Why should Windows benefit from Open Source? What contributions has the windows camp given to the Open Source community? (I've seen Windows benefit from OSS but not the other way around.) Last I checked, you must pay for almost all Windows software, be it shareware or commercial. This is the Windows way. On the other hand, I can see possibly some benefit from Opening up the source on Windows PROVIDED said source is portable to other platforms. From what I can tell the main reason Open Source on alternative platforms like Linux is so successful is because of tools like GCC which is available on just about all Unix boxen. Opening the source to say a Visual Basic program doesn't really do a whole lot of good if the program has to be ported to another platform anyway. The whole idea of OSS to me is making the program available on a variety of platforms with just a simple recompile. I just dont see Windows programmers flocking to GCC anytime soon to accomidate the OSS community. In the end let the Windows camp live in the world of greed and cutthroat closed shareware/commercial software. Besides, most Windows software I've seen is cluttered with worthless features and eye candy that does nothing but chew up cpu cycles and eat ram. Do we really want to open ourselves up to these type of programs?
Alan, with the upcoming 2.4 kernel is there any work being done to address Linux tcpip performance issues? Is there any plans on making the IP stack multi-threaded and what about the stack spin lock issues on SMP machines?
unreliable crap. Countless lockups, BSODs, corruption. Even if you do get it working right, you then have virii to fight, email snafus etc. Last year we replaced all win*.* boxen with linux and have not looked back. An example: (I have truncated the unimportant parts of the uptime output)
machine 1: 1:04pm up 71 days, 20:31, 2 users, machine 2: 1:04pm up 166 days, 23:58, 3 users, machine 3: 1:04pm up 153 days, 19:57, 1 user,
This is just a sample subset of about 50 workstations. All run Linux, all running Staroffice, browsers,email, several in house written programs. All have client access to a Oracle server. The linux servers have equally great uptimes:
1:05pm up 253 days, 19:57, 45 users,
The only reason it was booted to begin with was to install a newer kernel. These jewels serve http, ftp,samba file and print services as well as Oracle and mysql databases
Our company has spent tens of thousands of $$$ in support contracts with various companies to keep the Microsoft crap running. Even Microsoft themselves could not figure out a lot of our problems. Oh I guess we are too stupid to figure out how to make Windows stable. No. Our only stupidity was using Microsoft to begin with.
Our productivity has soared through the roof. Gone are the reboots, the lockups, the desktop freezes. Our people do not miss MS Office one bit. They simply take it for granted their Linux boxes will work when they launch that program.
Microsoft people and MS themselves can grasp for straws and continue to make excuses for this unreliable junk. Linux has not only saved us tens of thousands of $$$ in support costs, downtime and lost data, but it is a living proof that the Linux Desktop can survive in an office environment and represents a bottom line TCO much much cheaper than expensive, closed, bend you over the table, commercial software will ever dream of obtaining. It's quite amazing (but not very amusing) how the masses are so gullible and will believe in MS marketing hype. Anyone who attempts to tell you that the MS solutions are reliable and robust, beware of them as they are out to rip you off and suck your bank accounts dry from high support costs and down time.
During Linux's entire life cycle MS has yet to produce a reliable, robust Operating system. MS claims they will not release w2k until it is stable. Based on their current track record in this area, it is therefore doubtful they will even release it at all. And even if by some miracle from God it is stable, its too little too late. We will *never* go down that road again.
If Microsoft were serious they would GPL both the protocol and submit the code as GPL as well. Until that happens, we can consider this just another underhanded, backstabbing attempt to get their own way. Remember: Embrace and extend. Thats the Microsoft way. I wish this company would just vanish off the face of the earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should Windows benefit from Open Source? What contributions has the windows camp given to the Open Source community? (I've seen Windows benefit from OSS but not the other way around.) Last I checked, you must pay for almost all Windows software, be it shareware or commercial. This is the Windows way. On the other hand, I can see possibly some benefit from Opening up the source on Windows PROVIDED said source is portable to other platforms. From what I can tell the main reason Open Source on alternative platforms like Linux is so successful is because of tools like GCC which is available on just about all Unix boxen. Opening the source to say a Visual Basic program doesn't really do a whole lot of good if the program has to be ported to another platform anyway. The whole idea of OSS to me is making the program available on a variety of platforms with just a simple recompile. I just dont see Windows programmers flocking to GCC anytime soon to accomidate the OSS community. In the end let the Windows camp live in the world of greed and cutthroat closed shareware/commercial software. Besides, most Windows software I've seen is cluttered with worthless features and eye candy that does nothing but chew up cpu cycles and eat ram. Do we really want to open ourselves up to these type of programs?
My 2 cents worth
Alan, with the upcoming 2.4 kernel is there any work being done to address Linux tcpip performance issues? Is there any plans on making the IP stack multi-threaded and what about the stack spin lock issues on SMP machines?
machine 1: 1:04pm up 71 days, 20:31, 2 users,
machine 2: 1:04pm up 166 days, 23:58, 3 users,
machine 3: 1:04pm up 153 days, 19:57, 1 user,
This is just a sample subset of about 50 workstations. All run Linux, all running Staroffice, browsers ,email, several in house written programs. All have client access to a Oracle server. The linux servers have equally great uptimes:
1:05pm up 253 days, 19:57, 45 users,
The only reason it was booted to begin with was to install a newer kernel. These jewels serve http, ftp,samba file and print services as well as Oracle and mysql databases
Our company has spent tens of thousands of $$$ in support contracts with various companies to keep the Microsoft crap running. Even Microsoft themselves could not figure out a lot of our problems. Oh I guess we are too stupid to figure out how to make Windows stable. No. Our only stupidity was using Microsoft to begin with.
Our productivity has soared through the roof. Gone are the reboots, the lockups, the desktop freezes. Our people do not miss MS Office one bit. They simply take it for granted their Linux boxes will work when they launch that program.
Microsoft people and MS themselves can grasp for straws and continue to make excuses for this unreliable junk. Linux has not only saved us tens of thousands of $$$ in support costs, downtime and lost data, but it is a living proof that the Linux Desktop can survive in an office environment and represents a bottom line TCO much much cheaper than expensive, closed, bend you over the table, commercial software will ever dream of obtaining. It's quite amazing (but not very amusing) how the masses are so gullible and will believe in MS marketing hype. Anyone who attempts to tell you that the MS solutions are reliable and robust, beware of them as they are out to rip you off and suck your bank accounts dry from high support costs and down time.
During Linux's entire life cycle MS has yet to produce a reliable, robust Operating system. MS claims they will not release w2k until it is stable. Based on their current track record in this area, it is therefore doubtful they will even release it at all. And even if by some miracle from God it is stable, its too little too late. We will *never* go down that road again.
If Microsoft were serious they would GPL both the protocol and submit the code as GPL as well. Until that happens, we can consider this just another underhanded, backstabbing attempt to get their own way. Remember: Embrace and extend. Thats the Microsoft way. I wish this company would just vanish off the face of the earth.
ftp://ftp.suse.com/pub/suse/i386/6.1/suse/ has the latest SUSE 6.1 tree.