Containers are an interesting beast. Solaris has had Zones (aka containers) since 2005. In Solaris, these Zones are more akin to virtual machines, except much more efficient. All zones shared a single kernel, they just had virtual network interfaces, storage, and could be managed independently. Now, in 2014, Docker brings the same simplicity of Solaris Zones to Linux.
Sure, we've had CGroups in Linux since 2004/2006 but Docker finally brought Linux up to speed with a simple to use capability for creating isolated containers on Linux. Only, the implementation brings with it the same flawed approach as Solaris Zones. Do we really need a full OS image running in a container? I don't think so. Docker images are based on a Linux distro (Ubuntu or CentOS, etc). So we look at this and say, "cool, virtualization without the overhead of interrupts for everything from writing to disk to sending packets over the wire." But is that really the best we can do?
I think what Rocket really represents is a way to do containers right. Containers should run a single process. We shouldn't look at containers as a more efficient VM. We should see containers as a way to increase security and reduce overhead. Do you really want to have to run apt-get or yum inside every container? No. Containers should provide process isolation and application management capabilities. They shouldn't include the OS and the kitchen sink of user land utilities.
This is where Docker has failed. Instead of simplifying administration and deployment, it's introduced its own nuanced approach to system management. The reason we need a Docker competitor (replacement?) is because Docker has failed to live up to its hype.
The US patent system is badly broken, at least as far as software patents go. We all know that around here. Usually, the cases that make the tech news involve these Patent Trolls suing large companies (Apple, Google, MS), heck, even SCO v Red Hat. However, here we have an example of "the little guy" getting hurt by a software patent infringement case for an obvious patent.
This case may be a good example to put in front of Congress to show them how completely broken the current system. First, the inventor wasn't harmed by these "in app purchases", it's a patent holding company trolling. Second, the patent is obvious, overly broad and should never have been approved. Third, the patent in question shows the abuses of the current continuation system here in the US. And forth, it's Joe Sixpack getting sued! Nothing works up Congress and the media like an attack on the little guy / corporation.
A lot of comments here seem to focus on what could have been done differently. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. That being said, I have a question that I haven't seen asked or answered yet. Why are the spent fuel rods stored in the same buildings as the reactors?
In the event of losing power, not only do the active rods need to be dealt with, but the spent rods have to be monitored and maintained in the same facility. Wouldn't transporting the spent rods to a less densely populated area that was specifically designed to handle their storage make more sense? It seems that the problems right now getting the reactors under control is being hampered by the severe risks of those containment pools for the spent rods draining.
Uh, ok, can't the same be said of Republicans just the other way around? They're pro-big, old school military (almost 50% of the budget), illegal wiretapping, and they'll take away any of your freedoms, handing them over the the federal gov in the name of "national security" (patriot act for example). But government run health care is socialism?
It works both ways and it's bs from both parties, but the overwhelming majority of the double-talk seems to come from the right in this country.
iTunes has always suffered from a not-quite-native feel on Mac OS and that's disappointing. Version 10 is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Besides Finder, it's probably the single most used application on a Mac considering all the purposes it serves.
In Mac OS 10.7 I'd love to see a user interface redesign that obeys Apple's own human interface guidelines and removes some of the serious bloat. For instance, why does the music application handle synchronizing with the iOS devices? I understand this single application paradigm keeps things simpler in some respects for cross platform support, but really, why bother porting the interface? I agree with a previous poster that the back end(s) for the music player, synching, etc. should be maintained as cross-platform libraries and native front ends should be created for Mac OS and Windows. This would probably reduce bloat in the long run and make it easier for Apple to integrate synch behavior into the OS on the Mac but keep it in iTunes for the Windows application.
It could be a lot worse for Nokia if Apple is able to prove that the licensing fees Nokia requested from Apple for essential GSM patents turns out to be unreasonable. Nokia does hold GSM patents, which as part of a standard are required to be licensed under "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms. If Apple can prove that Nokia requested unreasonable terms from Apple for the GSM patents, Nokia may be in trouble with the ETSI.
If anything good comes out of this for future patent encumbered standards, it could be that the courts may be left to define what fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory actually means. As Engadget states in their coverage:
In reality FRAND is nebulous and undefined, with almost no specific rules for determining what a "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" license actually is. source
It would be nice if these cases were looked at as clear reason why we really need patent reform, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
I think it was obvious from the start that the Palm acquisition was all about WebOS and tablets, not smart phones. Anyone else see this purchase and cancelation of Slate as a huge setback for Microsoft? It's basically a public admission by HP that Windows can't cut as a tablet OS.
HP just broke their direct dependence on Microsoft for an emerging market for a good reason: Microsoft's failure to produce an innovative user interface for tablets.
Sorry, but I can't believe the incredible amount of stupid comments posted here on this article. Jobs basically announces he's not
dying and Apple's shares jump 4%. Apple isn't a one man operation and Wall Street knows that. It's probably safe to assume that
every single innovation that's come out of Apple in the past 11 years hasn't been dumped straight from Steve's brain either.
Steve's marketing genius and patient leadership are the real value he provides
to Apple, and losing his leadership is what makes investors nervous. As some suggest, Apple pulling the Stevenote from MacWorld
is an attempt to address the former, but without a plan to address the latter, Wall Street will still freak out at the possibility
of Apple losing Jobs.
In a world where IT companies are constantly diversifying their offerings, rushing products to market, and generally playing a bizarre
game of throw 50 products at the market and see which ones stick, Apple is playing its cards close to its chest - and has been successfully
since Job's return. It's not chasing emerging markets (Netbooks), it's not trying to get into online advertising (Microsoft) and hell it's not
even doing things that outsiders think it should be doing to expand its business. Apple's stock value is based on the perception that is has
a master plan. This is what makes Apple unique. And this is the value of Steve Jobs.
Solaris 10 and Open Solaris have the concept of zones and containers. The computer runs a single Solaris instance but can run isolated process trees in zones which share common libraries but can be updated for dependencies independently. The containers concept (in conjunction with zones) allows a fair share scheduler to guarantee a service level for each allocated zone (CPU/memory sharing, etc). IMHO, must better than Virtuozzo, VMware and Xen.
If I were the next president, I'd launch an all-out, full-scale investigation into the scandal of a presidency that was Bush's 8 years in the White House. Oh and Bush, Cheney and company would be hanging out down in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba until I was ready to charge them with crime(s). That's where we hold terrorists right?;)
Why? Because the iMac comes with Leopard and the Dell comes with Vista. I have been recommending Macs to everyone now that they contain Intel chips. You can buy a Mac and if you hate OS X, you can just install Windows or Linux. You can't install OS X after you realized Windows Vista sucks on your brand new Dell.
With Boot Camp - although I prefer VMware for my legacy windows needs - you are guaranteed a machine with excellent Windows driver support. Apple provides all the drivers you need right on the Leopard DVD.
Want to try something new and have a perfect fallback plan if you hate your new OS? You get the iMac. If you buy the Dell and hate Vista you're out of luck unless you find a Linux distro the suits your needs. Unfortunately, as a Linux user since the mid-90's, I still can't recommend it as a viable home desktop alternative for most people I know.
Seriously, a lot of hook-ups, meeting new people for dating, etc. happen at bars, not online. This is one of those half-baked ideas by some clueless legislators who seem to think the Internet is a scarier place than a bar.
Requiring background checks for online dating is not a realistic safeguard. People who have something to hide will figure out how to hide it, face-to-face or on the Internet. If anything, this will cause clueless daters to fall into a false sense of security by assuring them that this safety net exists when it's merely a mirage.
This really shouldn't be a function of the RDBMS. If you wanted such a thing writing a driver wrapper for any RDBMS should be fairly easy. However, coding your database mappings without locking down your feature set is kinda useless. What's more interesting is creating scripts to generate your database schema from your code. It's been done, see Hibernate.
I don't buy the idea that Sun is looking to bail out of the hardware business. What they are looking to do is keep Solaris relevant. Sun doesn't want you to think Solaris requires Sun hardware. Sun realized that the only option for people wanting to go with x86/x86_64 chips and run a Unix-like OS on supported hardware meant running Linux or buying Sun gear.
Sun is looking to eat some of Linux's lunch. The question is, why is IBM interested?
This is exactly what I was thinking. Google will almost certainly bid on the 700 mhz spectrum because they see it as their cheapest and easiest way to gain access to the "last-mile". I almost certainly think the cost, even at 20 billion would be worthwhile.
Google won't quite start a parallel internet, but it will be close. They'll offer access mandating the use of IPv6 with IP proxies to the wired internet. They'll offer VOIP, true internet TV and the potential for an IP address for everything and anything you want to put on the net.
This isn't about being a cellular provider, it's about ushering in the internet without wires revolution. And it actually makes the billion they spent on YouTube start to make sense.
Don't forget Red Hat. They turned down Microsoft. They definitely still "get it" in terms of maintaining an open source distribution. Not making business arrangements with companies that tick off the FOSS community is only part of the good behavior expected of companies making money of FOSS software.
Red Hat is still a big contributor to the Linux kernel, Gnome and the OSS community in general. With the exception of Red Hat Network (paid service) all the products they've built (system config tools) or the product of companies they've bought have been released under the GPL to the community.
I continue to support Red Hat because I think they do get it.
Why on earth would Apple want to acquire a chip and graphics card manufacturer? Didn't Apple specifically go with Intel over AMD due to Intel's stronger road map? I don't doubt that it could have been about price too, but that leads me to my second point.
Despite Apple's position as a hardware company, a hardware manufacturer they are not. Apple designs their products, sure, but production is outsourced to others. Apple stands to benefit from not being in the chip manufacturing business. As long as Intel and AMD exist to compete against each other, Apple can play off their competition to get the best pricing. The same could be said of leading video card manufacturers NVidia, ATi/AMD, and Intel.
One would presume that should Apple acquire AMD, their Mac products would become entirely AMD/ATi based. So how does Apple benefit? Becoming their own chip supplier would certainly increase R&D, manufacturing and supply chain costs without yielding a single advantage. Apple needs to remain nimble and flexible. Right now they could drop Intel for AMD in a blink should AMD surpass Intel in price/performance and then jump right back if and when Intel takes the lead back. Should Apple acquire AMD and have AMD chips fall well behind Intel's, Apple would be sitting on a big loss with less than optimal chips in Macs to boot.
Honestly, the author of TFA doesn't know what he's talking about.
Seriously, now that Java will be GPL'd, why exactly do we need Mono?
.Net only exists because M$ failed to embrace and extend Java. Why does the OSS community need a knock-off of a language that only exists because M$ couldn't control Java?
If you work with Red Hat Linux servers, it makes perfect sense to run Red Hat on the desktop. For instance, people want to develop applications on your desktop, create RPMS, or simply run a set of desktops that can be managed remotely via Red Hat Network.
Your are correct that there are other offerings for a home or casual Linux user. However, for people working in shops using RHEL servers, RHEL desktop makes perfect sense.
If you run an enterprise application, stability is critical in terms of both operational reliability and package versions. While I agree with you that some of the higher level applications that could be kept more "fresh", Enterprise Linux targets an audience that tends to run mission critical applications on their operating systems. These companies deal with a number of third party ISVs who certify their products on Red Hat Linux. If software package versions are changing constantly, ISVs will refuse to certify said changes due to the cost of doing so.
This was one of the problems with Red Hat's pre-Enterprise Linux audiences. ISVs saw Linux as a moving target. I think Red Hat does a good job of freshening what they can with their point releases.
Simply put, if you need bleeding edge software, you'll need to find it from Fedora or a third party repository. There are a number of repositories out there, AT-RPMs, Dag, RPM Forge, etc. that package applications for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. However, for Linux to be enterprise-ready, core stability (again in terms of versioning and reliability are a must.
Windows is a closed source system. How exactly do you think your intellectual property got into Linux? The Linux kernel on the other hand is open source. If there's code in Windows that is also in the Linux kernel, it would only make sense that your developers put it there by copying it from Linux.
Wow talk about trolling... you must be an Apple fanboy.:)
If the GPL is so useless, why do you think that Sun has chosen it for Java and is seriously considering it for Solaris? I'm not saying that using BSD code is stealing, I'm just saying that thre is a responsible way to use open source software.
However, Apple has closed down the source to the Intel port of the Darwin / OS X kernel. They did this because they're more concerned that people may figure out how to use their software on non-Apple branded hardware than they are about open innovation. But that doesn't stop them from using open software in their own products.
Apple right now is, for all intents and purposes, a minority player in the computer arena. The popularity of the iPod plus the feature set of OS X is attracting customers to the Mac product line, but Apple isn't a threat, yet. However, that doesn't mean their isn't room for concern. Apple's latest OS is built on the free, open source FreeBSD user land. Their web browser's rendering engine is based on KHTML, an open source toolkit developed in Konqueror. But Apple hasn't given much back to the community. Even what they are required by law to give back (enhancements to KHTML) has been done in large dumps rather than providing useful contribution to the Konqueror development team.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because it illustrates Apple's intent. Apple, just like MS, doesn't want to play nice, support open software or even standards. Apple sells DRM'd media on a closed platform that can only be played with Apple software and devices (iPod).
But the Catch 22 is, do you support them? Recently I've been encouraging friends and family to move to the Mac, and for now I still think it's a good idea. Why? Because Microsoft is still the number one bad guy and platform diversity will take away power from them. I think we should all be mindful of Apple's practices but their own arrogance will never allow them to be so dominant that they will be a threat. For instance, Apple demands that you use their platform to run their media and their OS. When new device X comes out that's more popular than the iPod, it will force Apple to support the device for have iTunes become irrelevant. Apple's choice not to allow their OS to be run on commodity hardware will hinder them from market dominance. I've long believed that the illusion of choice is part of what helped MS become a monopoly. People when their buying computers think, "should i get an HP, a Dell or an IBM?" When really all their getting is a Windows box.
Additionally, the shift away from traditional computing to the internet will also hinder Apple from being the next MS or Big Blue. Personally, I'm more worried about Google than Apple
The crossroads of design and implementation (development) is exactly where software projects fail or meet extensive delays. Coding to good design is easy, but coding to design that is always in flux is next to impossible. I'd say that given the current programming toolkits available today, it's impressive just how much gets accomplished.
Where architects need only worry about a single blueprint that is ethed in stone before ground is even broken, software architects and developers aren't so lucky. Software design tends to fluctuate with requests for the feature de-jour or the facade redesigns in the name of "keeping up with the competition".
Software design will always be a moving target because business demands will always require flexibilty. In the business world, service oriented architectures (SOA) have the potential to help this situation by allowing discrete applications to provide services to each other without requiring a common code base. However, SOA itself brings numerous complexities to projects but most of this should be simplied over the coming years.
The UNIX architecture is a perfect example of system designed in small pieces designed to be used in harmony. Every tool has a discrete job that it does well and can be combined with other tools to solve a problem This philosophy, when expanded beyond the bounds of a single OS instance across platforms, machines and physical locations will provide a trully beneficial programming environment to deliver the flexibility software design demands.
Slashdot Mirror
Containers are an interesting beast. Solaris has had Zones (aka containers) since 2005. In Solaris, these Zones are more akin to virtual machines, except much more efficient. All zones shared a single kernel, they just had virtual network interfaces, storage, and could be managed independently. Now, in 2014, Docker brings the same simplicity of Solaris Zones to Linux.
Sure, we've had CGroups in Linux since 2004/2006 but Docker finally brought Linux up to speed with a simple to use capability for creating isolated containers on Linux. Only, the implementation brings with it the same flawed approach as Solaris Zones. Do we really need a full OS image running in a container? I don't think so. Docker images are based on a Linux distro (Ubuntu or CentOS, etc). So we look at this and say, "cool, virtualization without the overhead of interrupts for everything from writing to disk to sending packets over the wire." But is that really the best we can do?
I think what Rocket really represents is a way to do containers right. Containers should run a single process. We shouldn't look at containers as a more efficient VM. We should see containers as a way to increase security and reduce overhead. Do you really want to have to run apt-get or yum inside every container? No. Containers should provide process isolation and application management capabilities. They shouldn't include the OS and the kitchen sink of user land utilities.
This is where Docker has failed. Instead of simplifying administration and deployment, it's introduced its own nuanced approach to system management. The reason we need a Docker competitor (replacement?) is because Docker has failed to live up to its hype.
The US patent system is badly broken, at least as far as software patents go. We all know that around here. Usually, the cases that make the tech news involve these Patent Trolls suing large companies (Apple, Google, MS), heck, even SCO v Red Hat. However, here we have an example of "the little guy" getting hurt by a software patent infringement case for an obvious patent.
This case may be a good example to put in front of Congress to show them how completely broken the current system. First, the inventor wasn't harmed by these "in app purchases", it's a patent holding company trolling. Second, the patent is obvious, overly broad and should never have been approved. Third, the patent in question shows the abuses of the current continuation system here in the US. And forth, it's Joe Sixpack getting sued! Nothing works up Congress and the media like an attack on the little guy / corporation.
A lot of comments here seem to focus on what could have been done differently. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. That being said, I have a question that I haven't seen asked or answered yet. Why are the spent fuel rods stored in the same buildings as the reactors?
In the event of losing power, not only do the active rods need to be dealt with, but the spent rods have to be monitored and maintained in the same facility. Wouldn't transporting the spent rods to a less densely populated area that was specifically designed to handle their storage make more sense? It seems that the problems right now getting the reactors under control is being hampered by the severe risks of those containment pools for the spent rods draining.
Uh, ok, can't the same be said of Republicans just the other way around? They're pro-big, old school military (almost 50% of the budget), illegal wiretapping, and they'll take away any of your freedoms, handing them over the the federal gov in the name of "national security" (patriot act for example). But government run health care is socialism?
It works both ways and it's bs from both parties, but the overwhelming majority of the double-talk seems to come from the right in this country.
See this crash test of a Smart for Two and a Mercedes C Class.. The C Class rated good, the Smart rated poor.
iTunes has always suffered from a not-quite-native feel on Mac OS and that's disappointing. Version 10 is definitely a step in the wrong direction. Besides Finder, it's probably the single most used application on a Mac considering all the purposes it serves.
In Mac OS 10.7 I'd love to see a user interface redesign that obeys Apple's own human interface guidelines and removes some of the serious bloat. For instance, why does the music application handle synchronizing with the iOS devices? I understand this single application paradigm keeps things simpler in some respects for cross platform support, but really, why bother porting the interface? I agree with a previous poster that the back end(s) for the music player, synching, etc. should be maintained as cross-platform libraries and native front ends should be created for Mac OS and Windows. This would probably reduce bloat in the long run and make it easier for Apple to integrate synch behavior into the OS on the Mac but keep it in iTunes for the Windows application.
It could be a lot worse for Nokia if Apple is able to prove that the licensing fees Nokia requested from Apple for essential GSM patents turns out to be unreasonable. Nokia does hold GSM patents, which as part of a standard are required to be licensed under "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory" terms. If Apple can prove that Nokia requested unreasonable terms from Apple for the GSM patents, Nokia may be in trouble with the ETSI.
If anything good comes out of this for future patent encumbered standards, it could be that the courts may be left to define what fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory actually means. As Engadget states in their coverage:
It would be nice if these cases were looked at as clear reason why we really need patent reform, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.
I think it was obvious from the start that the Palm acquisition was all about WebOS and tablets, not smart phones. Anyone else see this purchase and cancelation of Slate as a huge setback for Microsoft? It's basically a public admission by HP that Windows can't cut as a tablet OS.
HP just broke their direct dependence on Microsoft for an emerging market for a good reason: Microsoft's failure to produce an innovative user interface for tablets.
Sorry, but I can't believe the incredible amount of stupid comments posted here on this article. Jobs basically announces he's not dying and Apple's shares jump 4%. Apple isn't a one man operation and Wall Street knows that. It's probably safe to assume that every single innovation that's come out of Apple in the past 11 years hasn't been dumped straight from Steve's brain either.
Steve's marketing genius and patient leadership are the real value he provides to Apple, and losing his leadership is what makes investors nervous. As some suggest, Apple pulling the Stevenote from MacWorld is an attempt to address the former, but without a plan to address the latter, Wall Street will still freak out at the possibility of Apple losing Jobs.
In a world where IT companies are constantly diversifying their offerings, rushing products to market, and generally playing a bizarre game of throw 50 products at the market and see which ones stick, Apple is playing its cards close to its chest - and has been successfully since Job's return. It's not chasing emerging markets (Netbooks), it's not trying to get into online advertising (Microsoft) and hell it's not even doing things that outsiders think it should be doing to expand its business. Apple's stock value is based on the perception that is has a master plan. This is what makes Apple unique. And this is the value of Steve Jobs.
Solaris 10 and Open Solaris have the concept of zones and containers. The computer runs a single Solaris instance but can run isolated process trees in zones which share common libraries but can be updated for dependencies independently. The containers concept (in conjunction with zones) allows a fair share scheduler to guarantee a service level for each allocated zone (CPU/memory sharing, etc). IMHO, must better than Virtuozzo, VMware and Xen.
If I were the next president, I'd launch an all-out, full-scale investigation into the scandal of a presidency that was Bush's 8 years in the White House. Oh and Bush, Cheney and company would be hanging out down in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba until I was ready to charge them with crime(s). That's where we hold terrorists right? ;)
Why? Because the iMac comes with Leopard and the Dell comes with Vista. I have been recommending Macs to everyone now that they contain Intel chips. You can buy a Mac and if you hate OS X, you can just install Windows or Linux. You can't install OS X after you realized Windows Vista sucks on your brand new Dell.
With Boot Camp - although I prefer VMware for my legacy windows needs - you are guaranteed a machine with excellent Windows driver support. Apple provides all the drivers you need right on the Leopard DVD.
Want to try something new and have a perfect fallback plan if you hate your new OS? You get the iMac. If you buy the Dell and hate Vista you're out of luck unless you find a Linux distro the suits your needs. Unfortunately, as a Linux user since the mid-90's, I still can't recommend it as a viable home desktop alternative for most people I know.
Seriously, a lot of hook-ups, meeting new people for dating, etc. happen at bars, not online. This is one of those half-baked ideas by some clueless legislators who seem to think the Internet is a scarier place than a bar.
Requiring background checks for online dating is not a realistic safeguard. People who have something to hide will figure out how to hide it, face-to-face or on the Internet. If anything, this will cause clueless daters to fall into a false sense of security by assuring them that this safety net exists when it's merely a mirage.
This really shouldn't be a function of the RDBMS. If you wanted such a thing writing a driver wrapper for any RDBMS should be fairly easy. However, coding your database mappings without locking down your feature set is kinda useless. What's more interesting is creating scripts to generate your database schema from your code. It's been done, see Hibernate.
I don't buy the idea that Sun is looking to bail out of the hardware business. What they are looking to do is keep Solaris relevant. Sun doesn't want you to think Solaris requires Sun hardware. Sun realized that the only option for people wanting to go with x86/x86_64 chips and run a Unix-like OS on supported hardware meant running Linux or buying Sun gear.
Sun is looking to eat some of Linux's lunch. The question is, why is IBM interested?
This is exactly what I was thinking. Google will almost certainly bid on the 700 mhz spectrum because they see it as their cheapest and easiest way to gain access to the "last-mile". I almost certainly think the cost, even at 20 billion would be worthwhile.
Google won't quite start a parallel internet, but it will be close. They'll offer access mandating the use of IPv6 with IP proxies to the wired internet. They'll offer VOIP, true internet TV and the potential for an IP address for everything and anything you want to put on the net.
This isn't about being a cellular provider, it's about ushering in the internet without wires revolution. And it actually makes the billion they spent on YouTube start to make sense.
Don't forget Red Hat. They turned down Microsoft. They definitely still "get it" in terms of maintaining an open source distribution. Not making business arrangements with companies that tick off the FOSS community is only part of the good behavior expected of companies making money of FOSS software.
Red Hat is still a big contributor to the Linux kernel, Gnome and the OSS community in general. With the exception of Red Hat Network (paid service) all the products they've built (system config tools) or the product of companies they've bought have been released under the GPL to the community.
I continue to support Red Hat because I think they do get it.
Why on earth would Apple want to acquire a chip and graphics card manufacturer? Didn't Apple specifically go with Intel over AMD due to Intel's stronger road map? I don't doubt that it could have been about price too, but that leads me to my second point.
Despite Apple's position as a hardware company, a hardware manufacturer they are not. Apple designs their products, sure, but production is outsourced to others. Apple stands to benefit from not being in the chip manufacturing business. As long as Intel and AMD exist to compete against each other, Apple can play off their competition to get the best pricing. The same could be said of leading video card manufacturers NVidia, ATi/AMD, and Intel.
One would presume that should Apple acquire AMD, their Mac products would become entirely AMD/ATi based. So how does Apple benefit? Becoming their own chip supplier would certainly increase R&D, manufacturing and supply chain costs without yielding a single advantage. Apple needs to remain nimble and flexible. Right now they could drop Intel for AMD in a blink should AMD surpass Intel in price/performance and then jump right back if and when Intel takes the lead back. Should Apple acquire AMD and have AMD chips fall well behind Intel's, Apple would be sitting on a big loss with less than optimal chips in Macs to boot.
Honestly, the author of TFA doesn't know what he's talking about.
Seriously, now that Java will be GPL'd, why exactly do we need Mono?
.Net only exists because M$ failed to embrace and extend Java. Why does the OSS community need a knock-off of a language that only exists because M$ couldn't control Java?
If you work with Red Hat Linux servers, it makes perfect sense to run Red Hat on the desktop. For instance, people want to develop applications on your desktop, create RPMS, or simply run a set of desktops that can be managed remotely via Red Hat Network.
Your are correct that there are other offerings for a home or casual Linux user. However, for people working in shops using RHEL servers, RHEL desktop makes perfect sense.
If you run an enterprise application, stability is critical in terms of both operational reliability and package versions. While I agree with you that some of the higher level applications that could be kept more "fresh", Enterprise Linux targets an audience that tends to run mission critical applications on their operating systems. These companies deal with a number of third party ISVs who certify their products on Red Hat Linux. If software package versions are changing constantly, ISVs will refuse to certify said changes due to the cost of doing so.
This was one of the problems with Red Hat's pre-Enterprise Linux audiences. ISVs saw Linux as a moving target. I think Red Hat does a good job of freshening what they can with their point releases.
Simply put, if you need bleeding edge software, you'll need to find it from Fedora or a third party repository. There are a number of repositories out there, AT-RPMs, Dag, RPM Forge, etc. that package applications for Red Hat Enterprise Linux. However, for Linux to be enterprise-ready, core stability (again in terms of versioning and reliability are a must.
Windows is a closed source system. How exactly do you think your intellectual property got into Linux? The Linux kernel on the other hand is open source. If there's code in Windows that is also in the Linux kernel, it would only make sense that your developers put it there by copying it from Linux.
You sir, are an ignorant jackass.
If the GPL is so useless, why do you think that Sun has chosen it for Java and is seriously considering it for Solaris? I'm not saying that using BSD code is stealing, I'm just saying that thre is a responsible way to use open source software.
However, Apple has closed down the source to the Intel port of the Darwin / OS X kernel. They did this because they're more concerned that people may figure out how to use their software on non-Apple branded hardware than they are about open innovation. But that doesn't stop them from using open software in their own products.
Enjoy your propietary OS, fanboy.
Apple right now is, for all intents and purposes, a minority player in the computer arena. The popularity of the iPod plus the feature set of OS X is attracting customers to the Mac product line, but Apple isn't a threat, yet. However, that doesn't mean their isn't room for concern. Apple's latest OS is built on the free, open source FreeBSD user land. Their web browser's rendering engine is based on KHTML, an open source toolkit developed in Konqueror. But Apple hasn't given much back to the community. Even what they are required by law to give back (enhancements to KHTML) has been done in large dumps rather than providing useful contribution to the Konqueror development team.
Why does any of this matter? It matters because it illustrates Apple's intent. Apple, just like MS, doesn't want to play nice, support open software or even standards. Apple sells DRM'd media on a closed platform that can only be played with Apple software and devices (iPod).
But the Catch 22 is, do you support them? Recently I've been encouraging friends and family to move to the Mac, and for now I still think it's a good idea. Why? Because Microsoft is still the number one bad guy and platform diversity will take away power from them. I think we should all be mindful of Apple's practices but their own arrogance will never allow them to be so dominant that they will be a threat. For instance, Apple demands that you use their platform to run their media and their OS. When new device X comes out that's more popular than the iPod, it will force Apple to support the device for have iTunes become irrelevant. Apple's choice not to allow their OS to be run on commodity hardware will hinder them from market dominance. I've long believed that the illusion of choice is part of what helped MS become a monopoly. People when their buying computers think, "should i get an HP, a Dell or an IBM?" When really all their getting is a Windows box.
Additionally, the shift away from traditional computing to the internet will also hinder Apple from being the next MS or Big Blue. Personally, I'm more worried about Google than Apple
The crossroads of design and implementation (development) is exactly where software projects fail or meet extensive delays. Coding to good design is easy, but coding to design that is always in flux is next to impossible. I'd say that given the current programming toolkits available today, it's impressive just how much gets accomplished.
Where architects need only worry about a single blueprint that is ethed in stone before ground is even broken, software architects and developers aren't so lucky. Software design tends to fluctuate with requests for the feature de-jour or the facade redesigns in the name of "keeping up with the competition".
Software design will always be a moving target because business demands will always require flexibilty. In the business world, service oriented architectures (SOA) have the potential to help this situation by allowing discrete applications to provide services to each other without requiring a common code base. However, SOA itself brings numerous complexities to projects but most of this should be simplied over the coming years.
The UNIX architecture is a perfect example of system designed in small pieces designed to be used in harmony. Every tool has a discrete job that it does well and can be combined with other tools to solve a problem This philosophy, when expanded beyond the bounds of a single OS instance across platforms, machines and physical locations will provide a trully beneficial programming environment to deliver the flexibility software design demands.