in? That is something that needs to be looked at in TCO. You bash Samba and OpenOffice but I wonder how much you have used them. Microsoft talks a lot about listening to their customers and building software that adds value to them, but I argue that they provide software that tries to lock your company in to their technology, then they try to slowly up the amount you have to pay to Microsoft over time. They are little different than a drug dealer. Their core responsibility is to make as much money as possible all why claiming to add value.
The last core issue that Microsoft and most companies fail to see is that opensource is more about freedom and communication that anything else. Because of opensource software you currently have a 64bit operating system for AMD64, and companies like TIVO are free to "add value" to their customers without having to talk to potential competitors. Now cell phones are starting to standardize on opensource software. Why? Because there is significant value in it. What about the next great gadget out there? What OS do you think they will choose to run on it? Windows? What if Microsoft may become a competitor of theirs?
Another large issue that Microosft seems to fail to mention in the entire article is the enormous growth of Linux and opensource in such a small amount of time. To be honest though, by them "talking" about it, they must realize that they do not add as much value as people think and that far more developers are working on it than they mentioned...
We do agree that Microsoft does "add value", just that value comes at a c
1. Never going to happen. What you are saying is that people that are locked in to Exchange now will not be able to EVER migrate off. Yes it will be difficult for them but it will happen. However people would look at FREE alternatives for new email systems.
2-3. Again, opengroupware is a close start. Take a look at it then post.
4. A large number of people use Websphere, Iplanet, Peoplesoft and Macintoshes. Does an email/groupware system need to support every freaking system out there. No. As I mentioned in the post this guy is looking for something that is exactly like the proprietary solution of Microsoft Outlook with Microsoft Exchange server. Lets be honest now, if there was some product that did 99% of what this guy wanted and was open source would he switch to it? Hell, even if it did 100% would he? Or would he just find another excuse not to use it, something like "no vendor support" or "it is written in.NET" or something like that.
5. Yes the software doesn't exist! Yep you are correct. As the article mentions there are people that want to start development of something that will compete with Outlook and possibly Exchange server. Then you get people that start saying stuff like the poster above that doesn't make sense. I am calling him out. If there was a product that did EVERYTHING outlook and Exchange server did, but was open source, I say he still would not use it. So why the heck should any developer waist time with his "It must do XYZ" list?
6. Have you looked at PDA sales lately. Ever wondered why Sony is out of that market now? Point me to the sales growth in that market? Is it at least flat? Nope it is not even flat. The future is cell phones.
You and I agree that companies will not change just because something is free. You and I agree that comanies want somehting that works with minimal fuss. The basic edition of sharepoint is included in Win2k3. Ahh but I am glad you at least mentioned that there is another version that cost more. Most of the people here seem to omit that. You and I agree that support is needed in a corporate environment.
Now what we disagree on. Many companies use Apache far far more than use IIS. How do they get support. For products like JBOSS and MySQL, companies form to help. Now I hope that you will agree that if two products are of a good enough quality and one cost less they will pick the one that cost less. Well in this case one is free. Have you looked at why so many people are choosing Linux in their server rooms these days? It isn't because Novell and RedHat provide support.
"Yours are of an out of work zealot that seems to have forgotten how things really work and is making decisions based upon the religion of the holy GPL. As soon as you based everything upon developing a whole new app, it became infeasable"
I have to laugh at this. I mention developing a whole new app that would be free and based off of an open source model and you and the previous poster attack it and say that given an application that hasen't even been made yet, you wouldn't use it. Then you go on to say it MUST do every proprietary thing that you want or it will not replace your current proprietary environment. Who is teh zealot here? I come up with an app that would do 100% of what you want and would free you from the HUGE cost of working with proprietary software and you attack it site unseen (and attack me). Again I ask who is the zealot?
I will agree that if there was some free software that did everthing you asked it still may not make sense for you to switch. However, you would have to agree that someone who was looking to implement a new software solution would not be locked in to the choices you had to make. Now for some people switching wouldn't be that big of a deal. For others it would be an enormous deal. I understand that fully, but to imply that every business would not be able to switch email/scheduling systems because they are using echange and or outlook is ridiculous.
Again, I would look at opengroupware as a starting point. I think their software coupled with a good client would be a great starting point.
I get what you are saying, you want a client that is a replacement to outlook, does everything outlook does and more AND also will support every proprietary feature that Microsoft throws in to Exchange.
So how about this.
Have the OSS community develop a good alternative to Exhange Server. Then since the source is open other people can develop clients. Something like opengroupware might be an option.
Now then lets look at your arguments again. 1. No exchange compatability - Yep you are correct, but you could move off of exchange to a FREE server environment. If it is as good and it is FREE then you don't have to worry about CALs any more.
2. No calandar sharing - You would have this.
3. No contact sharing - You would have this.
4. No sharepoint integration - Heh, you are kidding correct? Why didn't you say no Websphere integration? sharepoint is a content management solution. There are free cms solutions like opencms that are as good and they are FREE. Again you would not have the HUGE expense that is sharepoint.
5. No office integration- You could have this and more. Because the API's and source are open developers would be free to hook in to way more than just Office apps. So in this area you would be far better off.
6. no PocketPC syncing- Um I hate to be the one to tell you this but PDA's are dead. They have been for a while. People want their data NOW!!! and they want it on their phone/blackberry. Again using open standards will allow many vendors to develop solutions for all types of devices not just your proprietary PDA that still doesn't own a majority of the PDA market.
So in short the open source comunity needs to work on something like opengroupware and a good client. Similar to the way Linux, Apache and Mysql/PostGresql and others have done. Then by building a free and open platform the rest will follow.
The arguments you made were the same ones being said about using IIS over any other web server. It is a good thing the Apache group didn't waist a lot of time trying to code every proprietary feature that IIS had/has....
Now the challenge for Microsoft is to add value for what you pay. The question that people will start to ask over time is: Why am I paying for this when I can get a comperable product for FREE? They better be able to add some serious value or they are toast. Selling sharepoint for over $50,000 is not the way to "add value".
I don't want to just pick on Microsoft, heck IBM, Oracle and others have to do the same thing. They must add value to a company for a FAIR price or they will be gone. Microsoft use to be great at this. Their products always came in cheaper than their competitors, but now they face competition from the world of FREE and OPEN software. This challenge is different than any other they have faced and unfortunately for them they are now a HUGE company, and change is almost impossible in those types of companies.
Lastly, your arguments are exactly the same arguments people used to defent IBM in the 80's and early 90's. Heck Microsoft has become IBM... and Balmer is not the man to lead them in competing with open source.
The evidence is clear that a major climate change is underway.
The problem is that we are still wondering what the definition of the word is is.
In all seriousness we have a ton of issues going on, and global warming or cooling is on the list. One could argue that if Iraq gets a nuke and long range missle, that there will be places on this earth that will experience some major rise in their temprature in a very short time. I also believe that the temprature in the world trade center changed in a major way on September 11th. Again, I am not saying that global warming or cooling is not something to laugh at or not look in to, but it is at least fair to say that there are many other priorities going on.
Also remember: The 1960's - The earth is cooling... The 1970's We are out of gas. The 1980's The earth is heating up. The 1990's Rap became popular The 2000's ???
"Yeah, and I also said GIJ" You also said a lot of other stuff. My point on the JVM is valid.
RedHat could be working with Sun and or IBM (Like SuSe) and include a good JVM in their EXPENSIVE distro- and then they could use the exact same Java programs that everyone else uses. They don't. That is a fact. There was an excellent article in Linux world about two months ago that talked with Redhat in all the steps they went through to get Eclipse to run. There are changes, not many but some. None were needed if they used a good JVM.
"They have several. What about IBM JVM? It's not open source either. They do have one though which is, JikesVM. And It has GNU Classpath as its library. IBM hasn't contributed any code at all towards the runtime."
Yes but RedHat could include it for FREE. Other distros include good JVM's. RedHat seems obsessed with making a JVM that is complied to Linux. They don't have too. You mention they are hosting a JVM summit. Great! I didn't know that. My first question would be why don't you include a good JVM now like Sun's or IBM's and then start work on a true open source implementation of a VM, NOT a compiled version of a VM but a true VM?
"You were the one saying Red Hat doesn't contribute to open source software. Now you've suddenly changed this to doing as much development as Sun or Microsoft??!"
I never said that RedHat doesn't do ANY development. If you read my post I said that RedHat doesn't "Code a majority of XXX" The only one that I said they don't do is code a JVM. That is a fact. Are you saying that they do develop a majority of anthing I listed? If so let me know. Now back to my overall point... They do a small fraction of the development that Sun or Microsoft does and yet they charge like they do it all. That is what bothers me. Granted, if they are selling it, and the market can bear it, then I guess that is ok. But someone like me who "bet the farm" with RedHat in his company, only to have them jack with the pricing every year now for the last 4 years, has made it easy to critisize them. Their moves have forced us to migrate a significant portion of our servers over to SuSe, not that we wanted to but because of the price shifts we had to. When we did, we found that suddenly the JVM and other stuff came with the system. That then posed the question "why can't RedHat do this?". Not that we care much, because in a few years there may not be any RedHat servers left. (We just need Crystal Reports to support any other Linux vendor).
"I do say this: They contribute a hell of a lot more code to the community than either Sun or Microsft does, despite having far smaller resources."
I would agree with you. However OpenOffice is somewhat significant. But I agree.
"Yes. Red Hat charges a lot of money for support. So does Microsoft for their Enterprise solutions. You are making the stupid mistake of comparing consumer products with enterprise products. These are completely different things. Rest assured that Windows with enterprise support isn't cheap either. Nor is AIX, or Solaris or anything else."
Microsoft and Novell offer per incident support calls. Why doesn't RedHat? Both offer their product without a lease. Why doesn't RedHat? Both will let you have developer versions for free, why doesn't RedHat (They may now, but a year ago they didn't). Now I will say now that they have lowered there prices, they are far more in line, but I believe you have companies like mine that switched off of RedHat and went to SuSe to thank for that.
"I suggest you stop commenting on stuff which you obviously don't know much about."
This is slashdot isn't it.:-)
Seriously, I want to see RedHat do well. I do believe they will get their pricing model staightened out. I use to talk to RedHat guys on a semi regular basis, and they are great guys. They do want to do what is right for their customers, but their upper management was hell bent on taking down Sun. Their
I agree with you, but I did not want to get burned buy them. So I called. You could be correct in their sales though.
Given that I talked to three different people (sorry I don't have names), I would think one of them would have had told me different. I was very clear in what I said.
The reason I was so clear is that our company hit hard times about three years ago (travel business) and going to ask for money at that time was like asking to be fired. You just didn't want to do it. So EVERY penny was watched. I could ill afford making that big of a mistake.
I am sorry did you say java and compile to native.... That is NOT a JVM. So lets go look at Blackdown or see how much the RedHat guys have helped in getting any VM to linux, or how about IBM's JVM for linux... Redhat all but hates Java. Look at the abomination they did to get Eclipse to run. The only thing they want with Java is the ability for it to be compiled to "their" OS. In this case they are no different than Microsoft.
I agree that RedHat does do some development, but are you seriously saying that they do anywhere near what Sun or Microsoft do? Now do they charge about the same? yes. That is the problem.
They do very little development and charge a ton for "support". Have you ever thought to ask why they don't offer a per incident support packager like say ummm Novell and Microsoft? It is greed and nothing more. Greed of their upper management, not their lower level workers.
You have a production Web Server, Application Server and a Database Server. All run RH AS 3.0. You pay for those with support because they are mission critical.
You now need to setup an exact duplicate setup for Testing.
You then must setup a very similar setup for development, but in this case you may have multiple development boxes.
Now you patch your production boxes with up2date. You are now screwed because production is different than test.
Fedora is good but it is different than a supported distribution.
Now lets start talking about replacing Windows servers with Redhat. It use to be an easy sell, now it is almost impossible. Why? You may disagree but a lot of people look at the cost of Windows vs RedHat and go with Windows for stuff like file/print and email.
It use to be possible to bring Redhat in to I.T. departments "under the raidar" of everyone. It could then grow and start to replace other boxes. In my experience it was mostly Windows servers it replaced. You could load RedHat 7.x and then go get the latest patches (for 30-60 days) and you would be off and running. Now that is impossible.
Could you do that with Fedora? yes but when the system(s) got out from "under the raidar" operations people would generally ask if it is on a supported platform. The answer use to be yes. Now it is no.
The great news is that SuSe has filled in where RedHat left off. You can get SuSe 9.2 for a fair price and be off and running. Yet SuSe still offers a "server" edition if that is needed.
Slashdot Mirror
I try and compile your code with GCC and get tons of errors. (I get them all the time with Linux and so do you if you grab lots of source code, perhaps this was the core reason RPM was developed). You and I then spend lots of time working with people to resolve the issues. We generally find out that we don't have a recent library that is needed or we find out that we have too new of a library. We then have a fun option of going to "RPM hell". We start a long process of upgrading stuff in hopes that it will fix our problem.
Some of this is the same in JAVA but with one difference. You don't compile the source code on the machine. You send them a JAR file (zip compression) and in most cases they can just click(or double click) on that file and it runs. Doesn't that sound better? Send a file to a user, have them click on it and it runs? Heck you can even do one better. You can use Java's web start and have them go to a web page, launch the app from the page, it will check to see if you need a JVM installed, if so it will install one (major platforms only), then copy the application down to you and run it. The next time you try and run the app it will check the server automatically for updates and download them if needed. If for some reason the network is not available then it will run the local copy. Some people hate this, but a ton of developers and businesses love it. So now you have two ways of delivering your application. One with Webstart and one with sending a JAR file. No compile needed on either one. All the user needs to do is click on the file and they are off and running.
Lastly, I would also argue that if you have some basic users out there it will be far far easier to get them to load a JVM(with or without using webstart) than it is to get them to load a C compiler. The JVM installer has come a long way on all the major platforms.
Again though I ask you. Do you really care what the code was written in? When you click on your Instant messenger, Email client or CD/DVD burner and it runs, do you care what it was written in? If so then why?
Now I as a developer who wants to write a DVD burner have three options.
I only target Windows because they own 93+% of the desktop market? Most will answer yes to that question and use only Microsoft stuff, and lock the app in to the Win32 API set.
I can develop the application in JAVA and make the installer check to see if the user has a JVM installed. I then can focus my testing on Windows and the product should (without recompile) run on all other platforms.
I could write the software in C or C++ and force the user to have a compiler for their system, (good luck on the various windows versions), then compile the code on that system, create icons for them and they would be off an running.
Out of those options most developers choose options 1 (sucks but it is reality), a few pick option 2 and only open source people pick option 3.
lastly I want to point out that NOTHING is stopping the developers in option 1 or 2 from giving the source code away also. So those brave souls who wanted to compile it could. I can say that I run a quite a few JAVA applications from sourceforge that were written soley on Windows and tested on Windows but because they were written in JAVA I have had GREAT luck in getting them all to work on Linux. Specifically 64bit SuSe. Now getting C source code and compiling it.... Well that is another matter. I still don't have a working copy of Mondo, and can't compile it to save my life.
Ok what have you developed in JAVA that has caused you problems on other platforms? Could you give some specifics? Perhaps I do boring code, but I have developed many many many many many java applications and have had little issues moving from:
:-) The language isn't perfect, but for a lot of us it is by far the best language out there.
NetWare 5.x
Windows NT
Windows 98
Windows XP
Windows 2000
Solaris 7-8
Linux (various versions and distro's)
Linux 64 bit (SuSe for X86-64)
IPAQ (small apps, not much experience)
Palm OS (again small apps not much experience)
Macintosh OSX 10.2 and 10.3
and i am now looking at the Nokia cell phones.
I have not found any Major issue with any of those platforms. Granted I just do business applications, and don't make games, so perhaps I am missing something.
I, on a daily basis write code in Windows/Jdeveloper and then deploy to a mid tier running JBOSS/SuSe 64 bit, then deploy to production of both RedHat and SuSe 32 bit running both JBOSS and Resin. For me JAVA has achieved write once run anywhere. We still do test, but I can't honestly think of any issue that has been because of some JAVA incompatability on a particular platform. Are there quirks with different JVM's??? Yep, but I have found that to be the case on the same platform
I normally don't reply to "Anonymous Cowards" but in this case I will make an exception.
If you are running OSX 10.3 you are running a very new version of the JVM. If you are running OSX 10.2 you are also running a very new version of the JVM. So I guess my question is what OS are you running on it?
Now you mention that you don't "miss" Java. I will argue that you don't care what an application is written in, as long as it looks good, is stable and does what you want. So I challenge you with this. How do you know what the application was written in? You probably don't. If you are a Linux/Macintosh/Windows/Netware/Solaris user and you launch your MP3 player and it works do you really care to see if it was written in C, C++, Java, Cobol?
JAVA runs on all MAJOR platforms.
It doesn't require the user to "compile" any code to run.
It has a rich GUI toolkit built in.
It handles object cleanup well.
It's speed has become excellent at most tasks
It has excellent networking support built in.
It has a giant developer base helping to add funcitonality.
7 12 28 33 9 18 20 :-)
:-)
Heck I am so sure that I would just buy a couple of thoughsand tickets with just those numbers
Sorry but they still have over 60 billion....
Also they were FORCED by shareholders to give up some of that money.
1998: First Joe user goes online and most of the servers he hits are running Linux. He doesn't care.
~2000: Then Joe user goes out and buys a Tivo (or Tivo like) product. It runs Linux, again he doesn't care because it offers the apps he wants.
~2001: Then Joe user buys a new cell phone and it runs Linux. He doesn't care because it is cheap and gives him the functionality he needs.
1999-2004: Now over that time device drivers start to appear more frequently for Linux because of all the servers and appliances that need them....
2002-2004: Major players (Oracle, BEA, Novell, IBM, HP, Sun, heck all but Microsoft start to support their software on Linux servers.... Even Crystal reports now runs on Linux.
2004: Point of sale devices start to standardize on Linux....
2000-2005: Standard desktop applications start to become common on Linux. Apps like DVD burning, MP3 playing, Office, P2P, Web Browsing and some games become part of a standard Linux install.
2005-2006: Linux desktop market share grows to surpass that of new Apple Macintosh sales. This forces companies like Macromedia (Dreamweaver) to start seriously looking at offering a Linux version of their products.
2007-2008: New devices will start to ship Linux drivers and software with their products. These drivers and software will be more common than drivers and software offered for the Macintosh. Companies like Macromedia and Filemaker will reluctantly start to offer Linux versions of their software, but they will be downloadable only. They will go to great concerns to "protect" their software from being copied.
2010: The Linux desktop market share in the U.S. will be around 15 to 20%. Microsoft Longhorn will be released. At a 20% desktop marketshare OEM's will now start to offer Linux on every model of computer and have the quantity of scale needed to lower the cost of a new computer pre-loaded with Linux.
2011: Joe user will go to purchase a new machine. Machines will now cost almost nothing, and software cost will be the lions share of the total cost. The machine with Windows will cost more than the machine with Linux. Joe user will ask if both will do the job, and they will. Both will run his legacy apps. Joe user doesn't care, and buys the cheaper box. Microsoft will be forced to SIGNIFICANTLY lower their price of Windows and Office thus killing their profits.
2015-2016: Linux market share now soars to 50% and video game makers now target Linux first. Microsoft will start to lay people off.
2017: Duke Nukem Forever for Linux is released ahead of the Windows version by a year.
My point is this.... "IF" Linux gets a 10-15% marketshare of the desktops, the game is over for Windows. At that point they have a large enough marketshare that it will be very hard for any software vendor to ignor them. That is what scares Microsoft to death. A free competitor that is "good enough" cannot get that large for them to survive.
My second point is that this isn't going to happen overnight. Heck it isn't going to happen in the next 5 years. But look at how far Linux has come in just the last 5 years. It use to be that Joe user couldn't even use a nicely configured Linux box, now he can. He can probably even install SuSe or RedHat. If you installed Linux back in 1996, then you realize how far they have come. Think about that. In less than 10 years Linux has come from impossible for a noob to use - to an almost complete replacement to Windows. Now factor in that a lot more people are working on Linux than Windows and you begin to see what Microsoft is worried about. Yes they have 60+Billion in the bank. Now you know why they are doing that. They will need that money.
Their ONLY hope is to go after patents, and perhaps the "living room". If they loose this battle then they are in for a long and hard road ahead and they will need a HUGE amount of money to "get them by" until their next great idea comes along. I also expect them to dum
1. I believe you are wrong on this issue. I have intervied well over 400 people over different times and can tell you that there is almost always a best person for the job.
2. you are correct. I don't source my stats. I said many many many times to go look for yourself. So do it! Prove me wrong in a major university or fortion 100 company. People/companies don't like to give out stats that I just gave. Can you blame them?
3. Engineering departments is NOT the norm. You and I will agree with that. Now go look at your insureance company, drug company, agro-company, hospitals I.T. department and tell me that I am wrong. It is funny you mention that most of the people you know in I.T. don't have a degree in computer science. This goes to help prove my other point of companies "sticking" people in I.T. How many engineers do you know that don't have some degree in Engineering? One? Two?..... None? Why? Can't they just take someone and train them? Can't they just learn it on their own?
Last point - You seem to believe that people base their views off the world around them. You and I agree that this is probably the case. I would say in my case of 20+ years in I.T. (around the U.S.) and working with many of the top 500 companies around, I can say with some conviction that I am not far off on my stats. I will add that I was wrong on one major point. Most of the males in computer science now are not white. I was corrected on this mistake in another post....
Again I would love to know some major university that has say 50% of the top computer science students that are female.
I stand (well actually sit) corrected. You are correct in the last 4 years most have turned out not to be white males. As I said earlier "word gets around". However if you look at the last 25 years before that my statistics are almost dead on.
First I want to state that I always beleive in hiring the best person for the job no matter what. I hope that we can agree on that statement. If so then we both agree that afirmative action/quotas are bad.
:-) Also we do agree that word about people that do things like this gets around.... It is unfortunate that by trying to spread "diversity" they are promoting raceism.
Now on to my main point.
I will have you look at most of the universities in your area. In those look who is in the top level computer science classes. What do you see? Almost all men. By almost I mean it will be around 90-95% men and a larg portion being white men. So looking at that statistic shouldn't most I.T. jobs be filled with 90-95% men? Now go in to most fortune 100 companies and look at their I.T. department. What percentage of that department is men? I think you will be shocked to see that a very large percentage are women (greater than 35%, and in a lot of cases greater than 50%). Now look at all the new hires that have taken place in the last 3 years in those companies. How many of those are white males?
It is my belief that most fortune 500 companies want to appear like they care about "diversity" but when it comes down to it they will put those hires in departments they don't think much about (I.T.). So then I.T. gets stuck with a bunch of underqualified people and then people start to say that their I.T. department suck and they need to outsouce it. Yet it is their fault for sticking underqaulfied people in there to begin with. I have yet to see any sales department be forced to take "underqualified" people. I have yet to see a marketing department take underqualified people. I have yet to see any scientific department be forced to take on lesser quality people.... yet I.T. gets it all the time.
Lastly I want to say again that all this can go away if companies start to hire the best person for the job. The only good news is that if they don't their competitors might
Ok then where are the 3Ghz chips? They should have been here 6 months ago according to the article. It is one of a few possibilites.
1. Steve lied to everyone.
2. They can't do it.
3. They can do it but won't for some reason.
Lets assume it is option 3 above. What do you think their reason is for not giving out faster machines? Are the ones they have now selling great? Are they stuck in the channel and they want to clear out all the 2.x Ghz machines first? If so then wouln't 6 months be long enough?
Now please understand that I am a HUGE PPC fan and want nothing more than to see the PPC crush all X86 chips out there, but I am a bit skeptical about the future of PPC in PC's. I know first hand that Apple HATES putting two processors in their systems just to be competitive witht the X86 machines.
I would also be curious to see what will happen if the difference in performance gets worse than it is now. Specifically now that Intel has jumped on the X86-64 bandwangon and will start to focus their efforts on that chip, and AMD is not sitting still. I also wonder what the heck is in it for IBM? Granted their server chips will get better, but I can't see them caring much about the desktop market, and thus they will end up screwing Apple.
Lastly I wonder how long it will be before we see an X86-64 Macintosh. It will be a sad day but if the difference in performance continues to grow then they will be forced to do something, and shipping four way boxes isn't the answer...
I almost wonder if Sun/AMD/Apple should merge in to one company. Heck throw Novell in there as well.
Are you sure that someone at IBM told Apple that?
:-)
They probably said something like "We could scale this chip up to 3GH by the end of the year if needed." Which ment something like "If you build a new fab, and invested BILLIONS of dollars we could probably get this thing up to 3Ghz."
At least we have a G5 laptop though
Good points.
I don't want to start a flame war, but I belive you are referring to threads. One processor can handle multiple threads just fine, and two or more usually better. By adding one or more processors to Windows, it will by no way "fix" the lock up issue. It might make the system perform better under certain loads, but if you have a bad video driver (ATI), it will still take down the entire system. If you have a bad network task (something trying to map a drive to a bogus address) then your system will still crawl down. Very Very Very Very (~Very) seldom does one thread/process take up 100% CPU and STOP you from killing it in Windows or Linux. However even in that case, it would still be possible for someone to write a bad app that spawned a bunch of threads that did the same to all your processors.
The other things they would loose would be:
1. The ability to leverage their OS to push more Office sales (~30-40% of their income).
2. The ability to leverage their office app to push more desktop sales.
3. The ability to hinder their competiton by not disclosing their API's.
I agree that having the ability to play most windows games on Linux would be great, but I would prefer a group of people to improve the current opensource stuff to compete better. What I would love to see is the Playstation3 and or the next Nintendo system to use Linux as the OS. That would force developers to start working with Linux and thus make porting to X86 easier (from PPC or Cell). I would also love to see Sony "fill in the gaps" where OpenGL/ALSA stuff needs it.
Lastly, I need to say that perhaps OpenGL and Alsa have no "gaps", I honestly don't know, but it appears that most development shops avoid them in favor of DirectXyz. If that is the case then all that would be needed is for a major game system to ship with Linux installed. I realize that the PS3 is not going to ship with Linux, so my hope for this moves on to the PS4. What needs to happen though is that Sony remain the dominate player in the console market...
You Quote the article
"Martin for example quite rightly points out that IBM, Oracle etc. are not throwing their lot in selflessly and wholeheartedly with Linux, they're augmenting a customer solution with open source products where their own proprietary software is lacking (they need an OS stack on which to run websphere, for example)."
I would somewhat agree but the main point is that companies are now putting large resources behind open source/Linux. Compare this to three years ago. So yes IBM will probably not open source Websphere and Oracle will not opensource their DB, but the fact remains that both companies are now working to improve the kernel and other features of the OS. Also companies like Oracle will now FULLY support a system like RedHat ES running their DB. They will provide you the RPM's and everything. So if you are like say 99% of the mid size companies that run a pure DB server (nothing else special loaded on the server) this is a good thing.
You quote:
"Another point which isn't often raised and which Microsoft is hammering on is yes, their solutions are at times more expensive, but do they provide more value to the customer, and this is the point which is most often dismissed as FUD, although it's valid."
I call you out on this. We need to define value for the money. This is the ambiguous TCO that is talked about. I will gladly put Linux and open source products against most of Microsofts. But before we debate on that issue we need to define TCO. Also, I would like to add that I have been part of one of the worlds largest I.T./Microsoft only shops. I have also been in a pure Linux environment as well. I will say that both technologies have "issues", but if you want to talk about "value" and TCO I would love to debate you on it.
You quote:
"Objectively speaking (objectivity being in short supply in this environment) some Microsoft products do provide better value in terms of functionality. From my point of view, Server 2003 is an excellent turn-key workgroup server, Office 2003 is an excellent collaboration suite (spare me the Linux banter about samba and OpenOffice.org, it's not the same). Whereas for enterprise level services such as public web services, e-mail, border security, I'd place more value in UNIX-based systems."
I would agree that some of Microsofts products do provide some value. Would you agree that they also provide vendor lock in? That is something that needs to be looked at in TCO. You bash Samba and OpenOffice but I wonder how much you have used them. Microsoft talks a lot about listening to their customers and building software that adds value to them, but I argue that they provide software that tries to lock your company in to their technology, then they try to slowly up the amount you have to pay to Microsoft over time. They are little different than a drug dealer. Their core responsibility is to make as much money as possible all why claiming to add value.
The last core issue that Microsoft and most companies fail to see is that opensource is more about freedom and communication that anything else. Because of opensource software you currently have a 64bit operating system for AMD64, and companies like TIVO are free to "add value" to their customers without having to talk to potential competitors. Now cell phones are starting to standardize on opensource software. Why? Because there is significant value in it. What about the next great gadget out there? What OS do you think they will choose to run on it? Windows? What if Microsoft may become a competitor of theirs?
Another large issue that Microosft seems to fail to mention in the entire article is the enormous growth of Linux and opensource in such a small amount of time. To be honest though, by them "talking" about it, they must realize that they do not add as much value as people think and that far more developers are working on it than they mentioned...
We do agree that Microsoft does "add value", just that value comes at a c
1. Never going to happen. What you are saying is that people that are locked in to Exchange now will not be able to EVER migrate off. Yes it will be difficult for them but it will happen. However people would look at FREE alternatives for new email systems.
.NET" or something like that.
2-3. Again, opengroupware is a close start. Take a look at it then post.
4. A large number of people use Websphere, Iplanet, Peoplesoft and Macintoshes. Does an email/groupware system need to support every freaking system out there. No. As I mentioned in the post this guy is looking for something that is exactly like the proprietary solution of Microsoft Outlook with Microsoft Exchange server. Lets be honest now, if there was some product that did 99% of what this guy wanted and was open source would he switch to it? Hell, even if it did 100% would he? Or would he just find another excuse not to use it, something like "no vendor support" or "it is written in
5. Yes the software doesn't exist! Yep you are correct. As the article mentions there are people that want to start development of something that will compete with Outlook and possibly Exchange server. Then you get people that start saying stuff like the poster above that doesn't make sense. I am calling him out. If there was a product that did EVERYTHING outlook and Exchange server did, but was open source, I say he still would not use it. So why the heck should any developer waist time with his "It must do XYZ" list?
6. Have you looked at PDA sales lately. Ever wondered why Sony is out of that market now? Point me to the sales growth in that market? Is it at least flat? Nope it is not even flat. The future is cell phones.
You and I agree that companies will not change just because something is free.
You and I agree that comanies want somehting that works with minimal fuss.
The basic edition of sharepoint is included in Win2k3. Ahh but I am glad you at least mentioned that there is another version that cost more. Most of the people here seem to omit that.
You and I agree that support is needed in a corporate environment.
Now what we disagree on.
Many companies use Apache far far more than use IIS. How do they get support.
For products like JBOSS and MySQL, companies form to help.
Now I hope that you will agree that if two products are of a good enough quality and one cost less they will pick the one that cost less. Well in this case one is free. Have you looked at why so many people are choosing Linux in their server rooms these days? It isn't because Novell and RedHat provide support.
"Yours are of an out of work zealot that seems to have forgotten how things really work and is making decisions based upon the religion of the holy GPL. As soon as you based everything upon developing a whole new app, it became infeasable"
I have to laugh at this. I mention developing a whole new app that would be free and based off of an open source model and you and the previous poster attack it and say that given an application that hasen't even been made yet, you wouldn't use it. Then you go on to say it MUST do every proprietary thing that you want or it will not replace your current proprietary environment. Who is teh zealot here? I come up with an app that would do 100% of what you want and would free you from the HUGE cost of working with proprietary software and you attack it site unseen (and attack me). Again I ask who is the zealot?
I will agree that if there was some free software that did everthing you asked it still may not make sense for you to switch. However, you would have to agree that someone who was looking to implement a new software solution would not be locked in to the choices you had to make. Now for some people switching wouldn't be that big of a deal. For others it would be an enormous deal. I understand that fully, but to imply that every business would not be able to switch email/scheduling systems because they are using echange and or outlook is ridiculous.
Again, I would look at opengroupware as a starting point. I think their software coupled with a good client would be a great starting point.
I get what you are saying, you want a client that is a replacement to outlook, does everything outlook does and more AND also will support every proprietary feature that Microsoft throws in to Exchange.
So how about this.
Have the OSS community develop a good alternative to Exhange Server. Then since the source is open other people can develop clients. Something like opengroupware might be an option.
Now then lets look at your arguments again.
1. No exchange compatability - Yep you are correct, but you could move off of exchange to a FREE server environment. If it is as good and it is FREE then you don't have to worry about CALs any more.
2. No calandar sharing - You would have this.
3. No contact sharing - You would have this.
4. No sharepoint integration - Heh, you are kidding correct? Why didn't you say no Websphere integration? sharepoint is a content management solution. There are free cms solutions like opencms that are as good and they are FREE. Again you would not have the HUGE expense that is sharepoint.
5. No office integration- You could have this and more. Because the API's and source are open developers would be free to hook in to way more than just Office apps. So in this area you would be far better off.
6. no PocketPC syncing- Um I hate to be the one to tell you this but PDA's are dead. They have been for a while. People want their data NOW!!! and they want it on their phone/blackberry. Again using open standards will allow many vendors to develop solutions for all types of devices not just your proprietary PDA that still doesn't own a majority of the PDA market.
So in short the open source comunity needs to work on something like opengroupware and a good client. Similar to the way Linux, Apache and Mysql/PostGresql and others have done. Then by building a free and open platform the rest will follow.
The arguments you made were the same ones being said about using IIS over any other web server. It is a good thing the Apache group didn't waist a lot of time trying to code every proprietary feature that IIS had/has....
Now the challenge for Microsoft is to add value for what you pay. The question that people will start to ask over time is:
Why am I paying for this when I can get a comperable product for FREE?
They better be able to add some serious value or they are toast. Selling sharepoint for over $50,000 is not the way to "add value".
I don't want to just pick on Microsoft, heck IBM, Oracle and others have to do the same thing. They must add value to a company for a FAIR price or they will be gone. Microsoft use to be great at this. Their products always came in cheaper than their competitors, but now they face competition from the world of FREE and OPEN software. This challenge is different than any other they have faced and unfortunately for them they are now a HUGE company, and change is almost impossible in those types of companies.
Lastly, your arguments are exactly the same arguments people used to defent IBM in the 80's and early 90's. Heck Microsoft has become IBM...
and Balmer is not the man to lead them in competing with open source.
The evidence is clear that a major climate change is underway.
The problem is that we are still wondering what the definition of the word is is.
In all seriousness we have a ton of issues going on, and global warming or cooling is on the list. One could argue that if Iraq gets a nuke and long range missle, that there will be places on this earth that will experience some major rise in their temprature in a very short time. I also believe that the temprature in the world trade center changed in a major way on September 11th. Again, I am not saying that global warming or cooling is not something to laugh at or not look in to, but it is at least fair to say that there are many other priorities going on.
Also remember:
The 1960's - The earth is cooling...
The 1970's We are out of gas.
The 1980's The earth is heating up.
The 1990's Rap became popular
The 2000's ???
"Yeah, and I also said GIJ"
:-)
You also said a lot of other stuff. My point on the JVM is valid.
RedHat could be working with Sun and or IBM (Like SuSe) and include a good JVM in their EXPENSIVE distro- and then they could use the exact same Java programs that everyone else uses. They don't. That is a fact. There was an excellent article in Linux world about two months ago that talked with Redhat in all the steps they went through to get Eclipse to run. There are changes, not many but some. None were needed if they used a good JVM.
"They have several. What about IBM JVM? It's not open source either. They do have one though which is, JikesVM. And It has GNU Classpath as its library. IBM hasn't contributed any code at all towards the runtime."
Yes but RedHat could include it for FREE. Other distros include good JVM's. RedHat seems obsessed with making a JVM that is complied to Linux. They don't have too. You mention they are hosting a JVM summit. Great! I didn't know that. My first question would be why don't you include a good JVM now like Sun's or IBM's and then start work on a true open source implementation of a VM, NOT a compiled version of a VM but a true VM?
"You were the one saying Red Hat doesn't contribute to open source software. Now you've suddenly changed this to doing as much development as Sun or Microsoft??!"
I never said that RedHat doesn't do ANY development. If you read my post I said that RedHat doesn't
"Code a majority of XXX" The only one that I said they don't do is code a JVM. That is a fact. Are you saying that they do develop a majority of anthing I listed? If so let me know. Now back to my overall point... They do a small fraction of the development that Sun or Microsoft does and yet they charge like they do it all. That is what bothers me. Granted, if they are selling it, and the market can bear it, then I guess that is ok. But someone like me who "bet the farm" with RedHat in his company, only to have them jack with the pricing every year now for the last 4 years, has made it easy to critisize them. Their moves have forced us to migrate a significant portion of our servers over to SuSe, not that we wanted to but because of the price shifts we had to. When we did, we found that suddenly the JVM and other stuff came with the system. That then posed the question "why can't RedHat do this?". Not that we care much, because in a few years there may not be any RedHat servers left. (We just need Crystal Reports to support any other Linux vendor).
"I do say this: They contribute a hell of a lot more code to the community than either Sun or Microsft does, despite having far smaller resources."
I would agree with you. However OpenOffice is somewhat significant. But I agree.
"Yes. Red Hat charges a lot of money for support. So does Microsoft for their Enterprise solutions. You are making the stupid mistake of comparing consumer products with enterprise products. These are completely different things. Rest assured that Windows with enterprise support isn't cheap either. Nor is AIX, or Solaris or anything else."
Microsoft and Novell offer per incident support calls. Why doesn't RedHat? Both offer their product without a lease. Why doesn't RedHat? Both will let you have developer versions for free, why doesn't RedHat (They may now, but a year ago they didn't). Now I will say now that they have lowered there prices, they are far more in line, but I believe you have companies like mine that switched off of RedHat and went to SuSe to thank for that.
"I suggest you stop commenting on stuff which you obviously don't know much about."
This is slashdot isn't it.
Seriously, I want to see RedHat do well. I do believe they will get their pricing model staightened out. I use to talk to RedHat guys on a semi regular basis, and they are great guys. They do want to do what is right for their customers, but their upper management was hell bent on taking down Sun. Their
I did talk to RedHat, and you brought up a point I didn't think about. It would be possible to use ES or WS versions. Thanks!
I agree with you, but I did not want to get burned buy them. So I called. You could be correct in their sales though.
Given that I talked to three different people (sorry I don't have names), I would think one of them would have had told me different. I was very clear in what I said.
The reason I was so clear is that our company hit hard times about three years ago (travel business) and going to ask for money at that time was like asking to be fired. You just didn't want to do it. So EVERY penny was watched. I could ill afford making that big of a mistake.
I am sorry did you say java and compile to native.... That is NOT a JVM. So lets go look at Blackdown or see how much the RedHat guys have helped in getting any VM to linux, or how about IBM's JVM for linux... Redhat all but hates Java. Look at the abomination they did to get Eclipse to run. The only thing they want with Java is the ability for it to be compiled to "their" OS. In this case they are no different than Microsoft.
I agree that RedHat does do some development, but are you seriously saying that they do anywhere near what Sun or Microsoft do? Now do they charge about the same? yes. That is the problem.
They do very little development and charge a ton for "support". Have you ever thought to ask why they don't offer a per incident support packager like say ummm Novell and Microsoft? It is greed and nothing more. Greed of their upper management, not their lower level workers.
I will give you the scenario.
You have a production Web Server, Application Server and a Database Server. All run RH AS 3.0. You pay for those with support because they are mission critical.
You now need to setup an exact duplicate setup for Testing.
You then must setup a very similar setup for development, but in this case you may have multiple development boxes.
Now you patch your production boxes with up2date. You are now screwed because production is different than test.
Fedora is good but it is different than a supported distribution.
Now lets start talking about replacing Windows servers with Redhat. It use to be an easy sell, now it is almost impossible. Why? You may disagree but a lot of people look at the cost of Windows vs RedHat and go with Windows for stuff like file/print and email.
It use to be possible to bring Redhat in to I.T. departments "under the raidar" of everyone. It could then grow and start to replace other boxes. In my experience it was mostly Windows servers it replaced. You could load RedHat 7.x and then go get the latest patches (for 30-60 days) and you would be off and running. Now that is impossible.
Could you do that with Fedora? yes but when the system(s) got out from "under the raidar" operations people would generally ask if it is on a supported platform. The answer use to be yes. Now it is no.
The great news is that SuSe has filled in where RedHat left off. You can get SuSe 9.2 for a fair price and be off and running. Yet SuSe still offers a "server" edition if that is needed.
Awsome. How about I get Redhat AS for free with no support. :-)
Call their sales and ask them if you can do that. They will say no.
Call their sales and ask.
:-)
:-)
I have called them on three different times and have been told the same answer.
Only on slashdot have I been told this is incorrect
So my advice is to call them yourself
Ask this question though.
Am I legally allowed to run the software if I don't renew my contract (pay xxx dollars)