It simply has to do with the fact that there's damn little reason for MS to port Windows to a supercomputer other than bragging rights. You only sell one copy. . . So, the builders of these machines are thrown back on their own resources. And their goal is not to fool around with nice OSes, but just to get the hardware up and running in whatever way they can. So they grab the Unix-of-the-day source code that's lying around and boot the system up.
So, there you have it, folks. A definitive analysis of supercomputers by that Slashdot gadfly, Anonymous Coward. Apparently *nix OS's are born ported to all past, present, and future supercomputers, just waiting to be picked up for a cheap boot, while MS Windows is virtuously protecting its cherry. That would be the first (and a somewhat late) attempt for Windows to retain chastity.
I have the option of not using IE (and I exercise that option regularly).
Not if you're using Windows (and not many use IE on other platforms). Regardless of your chosen file associations, clicking on certain links and using certain programs will launch IE anyway.
With the usual IANAL disclaimer I'd say notify any credit agencies you deal with about the possible theft of your identity. Do it in writing and make sure you've got records of it.
I'd say the first step is to use the automated fraud alert system from any of the big three agencies to put an alert in your record and automatically notify the other agencies. They should send a confirmation in the mail. If you don't get it, then follow up in writing. Using the automated system is going to save a lot of time. Once notified, there won't be any more pre-approved credit offers sent to "you".
Well I can vouch for that: there is just no way I can access my Hotmail account with Mozilla, and it seems a dicey affair with Konq. However, for some reason (ahem...), it works just great with IE:-)
As much as I like to bash MS, I've had no problem getting to hotmail through Mozilla under Mandrake 9.2 or Firefox under Mandrake 10.1 - well, other than the background message that says you're trying to access something that doesn't exist. But heck, with MS, if it works at all, you can ignore the rest.:)
If you sign up for a 5 year contract (with no termination clauses), it's my understanding that you can put the whole of the money you will receive for 5 years as sales in the company accounts for the 1st year if you wish.
Whoa. You're way beyond my accounting skills. I thought the question was about how the licensees were paying (which is annually). My bad.
You do realize that Microsoft spends about $5 billion annually on research and development, right?
Then considering the constantly slipping release date and the eliminated new *features* of Longhorn, I'd say they aren't getting much bang for their R&D buck.:) They aren't selling anything new - they're still coasting on XP and Licensing 6.0 revenue.
You are correct that MSFT stock is stagnant, but the company has become a victim of the law of large numbers. Growing +10% year over year eventually becomes impossible.
Yes, I imagine Rockefeller once said the same about Standard Oil. Monopolies are like that. It's called market saturation - and then stagnation.
If that cash can't be invested productively it will not prevent Microsoft's decline. Eventually some raider will make a pitch for MS, use their own cash to fund it, and break it up.
While that will give me sweet dreams, don't MS insiders hold enough stock to prevent a hostile takeover?
This is all fine, but Microsoft is a company. A company is there for the sole purpose of earning money and answering with it to it's shareholders. Have you seen MS earnings lately?
And do you realize their earnings are the result of Licensing 6.0, which strong-armed and promised the licensees a lot more than they have received in the way of upgrades? There are some unhappy customers out there. Read the trade rags like Infoworld and Computerworld. When even a few corporate users are bold enough to complain about the 800-pound gorilla, there's trouble brewing.
A well run company that initially succeeds and then fails will carry on making record profits right up until it starts going downhill.
Is it me, or does this sound a lot like 'A car will continue to coast until it stops moving'...
Perhaps it's more like Enron recording record profits until it collapsed. I'm not saying it's the same thing, but don't believe everything an accountant tells you. Keep your guard up. Record profits don't mean much if an IT company isn't spending much on research and development and is just coasting on licensing revenue.
SVN supports pre-commit, commit, and post-commit script hooks. The design is simple (due in no small part to the fact that the SVN model is much more simple) and the documentation is clear.
I spent another hour with the documentation today and still didn't see that part, but I will spend some more time with it tomorrow. Many thanks for your help. Sorry to bother you further, but do you know of a publicly available SVN repository using ViewCVS that I could look at?
Okay, there seems to be a tool for converting from CVS to svn, but after skimming the documentation, there are still loads of questions. Can anyone familiar with Subversion help out?
If I convert from CVS to Subversion will it retain all the tags, commit comments, etc.? Can I retrieve an old version of the source code (pre-Subversion)?
Is there anything in Subversion like the commitinfo stuff in CVS that allows you to call other scripts/programs and do verifications before a commit is completed?
Is there anything like CVSweb for Subversion? If not, forget about moving. If there is, will it display the pre-Subversion information (from a previous CVS repository) in the repository?
Some common sense: lack of consistency harms interoperability.
That doesn't even make sense, so it's certainly not common sense. There is little consistency between Solaris and IRIX, yet interoperability is good.
I'm not always talking about myself.
Then perhaps you should use the editorial "we" to let us serfs know when you're astroturfing, I mean speaking for us. By the time you finish revising what you've said, you won't have posted the comment in the first place. There is still nothing new except the continued backpedalling and attempted denials.
I'll inform the LSB immediately.
You probably won't get much of a response, since the LSB is a proposed standard. You might have better luck with the national LSB working group, and do be sure to give them my opinion. Linux has been doing just fine without the LSB. There's nothing like a bunch of wannabe bureaucrats to stifle progress and innovation. If they get their way, maybe you'll get what you (forgive me, I mean all the people you're speaking for) are already claiming: a single Linux OS.
Er, you made your security through obscurity (sorry, monoculture) point twice in your last post. Before then, you simply refrained from anwering the question and started pissing contests about jobs, much in the same way you're claiming I'm a dotcommer now.
Diversity is not the same thing as obscurity, especially since those things are openly documented. Apparently, it's only obscure to you and the people you "teach", poor souls. Rather obviously, I did answer before since I just copied what I'd already said. There's no need to keep pointing out your problems with English and reading comprehension - I'm aware of them. The reason I mentioned my job was simply to show that I'm experienced and fully aware when systems are not interoperable. You are the one who chose to have urinary urges about it and get your tail up about your employer. Your whiny attitude is not that of someone who is in their job because they enjoy it. I guess it sucks to be you. Sorry. Please have the last word - maybe you'll feel better.
I didn't laud Windows. I said processes of using WIndows are consistent between versions. I said that's not the case with Linux.
After repeated prodding, you said the comparison was about interoperability. You were also trying to compare different versions of Windows to different distros of Linux. Now you say it's about consistency. Finally looked up interoperability in a dictionary, eh?
Nor did I say Linux was one operating system.
To make the point that Linux cross distro interoperability is so poor they may as well be considered seperate Operating Systems.
That sentence obviously indicates you believe all Linux distros to be the same operating system. And to repeat myself, your claim that "Linux cross distro interoperability is [] poor" is bogus.
Nor have I ever said I have problems installing anything in Windows. You made that up. Please paste where I say I did. I know enough about both to be quite confortable working in either.
The point was about your claim of difficulty with installation between different Linux OSs. I noted that I didn't have a problem with installation differences between Linux distros and:
I don't have much problem moving between Linux and Windows either.
From this comment, I gather that your understanding of either is not particularly deep. Which makes sense, as you've said, you're no SA.
Apparently your deeper understanding causes you problems moving between Windows and Linux and Linux and Linux and gives you huge problems with installation. Or perhaps you were just being insulting instead of answering the point?
Likewise 'Linux admins' (ie, Red Hat admins, Debian admins, etc) have problems installing things in other distributions.
Do you disagree with that? No?
You weren't paying attention, which doesn't surprise me. Yes, I disagreed:
As I pointed out, in the corporate world, it's a system admin problem, not something the users have to deal with, and any competent Linux SA won't have problems. I know ours often take stuff from a different, unamed distro and install it on our Red Hat machines.
The SAs at work don't seem to have any problem - several use different distros at home. Perhaps you're insulting competent SAs.
I belong in a Line of work which involves instructing people from different distributions on the details of the other, being annoyed at the unnecessary difference between them.
Annoyance != non-interoperability. I'm going to refrain from commenting on your communication skills, but if you or the people you "instruct" are "annoyed" by the difference between operating systems, whether it be Linux/Linux or Windows/Linux then you really belong in another line of work. It's part of the job, not a personal dissing from the OS, you know. If you intend to do something well, you should be willing to put time and effort into learning it. I take it you're part of the dot.com IT workforce that only does it for the money. Heaven help us if you're "instructing" others -- all of our jobs will get outsourced.
Do you think a standard place to find the config file for a network interface, or a static route, or whatever else, or a standard way to install a package would be a good thing?
Not necessarily.
If not, what significant advantage is there to the current difference?
Again, you're not paying attention. At the very least, as I already stated, if they're all the same, you've got a monoculture, which is far more vulnerable to malware. For a supposed Linux guru, you sure don't seem to know much about the value of "free" as in free-to-do-it-your-way software. Every Linux distro out there is an experiment to find out what works best and why. I get the feeling your only interest in Linux is a paycheck and you'd really
Fortunately I just read about the term "unsinkable" as it was applied to the Titanic. The boat-maker never used the term.
I can understand that. I remember reading that a piece of hull plate retrieved from the wreck turned out to to be very brittle. The ship might have survived the collision if constructed from the proper material. I know there have been rebuttals to the suggestion, but there were also hull fracture problems with the so-called "Liberty" ships using similar materials.
No, what I said "Yes, you need to be interoperable with platforms you're not using right now, for much the same way it makes sense for Windows to be interoperable with Linux ".
That still makes no sense unless you qualify it. Interoperable at what level? As I already pointed out, Linus distros are highly interoperable. Windows is already interoperable with all Linux distros at basic levels. Windows will not natively share more than the most basic interoperability with Linux because the two are mostly incompatible.
Do you really think more desktops are managed than otherwise?
In business, yes, and with continued security problems, the lockdown will increase. You must work for a very small company, if at all.
Can you explain how the same package working across all version of Windows is detrimental to the usability of Windows?
It isn't. The fact that Win98 and WinXP software installation works the same way is a usability issue. You're claiming it's some epitome of interoperability, which makes me think you don't know what the word means. And if you really believe you can get all the early Windows packages to install and run on WinXP, you are sadly mistaken.
From this comment, I gather that your understanding of either is not particularly deep. Which makes sense, as you've said, you're no SA.
From your reply, I'd guess your understanding of operating systems is not particularly deep. If you have problems installing something in Windows, rebooting and installing something in Linux, you should probably seek another area of interest. This is a basic computer literacy problem that does not require a sysadmin. If you are an SA who has problems with different distros, then the reason for your comments becomes more understandable.
Why participate in a coversation comparing two operating systems if your understanding of them is fairly superficial?
For one thing, you weren't comparing two operating systems, you were comparing several while claiming there were two. I'm having a bit of a problem buying your story. First, you laud Windows because it's compatible with
Windows and denigrate Linux OSs for slight differences between them. Then you claim to be a Linux developer who has problems with different distros. Perhaps you'd be happier as a Windows developer, or perhaps you are?
I am a Unix/Linux (and on occasion, Windows) software project lead and developer of internal applications who works for a fairly large (60,000 employees) company. When I work from home, I use a different distro from the one at work. I work on the same code, compiling on several different machines, including Solaris and IRIX, and there is no interoperability problem - it works. The only interoperability problem I have is with the company's Windows-based calendaring and email servers. Either you're trolling, or you belong in a different line of work where you need only one instruction manual. I suppose you know only one programming language as well because knowing two would be too difficult?
Slashdot Mirror
And nobody in the administration even mentioned Farscape? That figures - no interest in our allies down under.
It simply has to do with the fact that there's damn little reason for MS to port Windows to a supercomputer other than bragging rights. You only sell one copy. . . So, the builders of these machines are thrown back on their own resources. And their goal is not to fool around with nice OSes, but just to get the hardware up and running in whatever way they can. So they grab the Unix-of-the-day source code that's lying around and boot the system up.
So, there you have it, folks. A definitive analysis of supercomputers by that Slashdot gadfly, Anonymous Coward. Apparently *nix OS's are born ported to all past, present, and future supercomputers, just waiting to be picked up for a cheap boot, while MS Windows is virtuously protecting its cherry. That would be the first (and a somewhat late) attempt for Windows to retain chastity.
+1 Dylan. Apparently while using drugs as well. :)
I have the option of not using IE (and I exercise that option regularly).
Not if you're using Windows (and not many use IE on other platforms). Regardless of your chosen file associations, clicking on certain links and using certain programs will launch IE anyway.
Someone is going to lose his or her job.
I certainly hope so. Those security guards should have been on the job instead of at Dunkin' Donuts while vermin were stealing the computers.
With the usual IANAL disclaimer I'd say notify any credit agencies you deal with about the possible theft of your identity. Do it in writing and make sure you've got records of it.
I'd say the first step is to use the automated fraud alert system from any of the big three agencies to put an alert in your record and automatically notify the other agencies. They should send a confirmation in the mail. If you don't get it, then follow up in writing. Using the automated system is going to save a lot of time. Once notified, there won't be any more pre-approved credit offers sent to "you".
Well I can vouch for that: there is just no way I can access my Hotmail account with Mozilla, and it seems a dicey affair with Konq. However, for some reason (ahem...), it works just great with IE :-)
As much as I like to bash MS, I've had no problem getting to hotmail through Mozilla under Mandrake 9.2 or Firefox under Mandrake 10.1 - well, other than the background message that says you're trying to access something that doesn't exist. But heck, with MS, if it works at all, you can ignore the rest. :)
Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
Gotta love it. :)
If you sign up for a 5 year contract (with no termination clauses), it's my understanding that you can put the whole of the money you will receive for 5 years as sales in the company accounts for the 1st year if you wish.
Whoa. You're way beyond my accounting skills. I thought the question was about how the licensees were paying (which is annually). My bad.
What the hell is LOS ANGELES National Laboratory????
It's a top-secret experiment on the effects of open borders coupled with inept leadership, but don't tell anyone. Shhh.
No.
You do realize that Microsoft spends about $5 billion annually on research and development, right?
Then considering the constantly slipping release date and the eliminated new *features* of Longhorn, I'd say they aren't getting much bang for their R&D buck. :) They aren't selling anything new - they're still coasting on XP and Licensing 6.0 revenue.
You are correct that MSFT stock is stagnant, but the company has become a victim of the law of large numbers. Growing +10% year over year eventually becomes impossible.
Yes, I imagine Rockefeller once said the same about Standard Oil. Monopolies are like that. It's called market saturation - and then stagnation.
If that cash can't be invested productively it will not prevent Microsoft's decline. Eventually some raider will make a pitch for MS, use their own cash to fund it, and break it up.
While that will give me sweet dreams, don't MS insiders hold enough stock to prevent a hostile takeover?
They have had this pile for a while now. In fact, they have special software that decides how it should be spent/invested.
At first, I was LOL. You're not serious, are you? Investment advice from clippy? Tell me it's not true, and you were kidding.
This is all fine, but Microsoft is a company. A company is there for the sole purpose of earning money and answering with it to it's shareholders. Have you seen MS earnings lately?
And do you realize their earnings are the result of Licensing 6.0, which strong-armed and promised the licensees a lot more than they have received in the way of upgrades? There are some unhappy customers out there. Read the trade rags like Infoworld and Computerworld. When even a few corporate users are bold enough to complain about the 800-pound gorilla, there's trouble brewing.
A well run company that initially succeeds and then fails will carry on making record profits right up until it starts going downhill.
Perhaps it's more like Enron recording record profits until it collapsed. I'm not saying it's the same thing, but don't believe everything an accountant tells you. Keep your guard up. Record profits don't mean much if an IT company isn't spending much on research and development and is just coasting on licensing revenue.
Microsoft is making record profits, and you people say it's beginning to "rot?" Wishful thinking, to say to least.
Microsoft has stopped offering stock options as incentives and rewards to employees, since the stock no longer moves (up).
SVN supports pre-commit, commit, and post-commit script hooks. The design is simple (due in no small part to the fact that the SVN model is much more simple) and the documentation is clear.
I spent another hour with the documentation today and still didn't see that part, but I will spend some more time with it tomorrow. Many thanks for your help. Sorry to bother you further, but do you know of a publicly available SVN repository using ViewCVS that I could look at?
How? Using cvs2svn I hope?
Okay, there seems to be a tool for converting from CVS to svn, but after skimming the documentation, there are still loads of questions. Can anyone familiar with Subversion help out?
If I convert from CVS to Subversion will it retain all the tags, commit comments, etc.? Can I retrieve an old version of the source code (pre-Subversion)?
Is there anything in Subversion like the commitinfo stuff in CVS that allows you to call other scripts/programs and do verifications before a commit is completed?
Is there anything like CVSweb for Subversion? If not, forget about moving. If there is, will it display the pre-Subversion information (from a previous CVS repository) in the repository?
"Only Subversives use SUBVERSION!!!!"
Since management already considers me somewhat subversive, I like the idea of using this just because of the name. Now to get some details . . .
Some common sense: lack of consistency harms interoperability.
That doesn't even make sense, so it's certainly not common sense. There is little consistency between Solaris and IRIX, yet interoperability is good.
I'm not always talking about myself.
Then perhaps you should use the editorial "we" to let us serfs know when you're astroturfing, I mean speaking for us. By the time you finish revising what you've said, you won't have posted the comment in the first place. There is still nothing new except the continued backpedalling and attempted denials.
I'll inform the LSB immediately.
You probably won't get much of a response, since the LSB is a proposed standard. You might have better luck with the national LSB working group, and do be sure to give them my opinion. Linux has been doing just fine without the LSB. There's nothing like a bunch of wannabe bureaucrats to stifle progress and innovation. If they get their way, maybe you'll get what you (forgive me, I mean all the people you're speaking for) are already claiming: a single Linux OS.
Er, you made your security through obscurity (sorry, monoculture) point twice in your last post. Before then, you simply refrained from anwering the question and started pissing contests about jobs, much in the same way you're claiming I'm a dotcommer now.
Diversity is not the same thing as obscurity, especially since those things are openly documented. Apparently, it's only obscure to you and the people you "teach", poor souls. Rather obviously, I did answer before since I just copied what I'd already said. There's no need to keep pointing out your problems with English and reading comprehension - I'm aware of them. The reason I mentioned my job was simply to show that I'm experienced and fully aware when systems are not interoperable. You are the one who chose to have urinary urges about it and get your tail up about your employer. Your whiny attitude is not that of someone who is in their job because they enjoy it. I guess it sucks to be you. Sorry. Please have the last word - maybe you'll feel better.
I didn't laud Windows. I said processes of using WIndows are consistent between versions. I said that's not the case with Linux.
After repeated prodding, you said the comparison was about interoperability. You were also trying to compare different versions of Windows to different distros of Linux. Now you say it's about consistency. Finally looked up interoperability in a dictionary, eh?
Nor did I say Linux was one operating system.
That sentence obviously indicates you believe all Linux distros to be the same operating system. And to repeat myself, your claim that "Linux cross distro interoperability is [] poor" is bogus.
Nor have I ever said I have problems installing anything in Windows. You made that up. Please paste where I say I did. I know enough about both to be quite confortable working in either.
The point was about your claim of difficulty with installation between different Linux OSs. I noted that I didn't have a problem with installation differences between Linux distros and:
Apparently your deeper understanding causes you problems moving between Windows and Linux and Linux and Linux and gives you huge problems with installation. Or perhaps you were just being insulting instead of answering the point?
Likewise 'Linux admins' (ie, Red Hat admins, Debian admins, etc) have problems installing things in other distributions.
Do you disagree with that? No?
You weren't paying attention, which doesn't surprise me. Yes, I disagreed:
I belong in a Line of work which involves instructing people from different distributions on the details of the other, being annoyed at the unnecessary difference between them.
Annoyance != non-interoperability. I'm going to refrain from commenting on your communication skills, but if you or the people you "instruct" are "annoyed" by the difference between operating systems, whether it be Linux/Linux or Windows/Linux then you really belong in another line of work. It's part of the job, not a personal dissing from the OS, you know. If you intend to do something well, you should be willing to put time and effort into learning it. I take it you're part of the dot.com IT workforce that only does it for the money. Heaven help us if you're "instructing" others -- all of our jobs will get outsourced.
Do you think a standard place to find the config file for a network interface, or a static route, or whatever else, or a standard way to install a package would be a good thing?
Not necessarily.
If not, what significant advantage is there to the current difference?
Again, you're not paying attention. At the very least, as I already stated, if they're all the same, you've got a monoculture, which is far more vulnerable to malware. For a supposed Linux guru, you sure don't seem to know much about the value of "free" as in free-to-do-it-your-way software. Every Linux distro out there is an experiment to find out what works best and why. I get the feeling your only interest in Linux is a paycheck and you'd really
Fortunately I just read about the term "unsinkable" as it was applied to the Titanic. The boat-maker never used the term.
I can understand that. I remember reading that a piece of hull plate retrieved from the wreck turned out to to be very brittle. The ship might have survived the collision if constructed from the proper material. I know there have been rebuttals to the suggestion, but there were also hull fracture problems with the so-called "Liberty" ships using similar materials.
No, what I said "Yes, you need to be interoperable with platforms you're not using right now, for much the same way it makes sense for Windows to be interoperable with Linux ".
That still makes no sense unless you qualify it. Interoperable at what level? As I already pointed out, Linus distros are highly interoperable. Windows is already interoperable with all Linux distros at basic levels. Windows will not natively share more than the most basic interoperability with Linux because the two are mostly incompatible.
Do you really think more desktops are managed than otherwise?
In business, yes, and with continued security problems, the lockdown will increase. You must work for a very small company, if at all.
Can you explain how the same package working across all version of Windows is detrimental to the usability of Windows?
It isn't. The fact that Win98 and WinXP software installation works the same way is a usability issue. You're claiming it's some epitome of interoperability, which makes me think you don't know what the word means. And if you really believe you can get all the early Windows packages to install and run on WinXP, you are sadly mistaken.
From this comment, I gather that your understanding of either is not particularly deep. Which makes sense, as you've said, you're no SA.
From your reply, I'd guess your understanding of operating systems is not particularly deep. If you have problems installing something in Windows, rebooting and installing something in Linux, you should probably seek another area of interest. This is a basic computer literacy problem that does not require a sysadmin. If you are an SA who has problems with different distros, then the reason for your comments becomes more understandable.
Why participate in a coversation comparing two operating systems if your understanding of them is fairly superficial?
For one thing, you weren't comparing two operating systems, you were comparing several while claiming there were two. I'm having a bit of a problem buying your story. First, you laud Windows because it's compatible with Windows and denigrate Linux OSs for slight differences between them. Then you claim to be a Linux developer who has problems with different distros. Perhaps you'd be happier as a Windows developer, or perhaps you are?
I am a Unix/Linux (and on occasion, Windows) software project lead and developer of internal applications who works for a fairly large (60,000 employees) company. When I work from home, I use a different distro from the one at work. I work on the same code, compiling on several different machines, including Solaris and IRIX, and there is no interoperability problem - it works. The only interoperability problem I have is with the company's Windows-based calendaring and email servers. Either you're trolling, or you belong in a different line of work where you need only one instruction manual. I suppose you know only one programming language as well because knowing two would be too difficult?