You can probably find about a half a million DNS servers that you can query from, or more. That still won't let you connect to web sites that are in blocked IP ranges.
First of all, like the article says, when a company funds it's own "research" like this, we'll likely never see the results that come out unavorably. Microsoft could very well have commissioned 40 studies of Linux vs. Windoes, and 35 came out with Linux on top. Which ones are they going to throw on their propaghanda site? Yea..
Then there's the other point of marketshare that you so carelessly shrugged off. I shouldn't even have to explain this... MS owns the market. Applications are written for the biggest market, Windows. People are forced to use Windows because the applications are only available for it. Now, even if I believed that Windows *WAS* just as good as the OSS alternatives, it doesn't matter because most people have no choice. They MUST use Windows because the applications they must run are only there. It's a tough cycle to break, and I'm pleased with the progress OSS has been making. Breaking into such a monopoly can be damned impossible, so why are so many people starting to consider and use Linux?
There's many reasons.. one is the price, sure. But I'd say that even more important is not being a slave to Microsoft's OS. Your software only obsoletes when your IT staff decides it's time. Your applications will run until you decide they shouldn't. Control. People, and business, like control over their very expensive IT systems. And let's not forget that OSS is some of the best damned software out there.
I'm not bunking your companies descition to go with.NET. After all, when working with old Microsoft OS applications, it's not much of a brainer going with a MS development platform to upgrade them. Not like you had a big choice..
The Indian people are enjoying the benefits of higher wages compared to their countries average, and none of them care what happens to us. So why should we care about them? They say their work is better, that's the primary reason for outsourcing (this made me laugh.) They say we need to deal with the times, and how eventually their jobs would be taken away as well. Isn't it funny how it's so easy to take that position when you're on the good end of the stick?
Because their country is in shambals, it's unlikely that they will see mass-firings like we have over here, in their lifetimes. And they know it.
Over here, we have people in their 30's, born and raised on emerging technologies, and not only work in technology but LIVE it. For a lot of us, it's what we do for a hobby, for work, and for the sheer fun of it. We are hopelessly dependent on technology jobs and we have very little skills in other things because of the demands that technology puts on us. In the peek of our careers, the work is being torn out from under us. It's NOT like farming where a kid would grow up with the writing already written on the wall. It's not like a 75 year decline in manufacturing. When there was once a large abundance of IT jobs, and two years later, they are all gone.
Telling us to "do something else" is like telling a cow to start producing apple juice. What kind of non-technical work is someone with 15 years of programming and technical work going to get? A typing or data entry job? Ohh wait, those are outsourced too.
I believe that taking away the visas, putting limitations on outsourcing, and other such things will help. No, it will not stop the eventuality, but it WILL give us a chance to find something else to do, to work in other fields and build new careers.
It's the American companies, that are saving unmentionable amounts of money by doing this, and where does all that extra money go? Into less expensive products? HA! Into the executive paychecks.
The companies are going to keep raising prices in the US, and keep outsourcing. This kind of greed should not go unchecked. But.. it probably will..
There's people that keep saying "Your job is gone, deal with it, you loser." You notice the people that are saying it? It's always the ones that follow up with "The reason *I* still have *MY* job is because I am better then you." Bullshit.
It's all bullshit.
Make sure you f'ing vote. Vote for the people that are more likely to stand up for your jobs. It may be the only way. If everyone actually voted, it would be like living in a democracy!
And virtualization can be had with VMWare, if you really need to run Windows XP. You're paying $300 for XP anyways, what's another $60 or so for VMWare..
I've heard that MS Licenses are backward compatible or something, so you could go out and buy a copy of Windows XP, and then use that license for Windows 3.1.
It's the same problem though; not an aweful lot of services or clients support SMTP SUBMISSION. But at least it would work-around ISP retardedness.
I think the real reason that ISP's block stuff is becuase they don't have enough bandwidth to support their users.
My ISP (Cox) started with 80 when that IIS thing happened (nimda? I forget.) All the other cable ISP's I know unblocked 80 when the big threat was over, and/or only block you when their robots find "unsafe" web servers on your IP. My ISP looked at their bandwidth usage, and said "holy cow batman, instead of upgrading our infrastructure as we get more subscribers, let's just block more ports!"
Since then, they have blocked a bunch. 25, 21, 53, 80, and a few others. I won't be surprised when they block everything under 1024.
"If AOL was nice, they would provide SMTP AUTH, SMTP after POP, or the SMTP SUBMISSION protocol so that you could use their official mail servers from anywhere."
Too bad many, many ISP's block outbound port 25 to anything besides their own mail servers.
Maybe if enough major e-mail hosts like AOL and such start implimenting this though, and if it becomes standard and widespread, those ports would be re-opened.
Unfortunately, getting an ISP to do *anything* besides restrict, restrict, and restrict more, can be like moving mountains.
Premiere Pro (7) only very recently came out for Windows, before that it was version 6 just like the Mac. I honestly don't know why there's not a newer mac version out there yet, but whatever.
Plus, they ran benchmarks with the same version, so your point is moot. In fact, adobe even has released core updates for the new G5, technically it should be faster since it's 64 bit code in there huh?
Premiere has gotten a lot better since version 3, ya know. FCPro is very nice, professional, etc. But for 99% of the editing out there, Premiere 6 or Premiere Pro handles your work exceptionally well. If you've got some Premiere compatible RT gear, you're rockin.
Adobe makes good software, and with every release it gets a lot better. They listen to their customers, they have open forums on their web site, and they add the features, UI enhancements, and lots of other goodies based on what the customers want.
I will be the first to admit that Premiere 7 is lacking in some areas (speed in some cases) but it's not a toy, it's a professional NLE and costs a fraction of what the big names charge.
I'm willing to bet that a talented musician could do some really cool stuff with something like this, and it's all packaged into one unit. No cables everywhere, no add-on "almost compatible" software, no driver issues, it's built for studio or concert performances, and studio production.
It also allows a musician to be able to use the thing, learn the interface, learn the software, and not have as steep of a learning curve dealing with all sorts of complicated midi and connectivity issues.
There's a lot of advantages in having it an all-in-one item. There's absolutely ways to do the same things this thing does with a 'real' pc, keyboards, etc. I've never seen a PC on a stage though, unless it's some sort of electronica session.
I tried the route of going to my CTO of me last company, and all he did was say "ohh ya?" and then I had my direct manager at my desk the next morning with a bit of a... frown..
I was fired three weeks later, for some dumb bullshit that you wouldn't get fired for unless you pissed off your boss.
And not only the hardware, but the choice of interfaces; software interfaces. You can use virtually any type of audio plug-in and probably any type of software you want.
I hate to admit it, but if they wanted to do all that under linux, it would be possible but it would probably take a lot more effort for them to provide these levels of software compatibility.
Maybe the next version. Or maybe the competition. This isn't the first or last digital workstation built on a PC.
Considering what it is, that's actually not too bad. A lot of the really high end keyboard/audio workstations are upwards of 8-10k and this one has the added advantage of being a PC.
I agree with you on this one, and I've been saying it for awhile.
For companies, you can fairly easily set up a whole linux workstation environment, provided that you're not dependant on any windows-only applications. Enough software (GOOD software, too) exists to perform any common business functions. Office, e-mail, web, etc. Like you said, the hard part is the installation, and that doesn't matter when you have an IT staff.
I'd venture to say that a well-deployed linux system is going to be quite easy to administer and quite difficult for users to screw up. Users can run all their applications in a sandbox and never be able to touch the other parts of the operating system, yet be able to do everything except install software.
I realize that you can deploy Windows (NT+) boxes with a similar level of lock-down, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Another really nice thing about Linux is that the nature of it allows for easier duplication of an install; one common base system all completely configured, a DD to the new hard disk (and even remotely over the netork if you can) and you're 99% done. Compared to Windows, it's a walk in the park. Combine this with remotely mounted home directories, and you can swap out a box and have the user up and running in 30 seconds with all his/her settings, documents, etc intact.
I've been looking forward to the opportunity to be involved in a Linux desktop deployment, I hope I'm able to land such a job someday!
What I mean is that once Linux showed up and gained some popularity and become something viable, it caught the attention of a lot of people; it proved that OSS works, and it brought a lot of new talent and money into the arena. Sure, maybe something else could have come along, but then we'd be having the same conversation about that.
Ever since Linux got pretty big, we've seen a whole slew of fantastic software developed, some for Linux, some of it not. It's been great!
"You mean kind of the way Windows doesn't perform well in the market? Its also proprietary."
It also has a massive installed base already. It was around before the recent boom of OSS, it's a monopoly built from Microsoft's business practices, and when dealing with a monopoly like this you can't just wake up one day, decide you're going to use something else, and run all your applications like you always have.
"I like Linux, but until I can run things like ProTools, Cubase SX, QuarkXPress and Adobe Photoshop, et. al., it's useless for me and a lot of other people."
Same rule applies here, when you have a monopoly on the OS market who are the developers going to develop for? And although Apple doesn't have as much user base as Microsoft, they DO have a monopoly on the Macintosh's OS.
I find it delightful that something like Linux can gain so much popularity and marketshare being what it is. Once the userbase gets big enough, those types of applications will show up on Linux too. It takes time, these things don't happen overnight, it's a very gradual process and I think the progress has been exceptional.
If Linux isn't for you because you depend on proprietary apps running on a proprietaty system, that's too bad. See what closed source does for you? It locks you in.
Slashdot Mirror
You can probably find about a half a million DNS servers that you can query from, or more. That still won't let you connect to web sites that are in blocked IP ranges.
You miss many points.
.NET. After all, when working with old Microsoft OS applications, it's not much of a brainer going with a MS development platform to upgrade them. Not like you had a big choice..
First of all, like the article says, when a company funds it's own "research" like this, we'll likely never see the results that come out unavorably. Microsoft could very well have commissioned 40 studies of Linux vs. Windoes, and 35 came out with Linux on top. Which ones are they going to throw on their propaghanda site? Yea..
Then there's the other point of marketshare that you so carelessly shrugged off. I shouldn't even have to explain this... MS owns the market. Applications are written for the biggest market, Windows. People are forced to use Windows because the applications are only available for it. Now, even if I believed that Windows *WAS* just as good as the OSS alternatives, it doesn't matter because most people have no choice. They MUST use Windows because the applications they must run are only there. It's a tough cycle to break, and I'm pleased with the progress OSS has been making. Breaking into such a monopoly can be damned impossible, so why are so many people starting to consider and use Linux?
There's many reasons.. one is the price, sure. But I'd say that even more important is not being a slave to Microsoft's OS. Your software only obsoletes when your IT staff decides it's time. Your applications will run until you decide they shouldn't. Control. People, and business, like control over their very expensive IT systems. And let's not forget that OSS is some of the best damned software out there.
I'm not bunking your companies descition to go with
I feel your pain. I have had the exact same experiences..
And I must follow up with this..
The Indian people are enjoying the benefits of higher wages compared to their countries average, and none of them care what happens to us. So why should we care about them? They say their work is better, that's the primary reason for outsourcing (this made me laugh.) They say we need to deal with the times, and how eventually their jobs would be taken away as well. Isn't it funny how it's so easy to take that position when you're on the good end of the stick?
Because their country is in shambals, it's unlikely that they will see mass-firings like we have over here, in their lifetimes. And they know it.
Over here, we have people in their 30's, born and raised on emerging technologies, and not only work in technology but LIVE it. For a lot of us, it's what we do for a hobby, for work, and for the sheer fun of it. We are hopelessly dependent on technology jobs and we have very little skills in other things because of the demands that technology puts on us. In the peek of our careers, the work is being torn out from under us. It's NOT like farming where a kid would grow up with the writing already written on the wall. It's not like a 75 year decline in manufacturing. When there was once a large abundance of IT jobs, and two years later, they are all gone.
Telling us to "do something else" is like telling a cow to start producing apple juice. What kind of non-technical work is someone with 15 years of programming and technical work going to get? A typing or data entry job? Ohh wait, those are outsourced too.
I believe that taking away the visas, putting limitations on outsourcing, and other such things will help. No, it will not stop the eventuality, but it WILL give us a chance to find something else to do, to work in other fields and build new careers.
It's not only that that pisses me off.
It's the American companies, that are saving unmentionable amounts of money by doing this, and where does all that extra money go? Into less expensive products? HA! Into the executive paychecks.
The companies are going to keep raising prices in the US, and keep outsourcing. This kind of greed should not go unchecked. But.. it probably will..
There's people that keep saying "Your job is gone, deal with it, you loser." You notice the people that are saying it? It's always the ones that follow up with "The reason *I* still have *MY* job is because I am better then you." Bullshit.
It's all bullshit.
Make sure you f'ing vote. Vote for the people that are more likely to stand up for your jobs. It may be the only way. If everyone actually voted, it would be like living in a democracy!
Yea, and I'm sure he'd pay for that copy of XP too..
Vague and boring and not very informative at all.
And virtualization can be had with VMWare, if you really need to run Windows XP. You're paying $300 for XP anyways, what's another $60 or so for VMWare..
You could run Windows 3.1 on it probably...
I've heard that MS Licenses are backward compatible or something, so you could go out and buy a copy of Windows XP, and then use that license for Windows 3.1.
Wait..
hehehe
It's the same problem though; not an aweful lot of services or clients support SMTP SUBMISSION. But at least it would work-around ISP retardedness.
I think the real reason that ISP's block stuff is becuase they don't have enough bandwidth to support their users.
My ISP (Cox) started with 80 when that IIS thing happened (nimda? I forget.) All the other cable ISP's I know unblocked 80 when the big threat was over, and/or only block you when their robots find "unsafe" web servers on your IP. My ISP looked at their bandwidth usage, and said "holy cow batman, instead of upgrading our infrastructure as we get more subscribers, let's just block more ports!"
Since then, they have blocked a bunch. 25, 21, 53, 80, and a few others. I won't be surprised when they block everything under 1024.
"If AOL was nice, they would provide SMTP AUTH, SMTP after POP, or the SMTP SUBMISSION protocol so that you could use their official mail servers from anywhere."
Too bad many, many ISP's block outbound port 25 to anything besides their own mail servers.
Maybe if enough major e-mail hosts like AOL and such start implimenting this though, and if it becomes standard and widespread, those ports would be re-opened.
Unfortunately, getting an ISP to do *anything* besides restrict, restrict, and restrict more, can be like moving mountains.
Ohh shoo.
Premiere Pro (7) only very recently came out for Windows, before that it was version 6 just like the Mac. I honestly don't know why there's not a newer mac version out there yet, but whatever.
Plus, they ran benchmarks with the same version, so your point is moot. In fact, adobe even has released core updates for the new G5, technically it should be faster since it's 64 bit code in there huh?
(yes, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls)
Me neither, AC!
Premiere has gotten a lot better since version 3, ya know. FCPro is very nice, professional, etc. But for 99% of the editing out there, Premiere 6 or Premiere Pro handles your work exceptionally well. If you've got some Premiere compatible RT gear, you're rockin.
Adobe makes good software, and with every release it gets a lot better. They listen to their customers, they have open forums on their web site, and they add the features, UI enhancements, and lots of other goodies based on what the customers want.
I will be the first to admit that Premiere 7 is lacking in some areas (speed in some cases) but it's not a toy, it's a professional NLE and costs a fraction of what the big names charge.
Do don't dis my Premiere! =)
I'm willing to bet that a talented musician could do some really cool stuff with something like this, and it's all packaged into one unit. No cables everywhere, no add-on "almost compatible" software, no driver issues, it's built for studio or concert performances, and studio production.
It also allows a musician to be able to use the thing, learn the interface, learn the software, and not have as steep of a learning curve dealing with all sorts of complicated midi and connectivity issues.
There's a lot of advantages in having it an all-in-one item. There's absolutely ways to do the same things this thing does with a 'real' pc, keyboards, etc. I've never seen a PC on a stage though, unless it's some sort of electronica session.
I tried the route of going to my CTO of me last company, and all he did was say "ohh ya?" and then I had my direct manager at my desk the next morning with a bit of a ... frown..
I was fired three weeks later, for some dumb bullshit that you wouldn't get fired for unless you pissed off your boss.
No, you can't, I own 127.0.0.1 and it's firewalled.
Stop trying to promote a DoS on my ip address!
But if they used custom software everything, they would have a lot more difficult of a time using vst and other software plugins like that.
I'm not saying it's great that it's Windows, but it's just a keyboard.
And not only the hardware, but the choice of interfaces; software interfaces. You can use virtually any type of audio plug-in and probably any type of software you want.
I hate to admit it, but if they wanted to do all that under linux, it would be possible but it would probably take a lot more effort for them to provide these levels of software compatibility.
Maybe the next version. Or maybe the competition. This isn't the first or last digital workstation built on a PC.
I still think it's pretty cool.
Considering what it is, that's actually not too bad. A lot of the really high end keyboard/audio workstations are upwards of 8-10k and this one has the added advantage of being a PC.
I don't see it much, because by default it just either locks up to reboots immediately. NT4 actually bluescreened with useful information (sometimes.)
I agree with you on this one, and I've been saying it for awhile.
For companies, you can fairly easily set up a whole linux workstation environment, provided that you're not dependant on any windows-only applications. Enough software (GOOD software, too) exists to perform any common business functions. Office, e-mail, web, etc. Like you said, the hard part is the installation, and that doesn't matter when you have an IT staff.
I'd venture to say that a well-deployed linux system is going to be quite easy to administer and quite difficult for users to screw up. Users can run all their applications in a sandbox and never be able to touch the other parts of the operating system, yet be able to do everything except install software.
I realize that you can deploy Windows (NT+) boxes with a similar level of lock-down, but that's not what we're talking about here.
Another really nice thing about Linux is that the nature of it allows for easier duplication of an install; one common base system all completely configured, a DD to the new hard disk (and even remotely over the netork if you can) and you're 99% done. Compared to Windows, it's a walk in the park. Combine this with remotely mounted home directories, and you can swap out a box and have the user up and running in 30 seconds with all his/her settings, documents, etc intact.
I've been looking forward to the opportunity to be involved in a Linux desktop deployment, I hope I'm able to land such a job someday!
I'm not sure what angle you're coming from here?
What I mean is that once Linux showed up and gained some popularity and become something viable, it caught the attention of a lot of people; it proved that OSS works, and it brought a lot of new talent and money into the arena. Sure, maybe something else could have come along, but then we'd be having the same conversation about that.
Ever since Linux got pretty big, we've seen a whole slew of fantastic software developed, some for Linux, some of it not. It's been great!
"You mean kind of the way Windows doesn't perform well in the market? Its also proprietary."
It also has a massive installed base already. It was around before the recent boom of OSS, it's a monopoly built from Microsoft's business practices, and when dealing with a monopoly like this you can't just wake up one day, decide you're going to use something else, and run all your applications like you always have.
"I like Linux, but until I can run things like ProTools, Cubase SX, QuarkXPress and Adobe Photoshop, et. al., it's useless for me and a lot of other people."
Same rule applies here, when you have a monopoly on the OS market who are the developers going to develop for? And although Apple doesn't have as much user base as Microsoft, they DO have a monopoly on the Macintosh's OS.
I find it delightful that something like Linux can gain so much popularity and marketshare being what it is. Once the userbase gets big enough, those types of applications will show up on Linux too. It takes time, these things don't happen overnight, it's a very gradual process and I think the progress has been exceptional.
If Linux isn't for you because you depend on proprietary apps running on a proprietaty system, that's too bad. See what closed source does for you? It locks you in.
Let's face it; before the Linux boom, it was barely a thought in anyone's mind.
I'm not saying Linux is the most important, but I am saying that it was the catalyst.
I guess once is enough; you could put a bag over a window or have a new window put in same-day, and still be able to watch the game on your TV.
If the window IS your TV, you're SoL.