If you'd read my post, you'd see I was referring to Mozilla, before Firefox. Lots of pages back then, around the time Mozilla became available, were terrible if you didn't use IE. A lot of it was because of ActiveX, but a lot was rendering quirks of IE.
Like I said, I don't have to use IE very much. I use it for things like OWA, but I don't have to. Corporate apps tend to be IE only, unfortunately.
Don't be so defensive. Sheesh, it's just a browser.
You certainly have the right to use something without odd HTML bugs that have never once affected my web browsing experience, but it seems too a little too elitist to me.
I'm sure they'll fix it eventually, but they do have a lot of work to do, and this particular problem must only affect a small number of pages, or doesn't really affect the usability of any web sites.
I know I've never used those tags on any sites I've put together. Regardless I'm not a paid web developer, but I do favors.
Anyways, it's not enough to get me to switch to a closed source program when the open source one works so well.
Yea, that's a reason I suppose. When I first switched to Mozilla several years back it was a lot more difficult. I got tired of cleaning spyware out of my machine that was downloaded secretly via IE bugs.. Once I switched the members of my immediate family over to Firefox those problems stopped dead. I didn't switch because I wanted to use open source. Anyways, many pages refused to load with "IE ONLY." Lots of pages loaded very poorly, with wrong positioning and incorrect fonts. Usually it was usable, but sometimes I'd have to load up IE.
Even as recent as three years ago, a good number of web pages had problems if you weren't using IE. Now, the number is very small and shrinking every day. These days it's mostly internal corporate apps that are broken. I bitch at our developers for doing IE only bullshit but they don't care..
I really can't remember the last time I HAD to load IE because a page rendered incorrectly. I'm sure they're still out there, but I never visit any. I do use IEtab on FireFox for when I open up Outlook Web Access.
So, since web site development standards are moving more and more toward full CSS usage and other goodies, and moving quickly away from ActiveX, it's such a small problem that I still don't think I'd bother with Opera and keeping another piece of software updated.
Okay. Enough of this bullshit. Since when has Windows been as easy as 1..2..3? Ever? Since when does everything always work and not require the help of the neighborhood computer guy, or family computer guy?
I hear someone say "HOLY FUCK nobody could EVER fucking edit a HOSTS file!! LINUX SUCKS! It will never catch on!" Enough of that shit. There's plenty of times on Windows where you have to make registry changes, boot.ini changes, driver fixes because of blue screen crashes, even if you just plug in a USB device sometimes.
Face it: No matter what system you use, there's going to be some shitty troubleshooting work and that will require some expertise. It's NOT harder on Linux, and I venture that it's always possible to avoid the "reinstall OS" option on any Linux system.
I won't use it because I see no point. I used to really like Mozilla - I was a hold out for a long time, and then I reluctantly moved to FireFox (which turned out to be just fine.) I have Firefox on all workstations I use, it works great, and I don't see any reason to use Opera. Not that I'm a developer but I also like that Firefox is open source, in case had to base my decision on that alone.
I don't see any reason to use opera, nor not use it. I feel very blah about it.
I missed them because they're amazingly selfish, short sighted, and yes, angry.
If you don't like OSS, don't fucking use it. We don't want you. We don't need you to bitch about it, or the people that make it. Obviously, a lot of people DO like it, or it wouldn't be (according to them) the single-biggest threat to the biggest tech company in the world.
If it doesn't do what you want it to do, then just don't use it. I mean, I don't use sendmail because it doesn't do what I need, so I use Exchange. I'm a rational thinker, which you obviously are not.
OSS is NOT THERE FOR YOU. It's there to serve the needs of the people who wrote it, and ohh, they just let you do whatever you want with it. DAMNED THEM!
No. What you want is to open up a store and beer, but the only way you can stay in business is if everyone keeps giving you free beer.
You could build a closed source app on LGPL binaries, and that's why it's a discouraged license over the GPL in most cases. Core libraries that are required for proper OS function, that's a good place for LGPL. If you ask for more then that, you're looking for a freebie. Spend the time, effort, and money developing your own code, if you don't want to adhere to the rules set forth by the GPL developer.
It's just too bad that folks such as yourself want to use GPL code in your closed-source software. Sorry, but that's not what the license allows you to do. What is it about the GPL that always gets people in an uproar? You never see people complain about license restrictions on closed-source software code, which is basically "Don't ever use this code. Ever. Unless you pay us lots of money, and then we'll think about it."
PS you can buy rights to use GPL code, if you ask the author and come up with an agreement. The author has the right to license the code under the GPL and any other license he/she wants, simultaneously.
Plus, I don't see how you proved me incorrect in any way - people know Windows more then, say, UNIX. As a general rule. They use it at home, they can install software, they can add devices and device drivers. That's certainly *more* then any other operating system, right?
You actually agree with me for the most part. Like I said, it's not less complicated then other systems once you get past the start button, which insinuates "past pre-fab admin tasks" without as many words.
I think it all stems from the same old problem of people wanting to use software that they know. And really, people generally know Windows more then anything else. It's not an excuse, and I think it's the epitome of laziness, but I believe that's the main cause.
I mean, I work for state government and the majority of the people running the systems just don't know computers very well. It sucks. So, their comfort zone is Windows, because it APPEARS easier to manage. (Of course, it's not, it's just as complicated as anything else when you look past the pretty start button.)
No, but if they wanted to, they could require that all ISP's servicing Connecticut locations to block the YouTube servers. ISP's would probably welcome the the order.
To tell you the truth, I prefer the LGPL over the GPL for most cases, but I'll take the GPL over the other alternatives out there. (I think you should be able to link to binary GPL code such as libraries and other software with your own closed-source software. However, I do see a dilemma - if you wanted to, you could build a closed-source program built entirely on "binary GPL software" without giving anything back. So I guess it's a good thing that the LGPL is generally limited to system libraries.)
Your idea about releasing the changes back to the original author presents it's own set of problems, and really doesn't do anything to benefit anyone. I mean, if you wrote code, you can release it under the GPL, and also another license that allowed for that style if you wanted to. I don't see the point. It wouldn't be much different then the GPL.
The point that a lot of people seem to miss (not saying you are one of those people) is that you don't have to release a complete copy your software, download-able with documentation, on the Internet. You really only need to make available the changes you've made. You can write software based on GPL code and sell binaries in the stores. If someone wanted to use your changed code and re-build your software package, the could do it, but you don't have to. Most people DO make their software available, though.
It's just a new way of developing software and it does work. Maybe OSS/GPL has been so successful is because it's the only way to compete with Microsoft. Maybe it's because there's a lot of talent out there that wants to contribute. Maybe it's because the resulting software is better.
Usually, you'd run a decently sized SAN for your VM environment. You have to size for every VM; just because they're virtual doesn't mean you can ignore performance requirements. If your app is disk intensive, you could give the VM(s) their own physical volumes to run on, and still share the host. Where I work, we actually have a few servers that run on VMware even though they only have one VM running on those machines - the benefit of virtualizing the hardware was enough to go that route. Disaster recovery and testing environments are a snap when you're virtual.
Why do you bother with GPL software when it's so "shitty?" And are you trying to impress me with your l33t Gentoo skillz? A monkey can install Gentoo from stage 1; they have enough step-by-step guides to drive an AA member to booze.
You know that Seamonkey utilizes the Firefox codebase? Whatever, it all sucks according to you. I mean, Firefox is just OK.. it's only become a household name in three years. If it wasn't for the shitty GPL Microsoft could have taken all the code and made it a household name in two.
You go on to complain that OpenOffice "sucks" because it can't open the very much obfuscated document formats from Microsoft with 100% accuracy. What are you going to do next, blame rape victims for being raped because they wore provocative clothing? Still, you don't answer the real question, which was *what can OpenOffice not do that MS Office can*?
Linux has always had IP support. I have no idea what kind of shit you were smoking when you installed RH 5.2 and thought it only had support for IPX? Are you fucking kidding me? I mean, IP is older then IPX you know that right? Shit, you DOWNLOADED Slackware 1.0 from FTP. (Hint: FTP is an IP service. Another hint: Slackware 1.0 was released years before RedHat 1.0.)
But anyways, the GPL frees the software, not YOU. The GPL allows you to do whatever you want with the software, except make it less free then when you got it.
I like the GPL, obviously. I won't say that I don't see the merit in a BSD-style license, and I wish a license like that could truly work on a wide-scale. But, I don't believe it can. I believe you need the GPL to ensure that the software remains free - that it improves for the community, that it enriches everyone. The GPL has proven that it works. I really don't understand how someone can ignore the fact that GPL software is wildly popular and is being both used and developed by some very large firms? Nearly of the big GPL software suites is developed by paid programmers.
I really shouldn't argue with you, because you can't win an argument with an ignorant man. I mean, seriously man. You can disagree without inventing complete bullshit to bolster your claim. There's valid reasons for preferring BSD style licensing. Can't you at least admit that you can see the other side of the issue as well?
ps. It's the shitty 52" Aquos LCD TV. It probably runs Linux - almost everything else does now a days. Especially because it's so shitty. Too bad it's hooked up to my shitty PS3 which runs shitty Fedora.
Not exactly. You're virtualizing the hardware. The virtual machine is hardware-independent.
The host is an easy configure. If you had to replace a host due to a hardware problem, it's a lot more simple then re-installing a Windows or Linux box, restoring the configuration and everything else, etc. (Especially Windows.) VMware's ESX server can set up in minutes. With ESX3, all the VM configuration and data is stored on the SAN. Basically, you do the install of ESX which is pretty darned simple, give it an IP address, and add it to the host cluster. Then it's done. Start up virtual machines. The best thing is, when you've got Vmotion enabled, you can hot-migrate your VM's to other hosts if you have to perform hardware maintenance or ESX software updates.
Every single virtual machine will share exactly the same virtual hardware. Sure, you might have one with more RAM, another with an extra virtual disk, or another with 2 or 4 CPU SMP. But those things are trivial - the drivers are all identical. You're also allowed an extra level of protection on things like memory errors - you can detect them on the host, and there's very little chance of memory errors corrupting memory in a VM.
You can move your critical server systems around without dealing with hardware compatibility or re-installation issues.
Really, you need to see a well-configured ESX cluster in action, in daily use. There's not much in the data center that's easier then managing virtual machines. Nothing is difficult. (When it comes to managing the servers themselves.. I can't speak for what software you're running ON those VM's!) Need a snapshot? No problem. Replacing hardware with something newer ans faster? Easy. Replacing a faulty system? Simple.
Not to mention the fact that you get more bang for your buck - you can run a lot of virtual machines quite well on any modern server with enough RAM.
It's moot because it's a specific issue with a specific hypervisor, not a problem inherent with virtualization itself.
There's some things I won't virtualize right now, and that's two of our very busy database servers and the two main file servers. Part of it is for the performance of those systems, but part of it is also because I don't want those systems to chew up a high percentage of the overall virtual cluster.
I don't think x86 VM's are a new science anymore. They're just somewhat new to the Enterprise. VMware released their first product in 1998. In the computer world, nine years of development for a product/technology is a good deal of time.
Virtual machines have different performance characteristics then actual physical servers, and different hypervisors can change things as well. You do need to take special precautions when going virtual, but the effort is worth it for the amazing amount of control and ease of use your infrastructure will have.
And the greatest part is when I need a new server, I just click a few buttons on the mouse and hit GO. The VM is ready in moments, joined to the domain and ready to go.
Indeed. If you have a proper ESX configuration: At least two hosts, SAN back-end, multiple NIC's, supported hardware - you'll find that almost none of the points are valid.
Teaming, hot-migrations, resource management, and lots of other great tools make modern x86 virtualization really enterprise caliber.
I think that the people that see it as a toy are people that have never used virtualization in the context of a large environment, being used properly with proper hardware. You can virtualize almost any server if you plan properly for it.
In the end, by going virtual you end up actually removing so much complexity from your systems that you'll never know how you did it before. No longer does each server have it's own drivers, quirks, OpenManage/hardware monitor, etc etc. You can create a new VM from a template in 5 minutes, ready to go. You can clone a server in minutes. You can snapshot the disks (and RAM, in ESX3) and you can migrate them to new hardware without bringing them down. You can create scheduled copies of production servers for your test environment. So much more simple then all-hardware.
I'll admit that you shouldn't use virtual servers for everything (yet) but you will eventually be able to run everything virtual, so it's best to get used to it now.
Your bug comment is kinda moot - it's not a normal problem with virtualization.
We have over 120 VM's running on seven hosts with VI3. Most of them, as you can imagine, are not high work-load (although we do have four Terminal Servers handling about 300 terminals total) but sometimes they are, and we've really not had any issues.
It depends on what you're doing, really. Saying you WILL have problems is any situation isn't really valid.
No, I know that profit has nothing to do with the GPL. That's why almost all work on GPL code is done by volunteers and the quality of most GPL applications is marginal at best. You speak volumes here about your bias.
No profit in GPL software huh? Tell that to TiVo. Or IBM. Or Novell. Or Sun (ever heard of Java?) or most web sites that use almost all GPL software? Nobody uses PHP to make a profit. I've never once heard of a successful web site running on Apache.. Ohh yea. I forgot. MOST web sites run on it!
Let's not forget the app side. OpenOffice is very good, and many companies and municipalities are embracing it. (I dare you to find a feature on MS Office that's not available on OpenOffice apps.) Amorak is one of the best music players I've used. Ever heard of FireFox? Word is, they make money. But.. HOW? They're GPL!
You're just an ignorant bastard that tried to install Linux and couldn't figure it out. I'd bet you my TV that you own several linux-powered devices and might not even know it.
You could look at it that way, but I think that's kinda a warped view of the GPL.
BSD license is all well and good, but if it wasn't for the GPL there wouldn't be so many people involved in development of GPL software. Your view does have some merit, but not because of selfishness. Novell doesn't want Microsoft to take their code, put it in Windows, and blast Novell away again. Red Hat doesn't want IBM to secretly switch AIX to all Linux code, and sell it for a mint, and never give anything back. So, that's understood, and everyone can feel free to develop the code base without worrying about it. Your payment for being able to use everyone else's work (and saving a lot of money by doing so) is to also release your improvements to everyone else. So your PROFIT is the improvements you get back on the code you wrote.
It should be noted that the big companies pushing Linux actually do turn a bit of a profit, in terms of cash.
The GPL *is* about supporting the community. If a piece of software is community developed, that same community (as well as anyone that uses it) really wants the software to improve. If ACME Corporation wants to use the software in their product, because it would be a LOT cheaper then developing in-house, they'll take it, improve it, and package it with their product. In the meantime, they'll also make their improvements available to everyone else. That's their payment for saving millions in licensing or development. How is this selfish?
If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, then simply don't. If you don't LIKE the GPL, then don't use GPL code, it's as simple as that. Or, are you pissed that you can't just do whatever you want with someone else's work?
The GPL, in fact, does allow a lot more freedom for the code you write then general copyright laws allow for. It's obviously a lot more open then closed-source. Why must you compare it to the BSD license? (Extra Points: If the BSD License worked so well, why did it take the GPL to bring open source software to the forefront? Explain and cite references.)
Your line of thinking is the result of so much FUD being spread and you're adding to it.
The GPL does not, ever, in no way, TAKE AWAY rights. It specifically GRANTS you rights to use other people's software source code for whatever you want to use it for, as long as you follow some guidelines. At any time, you can simply not use that source code, and close source all you want.
I don't understand the mentality. I mean, if you're a software dev company, what makes you think you should be able to take GPL code, build a product out of it, and sell it closed source? Why do you think you should get a free ride?
Plus, the GPL is very easy to understand. But, it's not a consumer license, it's a developer license. You don't have to display it to the user when they are running the software.
Slashdot Mirror
Ohh my, all the way back then? Wow.
If you'd read my post, you'd see I was referring to Mozilla, before Firefox. Lots of pages back then, around the time Mozilla became available, were terrible if you didn't use IE. A lot of it was because of ActiveX, but a lot was rendering quirks of IE.
Like I said, I don't have to use IE very much. I use it for things like OWA, but I don't have to. Corporate apps tend to be IE only, unfortunately.
Don't be so defensive. Sheesh, it's just a browser.
You certainly have the right to use something without odd HTML bugs that have never once affected my web browsing experience, but it seems too a little too elitist to me.
I'm sure they'll fix it eventually, but they do have a lot of work to do, and this particular problem must only affect a small number of pages, or doesn't really affect the usability of any web sites.
I know I've never used those tags on any sites I've put together. Regardless I'm not a paid web developer, but I do favors.
Anyways, it's not enough to get me to switch to a closed source program when the open source one works so well.
Yea, that's a reason I suppose. When I first switched to Mozilla several years back it was a lot more difficult. I got tired of cleaning spyware out of my machine that was downloaded secretly via IE bugs.. Once I switched the members of my immediate family over to Firefox those problems stopped dead. I didn't switch because I wanted to use open source. Anyways, many pages refused to load with "IE ONLY." Lots of pages loaded very poorly, with wrong positioning and incorrect fonts. Usually it was usable, but sometimes I'd have to load up IE.
Even as recent as three years ago, a good number of web pages had problems if you weren't using IE. Now, the number is very small and shrinking every day. These days it's mostly internal corporate apps that are broken. I bitch at our developers for doing IE only bullshit but they don't care..
I really can't remember the last time I HAD to load IE because a page rendered incorrectly. I'm sure they're still out there, but I never visit any. I do use IEtab on FireFox for when I open up Outlook Web Access.
So, since web site development standards are moving more and more toward full CSS usage and other goodies, and moving quickly away from ActiveX, it's such a small problem that I still don't think I'd bother with Opera and keeping another piece of software updated.
Okay. Enough of this bullshit. Since when has Windows been as easy as 1..2..3? Ever? Since when does everything always work and not require the help of the neighborhood computer guy, or family computer guy?
I hear someone say "HOLY FUCK nobody could EVER fucking edit a HOSTS file!! LINUX SUCKS! It will never catch on!" Enough of that shit. There's plenty of times on Windows where you have to make registry changes, boot.ini changes, driver fixes because of blue screen crashes, even if you just plug in a USB device sometimes.
Face it: No matter what system you use, there's going to be some shitty troubleshooting work and that will require some expertise. It's NOT harder on Linux, and I venture that it's always possible to avoid the "reinstall OS" option on any Linux system.
hehe
File him under "Kid born in 1996 that never learned anything beyond reinstalling Windows to fix any issue, no matter how minor."
I've yet to find a Linux help web site where people say "RTFM n00b."
I've seen lots of Windows boards like that, though. And lots of Xbox/game sites like that.
Strange.
I won't use it because I see no point. I used to really like Mozilla - I was a hold out for a long time, and then I reluctantly moved to FireFox (which turned out to be just fine.) I have Firefox on all workstations I use, it works great, and I don't see any reason to use Opera. Not that I'm a developer but I also like that Firefox is open source, in case had to base my decision on that alone.
I don't see any reason to use opera, nor not use it. I feel very blah about it.
I'm not the only one that missed all your points.
I missed them because they're amazingly selfish, short sighted, and yes, angry.
If you don't like OSS, don't fucking use it. We don't want you. We don't need you to bitch about it, or the people that make it. Obviously, a lot of people DO like it, or it wouldn't be (according to them) the single-biggest threat to the biggest tech company in the world.
If it doesn't do what you want it to do, then just don't use it. I mean, I don't use sendmail because it doesn't do what I need, so I use Exchange. I'm a rational thinker, which you obviously are not.
OSS is NOT THERE FOR YOU. It's there to serve the needs of the people who wrote it, and ohh, they just let you do whatever you want with it. DAMNED THEM!
Did you just say the Chinese government was nicer?
Well, sure. As long as you don't show any signs of dissent. Then you might not think it was so nice.
No. What you want is to open up a store and beer, but the only way you can stay in business is if everyone keeps giving you free beer.
You could build a closed source app on LGPL binaries, and that's why it's a discouraged license over the GPL in most cases. Core libraries that are required for proper OS function, that's a good place for LGPL. If you ask for more then that, you're looking for a freebie. Spend the time, effort, and money developing your own code, if you don't want to adhere to the rules set forth by the GPL developer.
It's just too bad that folks such as yourself want to use GPL code in your closed-source software. Sorry, but that's not what the license allows you to do. What is it about the GPL that always gets people in an uproar? You never see people complain about license restrictions on closed-source software code, which is basically "Don't ever use this code. Ever. Unless you pay us lots of money, and then we'll think about it."
PS you can buy rights to use GPL code, if you ask the author and come up with an agreement. The author has the right to license the code under the GPL and any other license he/she wants, simultaneously.
That would only work on all x86 platforms.. so like, four.
QEMU won't do POWER, and it certainly won't run anything other then the normal OS configurations.
VMware is excellent for development, but has nothing to do with a render farm.
Wait - how would I be disappointed?
Plus, I don't see how you proved me incorrect in any way - people know Windows more then, say, UNIX. As a general rule. They use it at home, they can install software, they can add devices and device drivers. That's certainly *more* then any other operating system, right?
You actually agree with me for the most part. Like I said, it's not less complicated then other systems once you get past the start button, which insinuates "past pre-fab admin tasks" without as many words.
I think it all stems from the same old problem of people wanting to use software that they know. And really, people generally know Windows more then anything else. It's not an excuse, and I think it's the epitome of laziness, but I believe that's the main cause.
I mean, I work for state government and the majority of the people running the systems just don't know computers very well. It sucks. So, their comfort zone is Windows, because it APPEARS easier to manage. (Of course, it's not, it's just as complicated as anything else when you look past the pretty start button.)
No, but if they wanted to, they could require that all ISP's servicing Connecticut locations to block the YouTube servers. ISP's would probably welcome the the order.
To tell you the truth, I prefer the LGPL over the GPL for most cases, but I'll take the GPL over the other alternatives out there. (I think you should be able to link to binary GPL code such as libraries and other software with your own closed-source software. However, I do see a dilemma - if you wanted to, you could build a closed-source program built entirely on "binary GPL software" without giving anything back. So I guess it's a good thing that the LGPL is generally limited to system libraries.)
Your idea about releasing the changes back to the original author presents it's own set of problems, and really doesn't do anything to benefit anyone. I mean, if you wrote code, you can release it under the GPL, and also another license that allowed for that style if you wanted to. I don't see the point. It wouldn't be much different then the GPL.
The point that a lot of people seem to miss (not saying you are one of those people) is that you don't have to release a complete copy your software, download-able with documentation, on the Internet. You really only need to make available the changes you've made. You can write software based on GPL code and sell binaries in the stores. If someone wanted to use your changed code and re-build your software package, the could do it, but you don't have to. Most people DO make their software available, though.
It's just a new way of developing software and it does work. Maybe OSS/GPL has been so successful is because it's the only way to compete with Microsoft. Maybe it's because there's a lot of talent out there that wants to contribute. Maybe it's because the resulting software is better.
Usually, you'd run a decently sized SAN for your VM environment. You have to size for every VM; just because they're virtual doesn't mean you can ignore performance requirements. If your app is disk intensive, you could give the VM(s) their own physical volumes to run on, and still share the host. Where I work, we actually have a few servers that run on VMware even though they only have one VM running on those machines - the benefit of virtualizing the hardware was enough to go that route. Disaster recovery and testing environments are a snap when you're virtual.
Why do you bother with GPL software when it's so "shitty?" And are you trying to impress me with your l33t Gentoo skillz? A monkey can install Gentoo from stage 1; they have enough step-by-step guides to drive an AA member to booze.
You know that Seamonkey utilizes the Firefox codebase? Whatever, it all sucks according to you. I mean, Firefox is just OK.. it's only become a household name in three years. If it wasn't for the shitty GPL Microsoft could have taken all the code and made it a household name in two.
You go on to complain that OpenOffice "sucks" because it can't open the very much obfuscated document formats from Microsoft with 100% accuracy. What are you going to do next, blame rape victims for being raped because they wore provocative clothing? Still, you don't answer the real question, which was *what can OpenOffice not do that MS Office can*?
Linux has always had IP support. I have no idea what kind of shit you were smoking when you installed RH 5.2 and thought it only had support for IPX? Are you fucking kidding me? I mean, IP is older then IPX you know that right? Shit, you DOWNLOADED Slackware 1.0 from FTP. (Hint: FTP is an IP service. Another hint: Slackware 1.0 was released years before RedHat 1.0.)
But anyways, the GPL frees the software, not YOU. The GPL allows you to do whatever you want with the software, except make it less free then when you got it.
I like the GPL, obviously. I won't say that I don't see the merit in a BSD-style license, and I wish a license like that could truly work on a wide-scale. But, I don't believe it can. I believe you need the GPL to ensure that the software remains free - that it improves for the community, that it enriches everyone. The GPL has proven that it works. I really don't understand how someone can ignore the fact that GPL software is wildly popular and is being both used and developed by some very large firms? Nearly of the big GPL software suites is developed by paid programmers.
I really shouldn't argue with you, because you can't win an argument with an ignorant man. I mean, seriously man. You can disagree without inventing complete bullshit to bolster your claim. There's valid reasons for preferring BSD style licensing. Can't you at least admit that you can see the other side of the issue as well?
ps. It's the shitty 52" Aquos LCD TV. It probably runs Linux - almost everything else does now a days. Especially because it's so shitty. Too bad it's hooked up to my shitty PS3 which runs shitty Fedora.
Not exactly. You're virtualizing the hardware. The virtual machine is hardware-independent.
The host is an easy configure. If you had to replace a host due to a hardware problem, it's a lot more simple then re-installing a Windows or Linux box, restoring the configuration and everything else, etc. (Especially Windows.) VMware's ESX server can set up in minutes. With ESX3, all the VM configuration and data is stored on the SAN. Basically, you do the install of ESX which is pretty darned simple, give it an IP address, and add it to the host cluster. Then it's done. Start up virtual machines. The best thing is, when you've got Vmotion enabled, you can hot-migrate your VM's to other hosts if you have to perform hardware maintenance or ESX software updates.
Every single virtual machine will share exactly the same virtual hardware. Sure, you might have one with more RAM, another with an extra virtual disk, or another with 2 or 4 CPU SMP. But those things are trivial - the drivers are all identical. You're also allowed an extra level of protection on things like memory errors - you can detect them on the host, and there's very little chance of memory errors corrupting memory in a VM.
You can move your critical server systems around without dealing with hardware compatibility or re-installation issues.
Really, you need to see a well-configured ESX cluster in action, in daily use. There's not much in the data center that's easier then managing virtual machines. Nothing is difficult. (When it comes to managing the servers themselves.. I can't speak for what software you're running ON those VM's!) Need a snapshot? No problem. Replacing hardware with something newer ans faster? Easy. Replacing a faulty system? Simple.
Not to mention the fact that you get more bang for your buck - you can run a lot of virtual machines quite well on any modern server with enough RAM.
It's moot because it's a specific issue with a specific hypervisor, not a problem inherent with virtualization itself.
There's some things I won't virtualize right now, and that's two of our very busy database servers and the two main file servers. Part of it is for the performance of those systems, but part of it is also because I don't want those systems to chew up a high percentage of the overall virtual cluster.
I don't think x86 VM's are a new science anymore. They're just somewhat new to the Enterprise. VMware released their first product in 1998. In the computer world, nine years of development for a product/technology is a good deal of time.
Virtual machines have different performance characteristics then actual physical servers, and different hypervisors can change things as well. You do need to take special precautions when going virtual, but the effort is worth it for the amazing amount of control and ease of use your infrastructure will have.
And the greatest part is when I need a new server, I just click a few buttons on the mouse and hit GO. The VM is ready in moments, joined to the domain and ready to go.
Indeed. If you have a proper ESX configuration: At least two hosts, SAN back-end, multiple NIC's, supported hardware - you'll find that almost none of the points are valid.
Teaming, hot-migrations, resource management, and lots of other great tools make modern x86 virtualization really enterprise caliber.
I think that the people that see it as a toy are people that have never used virtualization in the context of a large environment, being used properly with proper hardware. You can virtualize almost any server if you plan properly for it.
In the end, by going virtual you end up actually removing so much complexity from your systems that you'll never know how you did it before. No longer does each server have it's own drivers, quirks, OpenManage/hardware monitor, etc etc. You can create a new VM from a template in 5 minutes, ready to go. You can clone a server in minutes. You can snapshot the disks (and RAM, in ESX3) and you can migrate them to new hardware without bringing them down. You can create scheduled copies of production servers for your test environment. So much more simple then all-hardware.
I'll admit that you shouldn't use virtual servers for everything (yet) but you will eventually be able to run everything virtual, so it's best to get used to it now.
Your bug comment is kinda moot - it's not a normal problem with virtualization.
We have over 120 VM's running on seven hosts with VI3. Most of them, as you can imagine, are not high work-load (although we do have four Terminal Servers handling about 300 terminals total) but sometimes they are, and we've really not had any issues.
It depends on what you're doing, really. Saying you WILL have problems is any situation isn't really valid.
For some reason, I don't think he's going to reply to you this time =)
No profit in GPL software huh? Tell that to TiVo. Or IBM. Or Novell. Or Sun (ever heard of Java?) or most web sites that use almost all GPL software? Nobody uses PHP to make a profit. I've never once heard of a successful web site running on Apache.. Ohh yea. I forgot. MOST web sites run on it!
Let's not forget the app side. OpenOffice is very good, and many companies and municipalities are embracing it. (I dare you to find a feature on MS Office that's not available on OpenOffice apps.) Amorak is one of the best music players I've used. Ever heard of FireFox? Word is, they make money. But.. HOW? They're GPL!
You're just an ignorant bastard that tried to install Linux and couldn't figure it out. I'd bet you my TV that you own several linux-powered devices and might not even know it.
You could look at it that way, but I think that's kinda a warped view of the GPL.
BSD license is all well and good, but if it wasn't for the GPL there wouldn't be so many people involved in development of GPL software. Your view does have some merit, but not because of selfishness. Novell doesn't want Microsoft to take their code, put it in Windows, and blast Novell away again. Red Hat doesn't want IBM to secretly switch AIX to all Linux code, and sell it for a mint, and never give anything back. So, that's understood, and everyone can feel free to develop the code base without worrying about it. Your payment for being able to use everyone else's work (and saving a lot of money by doing so) is to also release your improvements to everyone else. So your PROFIT is the improvements you get back on the code you wrote.
It should be noted that the big companies pushing Linux actually do turn a bit of a profit, in terms of cash.
The GPL *is* about supporting the community. If a piece of software is community developed, that same community (as well as anyone that uses it) really wants the software to improve. If ACME Corporation wants to use the software in their product, because it would be a LOT cheaper then developing in-house, they'll take it, improve it, and package it with their product. In the meantime, they'll also make their improvements available to everyone else. That's their payment for saving millions in licensing or development. How is this selfish?
If you don't want to release your code under the GPL, then simply don't. If you don't LIKE the GPL, then don't use GPL code, it's as simple as that. Or, are you pissed that you can't just do whatever you want with someone else's work?
The GPL, in fact, does allow a lot more freedom for the code you write then general copyright laws allow for. It's obviously a lot more open then closed-source. Why must you compare it to the BSD license? (Extra Points: If the BSD License worked so well, why did it take the GPL to bring open source software to the forefront? Explain and cite references.)
Your line of thinking is the result of so much FUD being spread and you're adding to it.
The GPL does not, ever, in no way, TAKE AWAY rights. It specifically GRANTS you rights to use other people's software source code for whatever you want to use it for, as long as you follow some guidelines. At any time, you can simply not use that source code, and close source all you want.
I don't understand the mentality. I mean, if you're a software dev company, what makes you think you should be able to take GPL code, build a product out of it, and sell it closed source? Why do you think you should get a free ride?
Plus, the GPL is very easy to understand. But, it's not a consumer license, it's a developer license. You don't have to display it to the user when they are running the software.