All of you MS Bashers remind of Mac users from a few years back. So in love with your precious OS, so blinded by your hate of MS, so much so that your own shortcomings are invisible to you.
Oh, you picked the wrong day to post this...grab your asbestos underwear...
Now, I'm reading at threshold 2...you'd think I'd be treated to an intelligent and interesting discussion of the matter at hand, rather than complete drek. But, sure enough, every other post is some whiner complaining, "Slashdot is biased!", "Slashdot is anti-Microsoft", "Hemos sucks"....THIS IS SLASHDOT, PEOPLE! WHAT THE F*CK WERE YOU EXPECTING?!?!?!? If you want to read about life in Microsoft land, go read Salon, or ZDNet...I'm sure they'll be more than willing to spoon feed your opinions to you.
You all have lost sight of the fact that a computer is only a tool. And if your wise, you will put your biases and prejedices aside and use the best tool for the given application!.
And 99% of the time, Windows is a damned piss-poor choice. Believe me, I've just spent the last 9 hours f*cking with the Windows registry and ripping apart the mgetty code, because Win9x is completely f*cking brain-dead when it comes to PPP over null modem cables. This is something that takes Not to mention all the "value" you get from the $100-$300 you pay for your MS Shovel-ware. Want to learn to program? Sorry. You need to buy Visual Studio. Want a firewall/proxy? Sorry. You need to buy MS Proxy Server. Want a spreadsheet? MS Office 2000! Want a database? MS SQL Server isn't THAT expensive...And we won't even go into how much licenses cost for NT/2K...So, what DOES Windows come with out of the box? Let's see...If you're lucky, IIS (woo f*cking hoo!), Minesweeper, Notepad, an ugly little Calculator, and whichever version of IE Bill decided to foist onto your desktop...Oh, and now in Win2K, a tool that lets you customize your BSODs...Now, THAT's innovation!
Oddly enough, all the capabilities I mentioned above are available in Linux out of the box! Sure, they may not be a pretty as the equivalent MS products, at least they work, and they generally work quite well. (And I'd much rather read a man page than talk to some f*cking animated paperclip, thank you!)
Linux [ and open source ]. Is not always the best solution to a given problem.
It may not be, but at least it's relatively STANDARD. Thus, the solution to a problem in Linux is often similar under Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, or any other UNIX variant you can think of. Compare this to the Windows world where they can't even decide which direction their slashes should face! (try cd/temp under NT/W2K...it works. Try it under 9x...it screams!)
The hypocrisy of your animosity is enormous. Would you have a PIII650 with 256MB if it wasnt for Windows being directly responsible for expanding the user base of PC's and thereby lowering the prices for everyone ( that includes you Linux user ).
Yes, as a matter of fact, I would! There's this little thing called Moore's Law. I'm sure you've heard of it. And, in case you haven't been following the news lately, the US courts have ruled that Microsoft has been detrimental to the consumer. If it weren't for Microsoft, maybe you wouldn't need a P3-650 to get decent performance in f*cking Solitaire!
If you do not like it, do not use it. Your energies would be better spent taking care of the problems in your house instead of sweeping them under the rug.
Believe me, Windows IS the biggest problem in my house! Furthermore, perhaps you should take some of your own advice. If you don't like what's posted on Slashdot, don't read it! Or, even better, if you decide to post, at least bring something more intelligent to the table than whining about how Microsoft is so hard done by.
And, in case your curious what my tools of choice are: Win2000 ( which works great ) and BeOS ( which works even better! ).
If that works for you, that's wonderful. Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass which OS I use so long as it has gcc, perl and Vi. (Yes, I'm aware that it's possible to get all three for Windows...but, like doing anything else that's even marginally productive in Microsoft land, it's a f*cking pain in the ass!)
On behalf of the entire Perl community, HEY! Watch the sweeping generalities there!
Believe me, speaking as a professional developer, for any project, you have to pick the right tool for the job. I love working in Perl, but that doesn't mean that it's the best language in all situations. Projects for which I choose Perl generally have the following requirements:
1. Large amounts of string manipulation: I can beat my head against C/C++/Java/etc or I can just buckle down, and s/// my way to textual nirvana. Especially when I have to work with databases. DBI is very nice to work with.
2. Speed is not a primary design requirement: Hey, Perl can't compete with a properly optimized bit of C/C++ code. Not to mention that there are cases where speed-critical code can be written in C and linked into your perl script using XS. It's a hell of a lot easier than JNI!
3. It's a simple task that I don't want to spend a lot of time on: Sometimes you need quick and dirty. If I have to do a one-time-only parse report for a client, I can whip it out in an hour with Perl, or slog it out with C...Hrmmmm...tough choice.
But, for large projects (applications) with more than trivial UIs, I'll choose C/C++ more often than not. The most important part about mastering Perl is learning when it's not apropriate to use Perl.
Bad news is: The signals aren't coming from the Mars Polar Lander.
Worse news: All those SETI@Home processor cycles were for naught. The signal is from aliens.
Even worse news: They're giving us 6 months to vacate before they blow up the planet.
Good news: They've offered to return to the Mars Polar Lander!
Re:Check the summary for the definition of 'last'.
on
Red Hat Finishes Last
·
· Score: 1
You got it. =) I think a more interesting test would have been some of the newer 2.3 kernels vs Win2k.
We should all know by now that 2.2, despite being a generally efficient, well mannered and generally upstanding kernel (I recommend that you invite it to all your dinner parties), isn't the most scalable beast on the planet. Like they said in the article, after about 100 clients, it begins to fall apart. C'est la vie.
Another interesting test would be to see NFS performance. Sure, I understand that the majority of PHBs have large farms of Windows clients. However, for those of us who actually have a clue or have learned that Windows development is best left to the criminally insane (But only if you're sanctioned by the RIAA;), as the case may be, have UNIX-based clients, and running Samba, wonderful as it is, would be...well...stupid.
Of course, IMHO benchmarks are the digital equivalent of a circus freak show. Kind of interesting at first, but with little bearing on reality. After you've seen the glue drip off the bearded lady (no offense to any real bearded ladies out there) a few times, the novelty wears off very quickly....
And, if the benchmark gets your feathers in a ruffle, just remember that we can wipe it from the history books once we've achieved world domination!;)
Watch the analogies there...If I steal your car because you have a crappy lock, you have lost a valulable piece of property.
If I decrypt the data on a DVD which I bought from you, you've still got the original. Now, if I use the decrypted data to make copies, THEN I've broken the law...and the thinking goes that you're out the money that the person I gave the copy to would have paid. That crime is on my head, not on the head of the person who gave me the tools to decrypt it.
At the risk of getting caught in my own analogy....if you taught me how to pick a lock so I could get into my house when I forgot my keys, then I went and used that information to break into my neighboor's house, should you be legally liable for teaching me how to do it? I'd hope not. Even though the way the lock works may be a 'trade secret' of the lock company? Again, I'd hope not.
In my mind, that's what this case boils down to. If someone can find fault with my interpretation, feel free to correct me. (I've got plenty of flame retardant on hand.;)
The point that I believe sticks in most ppl's craw is that they do not consider posting 'DeCSS' to be stealing. I certainly don't. The esteemed authors of DeCSS did not raid the corporate vault. They did not put on ski masks, pull out guns and hold the MPAA execs hostage until they handed over the 11 herbs and spices. They most likely didn't even see the decryption algorithm code.
What they did do was indulge their curiosity. They utilized a mathematical function to transform a series of bits recorded on a DVD disc into a new set of bits. (Copywritten bits, as it may be.) They de-crypted it. Then they disseminated the code they used so others could de-crypt it.
I'm not trying to glorify the authors of DeCSS. They're normal joes like you and I. But the truth is, back in WW2, ordinary joes who could break encryption were considered heroes. Now, they're criminals. It's truly a sad commentary on our times.
In my mind, and in the mind of many Open Source junkies, this is a frivilous case of Corporate America trying to cover it's ass by shooting the messenger. And the message was:
Why not just release the Windows APIs to ANSI's control? Then, anyone with the time/resources/stomach for it could freely build their own Windows-compatible OS...The WINE ppl would be exstatic! No more hidden APIs!
That way, vendors would have to stick to the spec to be certified ANSIWindows compatible, but would still be free to 'innovate' (A word that is remarkably prominent in Microsoft's vocabulary of late)
I'd just like to hear the phone conversation...
Developer Hal: "I'm sorry, Bill, I'm afraid we can't do that." Bill: "Why not?" Developer Hal: "It's not ANSI."
You do realize that this was only the first step to his ultimate goal, don't you?
A chip that can respond to 'go' and 'stop'? Pshaw!
He won't be happy until he's got a chip that understands and responds to the phrase, "Go get me a beer!" (That, and a healthy grant...what more could a research scientist ask for?)
Incidentally, do these chips still work in Kansas?;)
"a pathetic weenie like Torvalds"? All right, Mr. Eponymous Troll...Let's see that whiz bang kernel you've got there. I'm sure it's a thousand times better than anything some "dime a dozen" developer could put out on his spare time. Put you code where your mouth is.
Why should Linus be the only one to decide what goes into the kernel? First of all, because he started the whole shebang. Second, because he's done a pretty good job of it so far. Third, because he has no particular axes to grind, like the hundreds of ppl from HP, SGI and IBM who could "think him under the table". And finally, because you don't have to be a f*cking Einstein to realize, "Hey! JoeDeveloper from HP just submitted a patch which triples the performance of the scheduler. Should we add this to the next release?" All it takes is a reasonably intelligent individual who knows what they're doing, has their priorities straight and their head screwed on right. (IMHO, I'd say Linus qualifies)
Heaven help us if these decisions were made by committee....
That is assuming companys ever really adopt Linux. Which I doubt because it would mean dropping a couple decades worth of code and millions of dollars in IP into Linux.
Except for the fact that companies such as HP, SGI, and even Sun could then liquidate their OS divisions. A couple of Linux developers, half a dozen support agents, and a much lower bottom line. How much do you think it costs to develop/support/maintain a proprietary Unix? If they go with linux, they're at least no worse off than the competition in terms of the OS, and they can focus on building the applications / selling the hardware that will make them all kinds of green.
You also get sucked into this really cool cycle...the more ppl buy into Linux, the more companies support it...the more companies support it, the more ppl buy into it...the more ppl buy into it... etc. If you're a hardware vendor with a kick-ass product, it's a hell of a lot easier to ride the wave than go off on your own and create a proprietary OS that only a handful of developers outside your company are developing applications for...
High tech, enterprise companies are different b/c they have IT staff. But small businesses are the same as joe user b/c usually the suits are dumber than stumps.
Really? So, can you honestly tell me that the IT (or IS, whichever they prefer to be called) staff in your company aren't buying into the 95->NT->2K, 97->2K upgrade-itis joy-ride?
Yes, people get tired of his ranting about GNU/Linux and Free Software. I get tired of it, too. But that doesn't mean it's not important. Don't disregard the message because of the messenger.
Oh, we're not disregarding the message because of the messenger....we're disregarding the message because we're tired of being beaten over the head with it.
Take a look at our source code. Send us your ideas on how to improve it, and build a better campaign web site. The Gore 2000 Volunteer Source Code Project wants to hear from you today!
To get involved with the Gore 2000 Volunteer Source Code Project, e-mail us at:
sourcecodevolunteers@algore2000.com
I could take a look at the "source code" for www.microsoft.com and send them suggestion. Does that mean that I'm participating in an open source project? Perhaps we can get it endorsed by Billy and Al "The Father of the Internet" Gore.
Wow, it takes a special kind of moron to pull off something like this...
Contrast this with the linux installation that I did 2 years ago that I just replaced with 2.2.3 a week ago. I didn't even bother to updrade linux when I got a new system - just copied from one disk to another and installed lilo and a prebuilt kernel.
Yes, just try that with Windows. Mwhahahahahaha! (Windows tends to get VERY upset when you start changing mobos on it.)
No, actually, they're not. The best way to do it is to install Windows in it's own partition ~500Meg for 95, 800Meg for NT, and keep your data/programs on a separate partition. That way, when your OS croaks, you only have to format c:, re-install and test your programs. Many non-MS packages will just quietly restore their registry entries.
I've even read an article where the author was suggesting that for NT, you install 2 copies of the OS. One in a fat partition, and one in an NTFS partition, so if the NTFS NT goes south, you can boot to the FAT one and get all the data off it.
THAT is so wrong on SO many levels, I don't know where to begin to comment on it!
How is it dissimilar? Company A is currently threatening legal action against individual B for their unrelated, non-profit domain, which happens to match Company A's tradename.
Add to this the fact that theos-software.com has happily co-existed with theos.com for three years now, and you've got a company who is gambling with a lawsuit on the chance that they just migh win.
While I understand that there is no easy answer to this problem, I think there would be far fewer problems if there A) existed a TLD exclusively for personal web pages, and B) the distincitons between the TLDs (.com,.net, and.org) was actually enforced. (Ie, if you're a for-profit business, you cannot register a.org...if you're not for profit, you cannot register a.com, etc.)
Of course, we all know that NSI will do that the day pigs learn to fly through hell's Winter Wonderland Family Theme Park.
It's getting to the point where soon parents will be trademarking the names of their children and sueing other parents for infringement.
Granted. Personally, I've been using Linux for a little over 6 months now and I would never go back. (Well, actually I do...but only when I need to edit complex Office 97 documents)
I agree with you that Linux is a ways away from being what I would put on my mother's computer either, but consider it's roots.
As we all know, Linux is a variant of UNIX, which was originally written by developers for other developers. Computers weren't household appliances. They didn't need to be "idiot friendly", they needed to be "professional friendly". And, due to hardware constraints, it had to be a lean and mean.
Windows on the other hand, traces it's lineage back to the inception of the PC, and QDOS. PCs, in contrast to workstations, had to be more "idiot friendly" than UNIX, because they were not targeted exclusively at the professional.
Now, if we bring this forward to the inception of NT, we find that Microsoft has seen the writting on the wall when it comes to the "PC" market. They can see that they have saturated the home market. In order to continue making the unbelievable amounts of revenue they have been sustaining, they need to A) Force the people who have bought their product in the past to upgrade to a new version, and/or B) Move into the server market, where the big bucks are. Microsoft decided to do both. (Hence NT, and eventually, the 9x line)
Meanwhile, the commercial UNIXes were happy as clams in a pond. They WERE the server market. There were many variants available, and the competition kept things fresh, but there was little reason to make UNIX "idiot friendly". NT (and more importantly, NT's marketing) caught them off guard. All of a sudden, NT was on it's road to becoming the big game in town, and the various UNIX vendors began loosing that ever so important market share.
Now, we bring this forward to present day. Many companies who standardized on NT have knowingly, or unknowingly been forced to bring back UNIX. Linux is rising in popularity and, for the first time, there IS a reason to make it "idiot friendly", if only to end Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC market.
The bad news is, Microsoft has been making "user-friendly" OSes complete with user candy for quite some time now. Arguably, they're pretty good at it.
The flip side of the coin is that UNIX/Linux has been doing networking for quite some time now. And I think we'll all agree, it's pretty damn good at it.
So what we have is two seperate systems, built for completely disparate environmnents encroaching on each other's living space. (Imagine a whale being forced to walk on land and an elephant being forced to swim.) And at this point, they either evolve, or you end up with a lot of beached whales and drowned elephants.
It comes down to a question of how well each can adapt to their new environment. Can NT become more reliable, scalable, and robust? Can UNIX become more user friendly, intuitive, and simple?
Linux, being open source has a distinct advantage. It can (and has) evolve very quickly. Look at where Linux was in terms of use-ability a year ago, compared to now. Then, look at NT in terms of stability, and performance a year ago, compared to now.
So, while Linux still has a long way to go, I'd much rather wait for it to become more user-friendly than I would for NT to become more scalable.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you picked the wrong day to post this...grab your asbestos underwear...
Now, I'm reading at threshold 2...you'd think I'd be treated to an intelligent and interesting discussion of the matter at hand, rather than complete drek. But, sure enough, every other post is some whiner complaining, "Slashdot is biased!", "Slashdot is anti-Microsoft", "Hemos sucks"....THIS IS SLASHDOT, PEOPLE! WHAT THE F*CK WERE YOU EXPECTING?!?!?!? If you want to read about life in Microsoft land, go read Salon, or ZDNet...I'm sure they'll be more than willing to spoon feed your opinions to you.
You all have lost sight of the fact that a computer is only a tool. And if your wise, you will put your biases and prejedices aside and use the best tool for the given application!.
And 99% of the time, Windows is a damned piss-poor choice. Believe me, I've just spent the last 9 hours f*cking with the Windows registry and ripping apart the mgetty code, because Win9x is completely f*cking brain-dead when it comes to PPP over null modem cables. This is something that takes Not to mention all the "value" you get from the $100-$300 you pay for your MS Shovel-ware. Want to learn to program? Sorry. You need to buy Visual Studio. Want a firewall/proxy? Sorry. You need to buy MS Proxy Server. Want a spreadsheet? MS Office 2000! Want a database? MS SQL Server isn't THAT expensive...And we won't even go into how much licenses cost for NT/2K...So, what DOES Windows come with out of the box? Let's see...If you're lucky, IIS (woo f*cking hoo!), Minesweeper, Notepad, an ugly little Calculator, and whichever version of IE Bill decided to foist onto your desktop...Oh, and now in Win2K, a tool that lets you customize your BSODs...Now, THAT's innovation!
Oddly enough, all the capabilities I mentioned above are available in Linux out of the box! Sure, they may not be a pretty as the equivalent MS products, at least they work, and they generally work quite well. (And I'd much rather read a man page than talk to some f*cking animated paperclip, thank you!)
Linux [ and open source ]. Is not always the best solution to a given problem.
It may not be, but at least it's relatively STANDARD. Thus, the solution to a problem in Linux is often similar under Solaris, HP-UX, IRIX, or any other UNIX variant you can think of. Compare this to the Windows world where they can't even decide which direction their slashes should face! (try cd /temp under NT/W2K...it works. Try it under 9x...it screams!)
The hypocrisy of your animosity is enormous. Would you have a PIII650 with 256MB if it wasnt for Windows being directly responsible for expanding the user base of PC's and thereby lowering the prices for everyone ( that includes you Linux user ).
Yes, as a matter of fact, I would! There's this little thing called Moore's Law. I'm sure you've heard of it. And, in case you haven't been following the news lately, the US courts have ruled that Microsoft has been detrimental to the consumer. If it weren't for Microsoft, maybe you wouldn't need a P3-650 to get decent performance in f*cking Solitaire!
If you do not like it, do not use it. Your energies would be better spent taking care of the problems in your house instead of sweeping them under the rug.
Believe me, Windows IS the biggest problem in my house! Furthermore, perhaps you should take some of your own advice. If you don't like what's posted on Slashdot, don't read it! Or, even better, if you decide to post, at least bring something more intelligent to the table than whining about how Microsoft is so hard done by.
And, in case your curious what my tools of choice are: Win2000 ( which works great ) and BeOS ( which works even better! ).
If that works for you, that's wonderful. Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass which OS I use so long as it has gcc, perl and Vi. (Yes, I'm aware that it's possible to get all three for Windows...but, like doing anything else that's even marginally productive in Microsoft land, it's a f*cking pain in the ass!)
---
Whoops! Make that #include...this will teach me to preview...
Damn. Too bad they didn't name it OpenSL instead...SL, SLU, and SLC are all nice names, but wouldn't it be fun to #include ;)
CmdrTaco for President!
It is unfortunate that we live in a time where the law makes criminals of honest men.
On behalf of the entire Perl community, HEY! Watch the sweeping generalities there!
Believe me, speaking as a professional developer, for any project, you have to pick the right tool for the job. I love working in Perl, but that doesn't mean that it's the best language in all situations. Projects for which I choose Perl generally have the following requirements:
1. Large amounts of string manipulation: I can beat my head against C/C++/Java/etc or I can just buckle down, and s/// my way to textual nirvana.
Especially when I have to work with databases. DBI is very nice to work with.
2. Speed is not a primary design requirement: Hey, Perl can't compete with a properly optimized bit of C/C++ code. Not to mention that there are cases where speed-critical code can be written in C and linked into your perl script using XS. It's a hell of a lot easier than JNI!
3. It's a simple task that I don't want to spend a lot of time on: Sometimes you need quick and dirty. If I have to do a one-time-only parse report for a client, I can whip it out in an hour with Perl, or slog it out with C...Hrmmmm...tough choice.
But, for large projects (applications) with more than trivial UIs, I'll choose C/C++ more often than not. The most important part about mastering Perl is learning when it's not apropriate to use Perl.
Bad news is: The signals aren't coming from the Mars Polar Lander.
Worse news: All those SETI@Home processor cycles were for naught. The signal is from aliens.
Even worse news: They're giving us 6 months to vacate before they blow up the planet.
Good news: They've offered to return to the Mars Polar Lander!
You got it. =) I think a more interesting test would have been some of the newer 2.3 kernels vs Win2k.
;), as the case may be, have UNIX-based clients, and running Samba, wonderful as it is, would be...well...stupid.
;)
We should all know by now that 2.2, despite being a generally efficient, well mannered and generally upstanding kernel (I recommend that you invite it to all your dinner parties), isn't the most scalable beast on the planet. Like they said in the article, after about 100 clients, it begins to fall apart. C'est la vie.
Another interesting test would be to see NFS performance. Sure, I understand that the majority of PHBs have large farms of Windows clients. However, for those of us who actually have a clue or have learned that Windows development is best left to the criminally insane (But only if you're sanctioned by the RIAA
Of course, IMHO benchmarks are the digital equivalent of a circus freak show. Kind of interesting at first, but with little bearing on reality. After you've seen the glue drip off the bearded lady (no offense to any real bearded ladies out there) a few times, the novelty wears off very quickly....
And, if the benchmark gets your feathers in a ruffle, just remember that we can wipe it from the history books once we've achieved world domination!
Watch the analogies there...If I steal your car because you have a crappy lock, you have lost a valulable piece of property.
;)
If I decrypt the data on a DVD which I bought from you, you've still got the original. Now, if I use the decrypted data to make copies, THEN I've broken the law...and the thinking goes that you're out the money that the person I gave the copy to would have paid. That crime is on my head, not on the head of the person who gave me the tools to decrypt it.
At the risk of getting caught in my own analogy....if you taught me how to pick a lock so I could get into my house when I forgot my keys, then I went and used that information to break into my neighboor's house, should you be legally liable for teaching me how to do it? I'd hope not.
Even though the way the lock works may be a 'trade secret' of the lock company? Again, I'd hope not.
In my mind, that's what this case boils down to. If someone can find fault with my interpretation, feel free to correct me. (I've got plenty of flame retardant on hand.
The point that I believe sticks in most ppl's craw is that they do not consider posting 'DeCSS' to be stealing. I certainly don't. The esteemed authors of DeCSS did not raid the corporate vault. They did not put on ski masks, pull out guns and hold the MPAA execs hostage until they handed over the 11 herbs and spices. They most likely didn't even see the decryption algorithm code.
W BLVENXB
;)
What they did do was indulge their curiosity. They utilized a mathematical function to transform a series of bits recorded on a DVD disc into a new set of bits. (Copywritten bits, as it may be.) They de-crypted it. Then they disseminated the code they used so others could de-crypt it.
I'm not trying to glorify the authors of DeCSS. They're normal joes like you and I. But the truth is, back in WW2, ordinary joes who could break encryption were considered heroes. Now, they're criminals. It's truly a sad commentary on our times.
In my mind, and in the mind of many Open Source junkies, this is a frivilous case of Corporate America trying to cover it's ass by shooting the messenger. And the message was:
GLVEAEXDWFDYMNTPVDTYXFFJIZDYNMGPFTXBFZYLJMQNZED
Now don't go decrypting that, and posting how to do it on your web site...Otherwise, I'll tell your mommy and you'll be in big trouble!
Let's just hope he doesn't sue us when he finds out we've been trying to reverse-engineer ourselves for centuries! ;)
That way, vendors would have to stick to the spec to be certified ANSIWindows compatible, but would still be free to 'innovate' (A word that is remarkably prominent in Microsoft's vocabulary of late)
I'd just like to hear the phone conversation...
Developer Hal: "I'm sorry, Bill, I'm afraid we can't do that."
Bill: "Why not?"
Developer Hal: "It's not ANSI."
You do realize that this was only the first step to his ultimate goal, don't you?
;)
A chip that can respond to 'go' and 'stop'? Pshaw!
He won't be happy until he's got a chip that understands and responds to the phrase, "Go get me a beer!" (That, and a healthy grant...what more could a research scientist ask for?)
Incidentally, do these chips still work in Kansas?
"a pathetic weenie like Torvalds"? All right, Mr. Eponymous Troll...Let's see that whiz bang kernel you've got there. I'm sure it's a thousand times better than anything some "dime a dozen" developer could put out on his spare time. Put you code where your mouth is.
Why should Linus be the only one to decide what goes into the kernel? First of all, because he started the whole shebang. Second, because he's done a pretty good job of it so far. Third, because he has no particular axes to grind, like the hundreds of ppl from HP, SGI and IBM who could "think him under the table". And finally, because you don't have to be a f*cking Einstein to realize, "Hey! JoeDeveloper from HP just submitted a patch which triples the performance of the scheduler. Should we add this to the next release?" All it takes is a reasonably intelligent individual who knows what they're doing, has their priorities straight and their head screwed on right. (IMHO, I'd say Linus qualifies)
Heaven help us if these decisions were made by committee....
That is assuming companys ever really adopt Linux. Which I doubt because it would mean dropping a couple decades worth of code and millions of dollars in IP into Linux.
Except for the fact that companies such as HP, SGI, and even Sun could then liquidate their OS divisions. A couple of Linux developers, half a dozen support agents, and a much lower bottom line. How much do you think it costs to develop/support/maintain a proprietary Unix? If they go with linux, they're at least no worse off than the competition in terms of the OS, and they can focus on building the applications / selling the hardware that will make them all kinds of green.
You also get sucked into this really cool cycle...the more ppl buy into Linux, the more companies support it...the more companies support it, the more ppl buy into it...the more ppl buy into it... etc. If you're a hardware vendor with a kick-ass product, it's a hell of a lot easier to ride the wave than go off on your own and create a proprietary OS that only a handful of developers outside your company are developing applications for...
High tech, enterprise companies are different b/c they have IT staff. But small businesses are the same as joe user b/c usually the suits are dumber than stumps.
Really? So, can you honestly tell me that the IT (or IS, whichever they prefer to be called) staff in your company aren't buying into the 95->NT->2K, 97->2K upgrade-itis joy-ride?
Yes, people get tired of his ranting about GNU/Linux and Free Software. I get tired of it, too. But that doesn't mean it's not important. Don't disregard the message because of the messenger.
Oh, we're not disregarding the message because of the messenger....we're disregarding the message because we're tired of being beaten over the head with it.
Take a look at our source code. Send us your ideas on how to improve it, and build a better campaign web site. The Gore 2000 Volunteer Source Code Project wants to hear from you today!
To get involved with the Gore 2000 Volunteer Source Code Project, e-mail us at:
sourcecodevolunteers@algore2000.com
I could take a look at the "source code" for www.microsoft.com and send them suggestion. Does that mean that I'm participating in an open source project? Perhaps we can get it endorsed by Billy and Al "The Father of the Internet" Gore.
Wow, it takes a special kind of moron to pull off something like this...
Hrmmm...with luck like that....QUICK! Invest in Microsoft!
Contrast this with the linux installation that I did 2 years ago that I just replaced with 2.2.3 a week ago. I didn't even bother to updrade linux when I got a new system - just copied from one disk to another and installed lilo and a prebuilt kernel.
Yes, just try that with Windows. Mwhahahahahaha! (Windows tends to get VERY upset when you start changing mobos on it.)
No, actually, they're not. The best way to do it is to install Windows in it's own partition ~500Meg for 95, 800Meg for NT, and keep your data/programs on a separate partition. That way, when your OS croaks, you only have to format c:, re-install and test your programs. Many non-MS packages will just quietly restore their registry entries.
I've even read an article where the author was suggesting that for NT, you install 2 copies of the OS. One in a fat partition, and one in an NTFS partition, so if the NTFS NT goes south, you can boot to the FAT one and get all the data off it.
THAT is so wrong on SO many levels, I don't know where to begin to comment on it!
I was unaware. Being from Canada, I don't get much oppertunity to see elephants swimming. ;)
BTW, anyone out there want a couple feet of snow? We've got lots to spare.
How is it dissimilar? Company A is currently threatening legal action against individual B for their unrelated, non-profit domain, which happens to match Company A's tradename.
.net, and .org) was actually enforced. (Ie, if you're a for-profit business, you cannot register a .org...if you're not for profit, you cannot register a .com, etc.)
Add to this the fact that theos-software.com has happily co-existed with theos.com for three years now, and you've got a company who is gambling with a lawsuit on the chance that they just migh win.
While I understand that there is no easy answer to this problem, I think there would be far fewer problems if there A) existed a TLD exclusively for personal web pages, and B) the distincitons between the TLDs (.com,
Of course, we all know that NSI will do that the day pigs learn to fly through hell's Winter Wonderland Family Theme Park.
It's getting to the point where soon parents will be trademarking the names of their children and sueing other parents for infringement.
Ok. I've said my piece.
Granted. Personally, I've been using Linux for a little over 6 months now and I would never go back. (Well, actually I do...but only when I need to edit complex Office 97 documents)
I agree with you that Linux is a ways away from being what I would put on my mother's computer either, but consider it's roots.
As we all know, Linux is a variant of UNIX, which was originally written by developers for other developers. Computers weren't household appliances. They didn't need to be "idiot friendly", they needed to be "professional friendly". And, due to hardware constraints, it had to be a lean and mean.
Windows on the other hand, traces it's lineage back to the inception of the PC, and QDOS. PCs, in contrast to workstations, had to be more "idiot friendly" than UNIX, because they were not targeted exclusively at the professional.
Now, if we bring this forward to the inception of NT, we find that Microsoft has seen the writting on the wall when it comes to the "PC" market. They can see that they have saturated the home market. In order to continue making the unbelievable amounts of revenue they have been sustaining, they need to A) Force the people who have bought their product in the past to upgrade to a new version, and/or B) Move into the server market, where the big bucks are. Microsoft decided to do both. (Hence NT, and eventually, the 9x line)
Meanwhile, the commercial UNIXes were happy as clams in a pond. They WERE the server market. There were many variants available, and the competition kept things fresh, but there was little reason to make UNIX "idiot friendly". NT (and more importantly, NT's marketing) caught them off guard. All of a sudden, NT was on it's road to becoming the big game in town, and the various UNIX vendors began loosing that ever so important market share.
Now, we bring this forward to present day. Many companies who standardized on NT have knowingly, or unknowingly been forced to bring back UNIX. Linux is rising in popularity and, for the first time, there IS a reason to make it "idiot friendly", if only to end Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC market.
The bad news is, Microsoft has been making "user-friendly" OSes complete with user candy for quite some time now. Arguably, they're pretty good at it.
The flip side of the coin is that UNIX/Linux has been doing networking for quite some time now. And I think we'll all agree, it's pretty damn good at it.
So what we have is two seperate systems, built for completely disparate environmnents encroaching on each other's living space. (Imagine a whale being forced to walk on land and an elephant being forced to swim.) And at this point, they either evolve, or you end up with a lot of beached whales and drowned elephants.
It comes down to a question of how well each can adapt to their new environment. Can NT become more reliable, scalable, and robust? Can UNIX become more user friendly, intuitive, and simple?
Linux, being open source has a distinct advantage. It can (and has) evolve very quickly. Look at where Linux was in terms of use-ability a year ago, compared to now. Then, look at NT in terms of stability, and performance a year ago, compared to now.
So, while Linux still has a long way to go, I'd much rather wait for it to become more user-friendly than I would for NT to become more scalable.
These are interesting times. Enjoy them.
Really? Mine is cracking RC5 keys for the Slashdot.org team! Damn slow at it too...especially before my morning coffee.
;)