As far as I know, the sale of Windows server OSs has always been greater than the SALE of Linux OSes. This is nothing new. There are a hell of a lot of companies that don't buy Linux (for instance, WETA uses Fedora Core), and a lot of universities use whatever debian based distro they can get their hands on (Debian, ubuntu, etc.). And I don't even want to think about how many boxes are probably still on Redhat 9.
But besides that, Linux is the underdog and catching up. By stating that Windows sales outpace Linux sales, you are implying that somehow Linux was ahead, and it was not.
The real headline is that Linux sales are slowly catching up to Windows sales. When Windows and Linux SALES are neck and neck, we can assume Linux has won, since all the free copies out there don't get counted and probably account for, perhaps has much as 50% of all the Linux installs out there.
When is the last time you contacted an ISP or hosting provider that used Solaris? They're all Linux based these days. Most have some Windows servers, but they only put your site on a Windows box if you request it. The default is a Linux box.
You can bet that Microsoft has a strong business plan for this back in Redmond to show this helps crush OpenOffice somehow. It would not surprise me if Microsoft filed for a slew of patents in the next 18 months. Or perhaps they're going to open up the Office 12 file format, but the earlier binary file format that probably 95% of customers are using will remain lock away to be reverse engineered.
That way when a government body wants to start using a "open" file format, Microsoft will happily sell them some software assurance program that gives them Office 12 at a good price, but locks them in for another 5 years or so.
Trust me, there is a good business plan back in Redmond on the table showing how this is going to work best for Microsoft in the long run.
The sad part is that, Microsoft owns the desktop for now. They could open source Office and Windows and they would STILL own the desktop.
Apple stated that with the 10.4 Tiger release, that the APIs are pretty much fixed now. I know that can always change, but I tend to think the APIs will not be in the same state of flux they were under all previous OS X versions. That's part of the reason newer versions of Safari, and apps like iPhoto required newer versions of the OS. They use APIs that did not exist in older versions of OS X(It also helped sell newer versions of OS X, so Apple isn't totally blameless for this practice...)
I hope GnuSTEP gets good Cocoa compatibility. This would be a big plus for Apple and GnuStep. A lot of the really big apps such as the Adobe Suite, MS Office, FileMaker, etc are all written in Carbon and could not be ported to GnuStep, but there are plenty of small developers writing Cocoa apps, that would probably recompile under GnuStep just to see if it works, and might possibly release those products.
GnuStep could become to Apple, what Wine is to Microsoft (though somehow I think that Apple would embrace GnuStep a little better than Microsoft treats Wine...)
Netscape is a AOL product and I am sure AOL is paying HP to put a copy of Netscape on every PC. The Mozilla Foundation could never afford that kind of deal.
Since NT doesn't stand for "New Technology" like everyone thinks it does, the only thing wrong with your box is that it runs something based on an NT kernel. Hope you're not the one carrying the pager...:-)
Just because you can get an SLA does not mean it will ne honored. Having worked with Exchange in the past, I would have to say any uptime guarantees are subject to two major factors:
1. Will you need to pull the plug on the server due to an e-mail worm? 2. Do you need to deploy a whole Active Directory infrastructure and trust the AD infrastrucutr not to take a nosedive and hose your e-mail environment?
Now something you need to remember here is that Exchange ltself is not vulnerable to mass e-mail worms. It's the Outlook client that is the issue, so if you eliminate the Outlook client, then Exchange may be an option.
If all you need is POP3, IMAP, webmail and LDAP address lookups, then I would buy some SuSE Linux boxes and run Novell Netmail, which is actually a very, very nice program that scales quite well. If Novell was still giving out accounts at myrealbox.com, you could see the product in action.
If you need calendaring, give Novell GroupWise a look. Very slick package with a ton of features you wish Exchange had...
The other nice thing about Novell is they can provide you with an on-site resource to help support this stuff. We have one at my work. They're called DSEs (Dedicated Suppor Engineers) and they can bypass a boatload a call queues and actually get you on the horn with a developer if need be.
Not to be a smart ass, but it's not SLA agreement. It's an SLA. SLA stands for service level agreement. SLA agreement would be service level agreement agreement.
If MS files the patent 2 months prior to Apple, and Apple filed the patent, 7 months after the introduction of the iPod, the MS patent was filed 5 months after the iPod was introduced. Isn't the iPod then valid prior art?
Ok, I am a practicing Catholic. I even volunteer computer asistance to my Church. I believe that God created every single animal and plant on this planet. And I think Intelligent Design should be kept the HELL out of science class and taught where it belongs: religion class.
There is a way that God went about creating all these great things on this planet. And God's way is a process we scientific types call EVOLUTION. Evolution is a process put in place that all things to EVOLVE on this great planet. The process itself dictates what happens. No one needs to shape it or design it, because it was designed to work the way it does.
Not that I am going to preach religion to the masses here, but KEEP this CRAP out of the science classroom!
If you want to teach this stuff in school, start offering volutary religion classes in multiple faiths that a child's parents can make them attend, but in now way force them.
First time they try to teach this stuff to my kids in school, I'll walk in with the Bible in my hand and ask them when it became a science textbook.
For that matter, I have a box of band-aids at home marked "Adhesive Bandages." We all know they're Band-Aids(tm), but if another company printed the words band-aid on their boxes, Johnson and Johnson would have lawyers on their asses faster than Apple sues rumor sites...
I was just pointing out why BSD is not UNIX, in the legal sense...
I think you are right. The difference between Linux, BSD and UNIX is realy just something that keeps lawyers up at night. Porting source seems to be pretty easy between all the UNIX variants, it seems, as most majot open source projects have ports for at least 6 different *nix flavors.
Actually BSD is NOT Unix. The original BSD source that was released by Berkely had everything removed from it that made it UNIX, hence the stripping and lawsuits. All BSDs prior to the release of BSD under the BSD license (such as SunOS), are UNIX. All BSD after the release (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.) are all Unix-like or *nix operating systems.
These days, the only way something can be called UNIX, is if it undergoes validation testing with and certification with the Open Group, which costs a pretty penny, from what I understand.
Here is my simple answer. I am not a developer. I wish I was, but I am not. So, in order to help the FireFox cause, I like to present IDEAS that could help open source along. So this is my idea. As much as I really like open source and believe strongly in it, open source developers need to realize that non-developers now use their software and want features that they can't possibly code themselves.
Would you roll out IE 7 to 2000 desktops with a MSI created by someone other than Microsoft? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I am not going to push out an unofficial MSI of FireFox to that many seats.
Corporate IT is all about ass covering, and you can't cover your ass with an unofficial MSI.
Having worked in a corporate infrastrucuture for far too long, I have to sadly say, that the biggest enterprise drawback to the use of FireFox is the lack of a Admin kit, that would allow you to customize which extensions you push out with Firefox.
It would also be nice to have an MSI based installer for easy deployments via exisiting application deployment engines (AD, SMS, Zenworks, etc) and the ability to customize the broser via Group Policy.
I know all of these only apply to the Windows world, but I think these kind of things would help Firefox in the long run.
We all know Windows users make heavy use of Gator, Internet Search Bar, Precision Time, SQL Slammer, Code Red, Nimda, and a lot of other cool programs they may not even know they have!
I just wish Windows users would stop sharing all this great software with the rest of us!
Hey man, no problem. Funny part is, as I was reading that, I was in the process of writing my first perl script. While in no way as complicated as C++ coding, it is a start....:-)
Well, if I don't ask questions, I will never learn. So leaving the development talk to the developers doesn't really encourage anyone to take up development that hasn't done so before, does it?
If there's really a cross platform GUI on OpenOffice, why does the Mac version still require X11? And OpenOffice has already announce no native GUI for OS X in version 2.0
So cross platoform GUIs are not that easy. Just ask the Mozilla folks. Their project was delayed for years just getting GUI framework to work across the board.
Personally, I'd like GTK+ ported to the Mac to run natively the way it does in Windows. And simply port apps using that.
Sadly I am not a developer, so I can't help hack code....
Ok, my understanding is that this is the C++ OpenOffice code with Java used solely for the GUI (or so their site says). I loaded it last night and it works just fine. It's not 100% Aqua, but it's good enough for every day use.
My question is.... Why don't the openoffice developers take this approach? Java is available for Mac, Linux, Solaris (obviously), and Windows. And on the Mac and Windows versions the UI looks pretty good. My understanding with the Linux version is, it can use GTK widgets, so I would think a 1.5 Java on Linux should have a good look and feel also.
Wouldn't keeping the C++ backend with a Java front end for the UI make the app much more portable among platforms, and allow OpenOffice.org to embrace the Mac right off the bat, as well as any new platforms that come along?
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I know, the sale of Windows server OSs has always been greater than the SALE of Linux OSes. This is nothing new. There are a hell of a lot of companies that don't buy Linux (for instance, WETA uses Fedora Core), and a lot of universities use whatever debian based distro they can get their hands on (Debian, ubuntu, etc.). And I don't even want to think about how many boxes are probably still on Redhat 9.
But besides that, Linux is the underdog and catching up. By stating that Windows sales outpace Linux sales, you are implying that somehow Linux was ahead, and it was not.
The real headline is that Linux sales are slowly catching up to Windows sales. When Windows and Linux SALES are neck and neck, we can assume Linux has won, since all the free copies out there don't get counted and probably account for, perhaps has much as 50% of all the Linux installs out there.
When is the last time you contacted an ISP or hosting provider that used Solaris? They're all Linux based these days. Most have some Windows servers, but they only put your site on a Windows box if you request it. The default is a Linux box.
In case you didn't read the whole message, he STARTED A COMPANY AND BECAME THE SYSADMIN FOR IT. Get a clue.
You can bet that Microsoft has a strong business plan for this back in Redmond to show this helps crush OpenOffice somehow. It would not surprise me if Microsoft filed for a slew of patents in the next 18 months. Or perhaps they're going to open up the Office 12 file format, but the earlier binary file format that probably 95% of customers are using will remain lock away to be reverse engineered.
That way when a government body wants to start using a "open" file format, Microsoft will happily sell them some software assurance program that gives them Office 12 at a good price, but locks them in for another 5 years or so.
Trust me, there is a good business plan back in Redmond on the table showing how this is going to work best for Microsoft in the long run.
The sad part is that, Microsoft owns the desktop for now. They could open source Office and Windows and they would STILL own the desktop.
I am quite happy with Easynews. I recommend them highly.
Apple stated that with the 10.4 Tiger release, that the APIs are pretty much fixed now. I know that can always change, but I tend to think the APIs will not be in the same state of flux they were under all previous OS X versions. That's part of the reason newer versions of Safari, and apps like iPhoto required newer versions of the OS. They use APIs that did not exist in older versions of OS X(It also helped sell newer versions of OS X, so Apple isn't totally blameless for this practice...)
I hope GnuSTEP gets good Cocoa compatibility. This would be a big plus for Apple and GnuStep. A lot of the really big apps such as the Adobe Suite, MS Office, FileMaker, etc are all written in Carbon and could not be ported to GnuStep, but there are plenty of small developers writing Cocoa apps, that would probably recompile under GnuStep just to see if it works, and might possibly release those products.
GnuStep could become to Apple, what Wine is to Microsoft (though somehow I think that Apple would embrace GnuStep a little better than Microsoft treats Wine...)
Andy
Netscape is a AOL product and I am sure AOL is paying HP to put a copy of Netscape on every PC. The Mozilla Foundation could never afford that kind of deal.
Since NT doesn't stand for "New Technology" like everyone thinks it does, the only thing wrong with your box is that it runs something based on an NT kernel. Hope you're not the one carrying the pager... :-)
Just because you can get an SLA does not mean it will ne honored. Having worked with Exchange in the past, I would have to say any uptime guarantees are subject to two major factors:
1. Will you need to pull the plug on the server due to an e-mail worm?
2. Do you need to deploy a whole Active Directory infrastructure and trust the AD infrastrucutr not to take a nosedive and hose your e-mail environment?
Now something you need to remember here is that Exchange ltself is not vulnerable to mass e-mail worms. It's the Outlook client that is the issue, so if you eliminate the Outlook client, then Exchange may be an option.
If all you need is POP3, IMAP, webmail and LDAP address lookups, then I would buy some SuSE Linux boxes and run Novell Netmail, which is actually a very, very nice program that scales quite well. If Novell was still giving out accounts at myrealbox.com, you could see the product in action.
If you need calendaring, give Novell GroupWise a look. Very slick package with a ton of features you wish Exchange had...
The other nice thing about Novell is they can provide you with an on-site resource to help support this stuff. We have one at my work. They're called DSEs (Dedicated Suppor Engineers) and they can bypass a boatload a call queues and actually get you on the horn with a developer if need be.
Not to be a smart ass, but it's not SLA agreement. It's an SLA. SLA stands for service level agreement. SLA agreement would be service level agreement agreement.
If MS files the patent 2 months prior to Apple, and Apple filed the patent, 7 months after the introduction of the iPod, the MS patent was filed 5 months after the iPod was introduced. Isn't the iPod then valid prior art?
Ok, I am a practicing Catholic. I even volunteer computer asistance to my Church. I believe that God created every single animal and plant on this planet. And I think Intelligent Design should be kept the HELL out of science class and taught where it belongs: religion class.
There is a way that God went about creating all these great things on this planet. And God's way is a process we scientific types call EVOLUTION. Evolution is a process put in place that all things to EVOLVE on this great planet. The process itself dictates what happens. No one needs to shape it or design it, because it was designed to work the way it does.
Not that I am going to preach religion to the masses here, but KEEP this CRAP out of the science classroom!
If you want to teach this stuff in school, start offering volutary religion classes in multiple faiths that a child's parents can make them attend, but in now way force them.
First time they try to teach this stuff to my kids in school, I'll walk in with the Bible in my hand and ask them when it became a science textbook.
For that matter, I have a box of band-aids at home marked "Adhesive Bandages." We all know they're Band-Aids(tm), but if another company printed the words band-aid on their boxes, Johnson and Johnson would have lawyers on their asses faster than Apple sues rumor sites...
I was just pointing out why BSD is not UNIX, in the legal sense...
Cut me a break, they're all UNIX like OSes to me.
I think you are right. The difference between Linux, BSD and UNIX is realy just something that keeps lawyers up at night. Porting source seems to be pretty easy between all the UNIX variants, it seems, as most majot open source projects have ports for at least 6 different *nix flavors.
If they want their software adopted, they should care, and the Mozilla foundation wants their software adopted.
Average Joe developer that wrote a piece of software for himself probably won't care.
If you want me to write an admin kit for FF, then pay my mortgage and watch my kids for me till I get my BS in programming.
Or make me rich, so I can hire OSS developers to write an admin kit for my company.
Until you can pull either of things off, then I will ASK if other can do it, since there is a business need for these things.
Actually BSD is NOT Unix. The original BSD source that was released by Berkely had everything removed from it that made it UNIX, hence the stripping and lawsuits. All BSDs prior to the release of BSD under the BSD license (such as SunOS), are UNIX. All BSD after the release (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.) are all Unix-like or *nix operating systems.
These days, the only way something can be called UNIX, is if it undergoes validation testing with and certification with the Open Group, which costs a pretty penny, from what I understand.
Here is my simple answer. I am not a developer. I wish I was, but I am not. So, in order to help the FireFox cause, I like to present IDEAS that could help open source along. So this is my idea. As much as I really like open source and believe strongly in it, open source developers need to realize that non-developers now use their software and want features that they can't possibly code themselves.
Would you roll out IE 7 to 2000 desktops with a MSI created by someone other than Microsoft? I sure as hell wouldn't. And I am not going to push out an unofficial MSI of FireFox to that many seats.
Corporate IT is all about ass covering, and you can't cover your ass with an unofficial MSI.
Having worked in a corporate infrastrucuture for far too long, I have to sadly say, that the biggest enterprise drawback to the use of FireFox is the lack of a Admin kit, that would allow you to customize which extensions you push out with Firefox.
It would also be nice to have an MSI based installer for easy deployments via exisiting application deployment engines (AD, SMS, Zenworks, etc) and the ability to customize the broser via Group Policy.
I know all of these only apply to the Windows world, but I think these kind of things would help Firefox in the long run.
These Mozilla folks need to make up their minds...
We all know Windows users make heavy use of Gator, Internet Search Bar, Precision Time, SQL Slammer, Code Red, Nimda, and a lot of other cool programs they may not even know they have!
I just wish Windows users would stop sharing all this great software with the rest of us!
Hey man, no problem. Funny part is, as I was reading that, I was in the process of writing my first perl script. While in no way as complicated as C++ coding, it is a start.... :-)
Well, if I don't ask questions, I will never learn. So leaving the development talk to the developers doesn't really encourage anyone to take up development that hasn't done so before, does it?
If there's really a cross platform GUI on OpenOffice, why does the Mac version still require X11? And OpenOffice has already announce no native GUI for OS X in version 2.0
So cross platoform GUIs are not that easy. Just ask the Mozilla folks. Their project was delayed for years just getting GUI framework to work across the board.
Personally, I'd like GTK+ ported to the Mac to run natively the way it does in Windows. And simply port apps using that.
Sadly I am not a developer, so I can't help hack code....
Ok, my understanding is that this is the C++ OpenOffice code with Java used solely for the GUI (or so their site says). I loaded it last night and it works just fine. It's not 100% Aqua, but it's good enough for every day use.
My question is.... Why don't the openoffice developers take this approach? Java is available for Mac, Linux, Solaris (obviously), and Windows. And on the Mac and Windows versions the UI looks pretty good. My understanding with the Linux version is, it can use GTK widgets, so I would think a 1.5 Java on Linux should have a good look and feel also.
Wouldn't keeping the C++ backend with a Java front end for the UI make the app much more portable among platforms, and allow OpenOffice.org to embrace the Mac right off the bat, as well as any new platforms that come along?
If they can't keep Windows from crashing, how are they going to keep a car from crashing???