If anything is a threat to Linux, it is the total lack of respect for copyright law. If people had really been forced to pay for Windows/Office, I know quite a few that would be tech savvy enough to get around in Linux just fine. But as it is, they do WinXP/OfficeXP and with the same savvyness, dodge whatever activation scheme MS is putting in there.
That's why I can't fathom why they're making it hard to pirate this stuff. Which brings up an interesting point. Precisely how hard would Linux be to pirate if we were supposed to pay for licenses?
These days it's pretty hard to make a page that isn't.
I find it useful to keep a copy of IE around just to bypass these discussions. IE for MacOS X is basically a completely different browser, but it is what they support, so I might as well make it easy for both of us. It's only a few megs.
I also have a Windows computer, but if I didn't I would keep a Windows partition on my OpenBSD machine just for stuff like that. It's just easier on everyone.
See, stuff like that is one of the biggest annoyances, though I have to admit that it's hardly Linux specific. I don't know about that guy, but I didn't know about lsof.
There's got to be a better way to find out about this stuff than calling up a man page on everything in the bin directory.
As for my other linux annoyances, I haven't been able to get dual monitors or sound working at all so far, which essentially renders Linux useless for anything more than a box to SSH to.
Could ReiserFS be used as the custom file system for a database? With it's extensibility and metadata, it's suitable for the basis of at least some databases.
As normal user (somebody who is not constantly copying Mozilla source tries around), why should this matter? I can't remember the last time I thought "boy, this file access was slow, I wish I had a faster file system".
Well... a journaling file system is useful for data integrity, which is useful to almost everyone, but if most journaling filesystems are a lot slower than stuff like ext2, then the performance is a big deal because users get integrity without a big speed drop.
The only things I can think of where it wouldn't be beneficial is systems like laptops where you want the hard drive to spin down whenever possible, and cases where you want secure file deletion. Overwriting your file a hundred times won't make it unrecoverable if all those writes get journaled somewhere else.
I imagine Solaris contains a lot of IP that Sun doesn't own and can't GPL, and Windows obviously has IP that Microsoft shouldn't even be using at all. In short, I don't think it's going to happen.
Linux is the perfect weapon: detracts nothing for them, and devastates the enemy's bussines model. So, they're using Linux. What's so strange about it? I wish them luck.
heh
If you put it that way, it's borderline market manipulation. IBM largely a services company, they get money from supporting Windows, AIX, Linux, whatever people will pay them for. If they can destroy the market by providing an OS that's as good as anything else, they can take out their biggest competition (Sun & MS).
and if the open-source movement didn't offer any practical advantage in the software development world, than IBM wouldn't give a dice about free software.
Yup.
I think they see more advantage in the PR at least wrt these lawsuits, but they started using Linux for a reason. I think that reason is that it's a popular platform more than anything else, but it doesn't really matter. If they think it makes them money I'm not inclined to argue.
They just realized that karma whoring is good for business.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I just don't think they buy any of the ideals. They think that this lawsuit is more cost effective than any advertising they could ever buy, and they're right.
I'm guessing that in the end, this will be a big number, but perhaps IBM will go for a settlement that involves SCO execs, bricks, and deep water.
SCO's been pretty pretty careless with the libel. The damages could add up to a lot.
Seriously, if anything this whole fiasco is probably as much good publicity for IBM as it is bad to SCO. IBM gets to lay on the smack-down, and they end up looking very much like a hero in the eyes of the linux users/developers.
IBM has realized that karma whoring is an effective business practice. Good for them.
I'm very impressed IBM was able to arrange this many claims simultaneously. For a lawsuit of this size, that was very fast. Even if SCO wins the entire $3 billion they want, IBM's response will probably ruin them.
...obviously, I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
SCOX. As of this post, they're down 11.67%.
Is it possible in this case to destroy the box? ie: Rewrite all the code that it might be based on SCO's statements to date. If the court date is in 2005, it might be easier to just make the case moot before it gets there.
A new 2.4 kernel would be released.
As for the old kernels lying around, I would imagine all the vendors will release a new kernel and treat it as a critical security update. If SCO goes after anyone that's running an old kernel, that party can update pretty easily.
IBM is going to do this anyway when the court case gets rolling. As I understand it, some of it is pretty critical so it won't be quite that easy to do it, but IBM has vast resources.
I'm sure SCO will get a court order that prevents anyone from publishing the information, but IBM doesn't have to publish it to replace it.
If I had money to invest, I'd be putting it into Linux companies. This lawsuit will never make it, and all the Linux companies will got up significantly when it's over.
550 mhz processor, 256 mb SDR memory... That will handle a reasonable amount to be sure, but you can do better (either cheaper or more powerful, sometimes both) with x86 if you don't need the quality.
I'm thinking of setting up a colo server so I've been looking around, and you can get 1U C3 systems that will easily outperform the "small" V100's with most things with enough money left over for a Solaris 9 x86 license.
I don't need the performance and I do need the quality, so I will probably go with something higher quality, possibly a V100. OpenBSD is getting installed first thing no matter what I get, so I'd rather not pay for an OS license I'm not going to use.
I googled around a bit. Some of what I saw includes making it easier to remotely upgrade a computer.
What really caught my eye was the improvements in how you can designate resources for a particular task. I believe these features are present to a certain extent in Solaris 9, but I don't think it was so finely grained and optimized. I don't know Solaris that well though so don't take my word for it.
Another thing that caught my eye was the security improvements. I'm always happy to see those in any OS.
These servers aren't run "almost 24 hours a day". They're expected to run non-stop for decades, and they're expected to do that without any downtime at all. You need to be able to replace memory and processors without a reboot.
They cost a fortune because downtime costs a fortune.
They've got a few hundred Ultra 5's at uni. I don't know how old they are. 8 years? Something like that. They never quit. 8 months of the year they're in near constant use by idiots, and I've only seen a handful need attention in my time there. When they were built you couldn't get x86 hardware that solid. Now you can, but you won't be saving a lot of money, and the x86 systems don't scale nearly as well.
The problem is that Sparc/Solaris is overkill for commodity tasks such as basic web servers. There's no reason to spend the extra money. In other areas, Solaris/Sparc or AIX/POWER really are needed to provide the reliability that the customers need.
Linux gets better every day, but it's stupid to assume it can do everything just as well as the big iron, especially when it's often paired with inferior hardware.
This product should help end the debate of closed source or open source applications being more or less secure.
Open source is not inherently more secure, and people need to STFU about it. Many eyes only find more problems if many eyes are looking, and even then it doesn't always help enough.
Proprietary code includes Windows, but it also includes OpenVMS and Multics.
Slashdot Mirror
If anything is a threat to Linux, it is the total lack of respect for copyright law. If people had really been forced to pay for Windows/Office, I know quite a few that would be tech savvy enough to get around in Linux just fine. But as it is, they do WinXP/OfficeXP and with the same savvyness, dodge whatever activation scheme MS is putting in there.
That's why I can't fathom why they're making it hard to pirate this stuff. Which brings up an interesting point. Precisely how hard would Linux be to pirate if we were supposed to pay for licenses?
These days it's pretty hard to make a page that isn't.
I find it useful to keep a copy of IE around just to bypass these discussions. IE for MacOS X is basically a completely different browser, but it is what they support, so I might as well make it easy for both of us. It's only a few megs.
I also have a Windows computer, but if I didn't I would keep a Windows partition on my OpenBSD machine just for stuff like that. It's just easier on everyone.
Does it work if you set your browser to identify itself as IE?
heh
See, stuff like that is one of the biggest annoyances, though I have to admit that it's hardly Linux specific. I don't know about that guy, but I didn't know about lsof.
There's got to be a better way to find out about this stuff than calling up a man page on everything in the bin directory.
As for my other linux annoyances, I haven't been able to get dual monitors or sound working at all so far, which essentially renders Linux useless for anything more than a box to SSH to.
Something I haven't seen anyone mention...
Could ReiserFS be used as the custom file system for a database? With it's extensibility and metadata, it's suitable for the basis of at least some databases.
As normal user (somebody who is not constantly copying Mozilla source tries around), why should this matter? I can't remember the last time I thought "boy, this file access was slow, I wish I had a faster file system".
Well... a journaling file system is useful for data integrity, which is useful to almost everyone, but if most journaling filesystems are a lot slower than stuff like ext2, then the performance is a big deal because users get integrity without a big speed drop.
The only things I can think of where it wouldn't be beneficial is systems like laptops where you want the hard drive to spin down whenever possible, and cases where you want secure file deletion. Overwriting your file a hundred times won't make it unrecoverable if all those writes get journaled somewhere else.
I imagine Solaris contains a lot of IP that Sun doesn't own and can't GPL, and Windows obviously has IP that Microsoft shouldn't even be using at all. In short, I don't think it's going to happen.
Linux is the perfect weapon: detracts nothing for them, and devastates the enemy's bussines model. So, they're using Linux. What's so strange about it? I wish them luck.
heh
If you put it that way, it's borderline market manipulation. IBM largely a services company, they get money from supporting Windows, AIX, Linux, whatever people will pay them for. If they can destroy the market by providing an OS that's as good as anything else, they can take out their biggest competition (Sun & MS).
Well... two and a half words...
"shock & awe"
and if the open-source movement didn't offer any practical advantage in the software development world, than IBM wouldn't give a dice about free software.
Yup.
I think they see more advantage in the PR at least wrt these lawsuits, but they started using Linux for a reason. I think that reason is that it's a popular platform more than anything else, but it doesn't really matter. If they think it makes them money I'm not inclined to argue.
They just realized that karma whoring is good for business.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I just don't think they buy any of the ideals. They think that this lawsuit is more cost effective than any advertising they could ever buy, and they're right.
I'm guessing that in the end, this will be a big number, but perhaps IBM will go for a settlement that involves SCO execs, bricks, and deep water.
SCO's been pretty pretty careless with the libel. The damages could add up to a lot.
Seriously, if anything this whole fiasco is probably as much good publicity for IBM as it is bad to SCO. IBM gets to lay on the smack-down, and they end up looking very much like a hero in the eyes of the linux users/developers.
IBM has realized that karma whoring is an effective business practice. Good for them.
I'm in awe...
...obviously, I'm not the only one that sees it that way.
SCOX. As of this post, they're down 11.67%.
I'm very impressed IBM was able to arrange this many claims simultaneously. For a lawsuit of this size, that was very fast. Even if SCO wins the entire $3 billion they want, IBM's response will probably ruin them.
An interesting point.
Is it possible in this case to destroy the box? ie: Rewrite all the code that it might be based on SCO's statements to date. If the court date is in 2005, it might be easier to just make the case moot before it gets there.
A new 2.4 kernel would be released. As for the old kernels lying around, I would imagine all the vendors will release a new kernel and treat it as a critical security update. If SCO goes after anyone that's running an old kernel, that party can update pretty easily.
IBM is going to do this anyway when the court case gets rolling. As I understand it, some of it is pretty critical so it won't be quite that easy to do it, but IBM has vast resources. I'm sure SCO will get a court order that prevents anyone from publishing the information, but IBM doesn't have to publish it to replace it.
If I had money to invest, I'd be putting it into Linux companies. This lawsuit will never make it, and all the Linux companies will got up significantly when it's over.
They need more granularity in their rating system if Linux got the same rating as OpenBSD or OpenVMS or Multics.
I'm loathe to start a TCO debate. Let's just say having many diverse options benefits us all in the end. :)
I wonder how much of "other" is attributable to the C3's. I know several people and businesses that love the things.
hm...
550 mhz processor, 256 mb SDR memory... That will handle a reasonable amount to be sure, but you can do better (either cheaper or more powerful, sometimes both) with x86 if you don't need the quality.
I'm thinking of setting up a colo server so I've been looking around, and you can get 1U C3 systems that will easily outperform the "small" V100's with most things with enough money left over for a Solaris 9 x86 license.
I don't need the performance and I do need the quality, so I will probably go with something higher quality, possibly a V100. OpenBSD is getting installed first thing no matter what I get, so I'd rather not pay for an OS license I'm not going to use.
I googled around a bit. Some of what I saw includes making it easier to remotely upgrade a computer.
What really caught my eye was the improvements in how you can designate resources for a particular task. I believe these features are present to a certain extent in Solaris 9, but I don't think it was so finely grained and optimized. I don't know Solaris that well though so don't take my word for it.
Another thing that caught my eye was the security improvements. I'm always happy to see those in any OS.
heh Care to elaborate?
These servers aren't run "almost 24 hours a day". They're expected to run non-stop for decades, and they're expected to do that without any downtime at all. You need to be able to replace memory and processors without a reboot.
They cost a fortune because downtime costs a fortune.
They've got a few hundred Ultra 5's at uni. I don't know how old they are. 8 years? Something like that. They never quit. 8 months of the year they're in near constant use by idiots, and I've only seen a handful need attention in my time there. When they were built you couldn't get x86 hardware that solid. Now you can, but you won't be saving a lot of money, and the x86 systems don't scale nearly as well.
The problem is that Sparc/Solaris is overkill for commodity tasks such as basic web servers. There's no reason to spend the extra money. In other areas, Solaris/Sparc or AIX/POWER really are needed to provide the reliability that the customers need.
Linux gets better every day, but it's stupid to assume it can do everything just as well as the big iron, especially when it's often paired with inferior hardware.
This product should help end the debate of closed source or open source applications being more or less secure.
Open source is not inherently more secure, and people need to STFU about it. Many eyes only find more problems if many eyes are looking, and even then it doesn't always help enough.
Proprietary code includes Windows, but it also includes OpenVMS and Multics.