You might not know but the inventor of print, Gutenberg did not want to print large volumes of books - he wanted to print books that would look similar to the hand-copied ones (hence fancy font and illuminations) - see the Gutenberg bible - these were the incunabuli
He wanted to make much money. Were it not for his followers that stole his invention and started mass production of books (very similar to those we now nowadays - set up in antiqua typeface) that cheap books started to exist and made wide dissemination of knowledge possible.
If there were patents in Medieval Times, surely Gutenberg would obtain a one, and no print as we know it would be possible.
When in Windows95/98 appeared stripped versions of programs from Norton Utilities Tools Package nobody complained (for instance the SpeedDisk(Defragmenter), Disk Doctor (ScanDisk), etc.). Those tools were sooo limited that they were good incentive to buy Norton.
On the other hand remember Norton Commander? Total Commander has killed it.
I noticed that not a soul mentioned the patent issue: guess who will patent the solution?
a) the same folks who try to patent xml?
b) the same folks who try to take over all UNIX-like operating systems?
c) the same folks who like to be clicked only once(tm)?
I know I post too late.
You will never emerge -C kde - because who will then give you back several hrs of compilation (it took soooooo... long on FreeBSD 5.1 on single Athlon XP 2200+ machine with 512MB RAM)?
They didn't have such a base already? Damn, on every movie when police or FBI are tracking someone they use such a base, and you tell me it did not exist?
Great job, brother!
But I would also add: SUSE LINUX for i386 Live-Eval MandrakeMove
or were you fishing only for non-commercial ones (or Knoppix derivatives) or something?
When I saw in Lessig's blog what presidential candidate Mr Kerry has to say about enforcing IP rights I really shuddered.
Look at: Lessig blog entry and Kerry about technology
Those people from XFree got fed up with the X server not being noticed by anyone. Linux this, linux that, you know, the SCO stuff giving Linux publicity, but nobody says anything about X. Not a word. And they got fed up with this. Like RMS who always was crying loud: NOT LINUX, GNU/Linux. Because Linux is not Linux. It is at least GNU/Linux/XFree/BSD-stuff/something-else.
I think there is nothing surprising: RedHat (and Fedora) is the easiest way of transition from Windows to Linux, the easiest way to set up your own server - you know all this graphical configuration tools (redhat-config-*) and the kernel which virtually has everything compiled in or as a module, but it is more difficult to change the startup scripts from hand and the upgrade process requires from you (in RedHat case) to have support - besides I have experienced some problems during upgrading over longer time spans - and the config files (if edited by hand) tend sometimes to be clobbered during updates SuSE is a little more difficult to set up but the startup scripts are easily configured manually, you also get the decent GUI management tools (YaST)
Debian I don't think it is security - I think it is the ease of upgrade, the ease of manual management (clear structure of init files) - the stability during longer periods Gentoo - of course for geeks and geek-girls:) - speed and (yes) ease of upgrade, however the necessary recompilation is both blessing and burden (as in *BSD), and sometimes something just does not work in those fancy-python managed-parallel starting init scripts Slackware - for me not enough automation - but you get control...
And here comes the "nothing surprising" part: people have played long enough with RedHat to gain skills and are ready to try something better but more difficult from administrator's point of view.
Now this is fsck-ing crazy - the ISP-s pay for the infrastructure and surely it will be federal gov't that will benefit from this so-called tax. And what with Europe, Asia, etc.? If they don't accept US rules will they be blocked or F-16 sent?
Ok, real-world performance can be VERY different from the test results, for instance mounting options are really important - I have heard about ext3 running much faster when mounted in (theoretically) slowest mode data=journal. But for applications that write to the same location many times (e.g. databases) it means that the data are kept in memory and don't get written to disk (remember - the journal resides in memory before it gets synced). The same for mail servers - like postfix. In these cases ext3 data=journal can be a good choice, however it has some limitations.
On the other hand, when comparing reiserfs and xfs you must remember that reiserfs and reiser4 are generally systems that are tuned with many little files in mind and xfs is made for big transfers. So reiserfs shines when you have many little files (e.g. my ext3 broke having to deal with about 500 thousand files in a directory tree of average depth 10 - moving them to reiserfs helped), and xfs is good when you have hardware capable of big transfers - like the SGI(tm) architectures, or at least some ultra-mega-fast-SCSI.
However, I would still stick to the following points:
FreeBSD 5.1 with Berkeley FFS (a.k.a. ufs2 - some authors mistake ufs for s5fs - no longer in use) with soft-updates is order of magnitude better than any system on Linux 2.4 - don't know how it is with 2.6
ext3 is the least CPU intensive
xfs is the mostCPU intensive
reiserfs can be nasty in a case of real crash (when you need to reiserfsck --rebuild-tree)
The process of fast gaining power has always resulted in growing arrogance, see for instance Microsoft.
Unfortunately it also applies to Open Source companies. Sigh.
You cannot compare MacOS X with Linux, despite the fact that these operating systems are similar technologically - they are based on *NIX-like architecture.
The reason for that is the simple fact that Linux is CLI (Command Line Interface) first, GUI second. And in MacOS X is the other way round - the interface is the most important part of the OS.
Of course, you can compare the Linux kernel with MacOS kernel, Linux CLI with MacOS CLI, Linux filesystems with MacOS filesystems, and GNOME (or KDE) with MacOS X GUI, you can even compare a disto of your choice (be it RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian or Slackware) - with MacOS X, but not LINUX as a generic OS, for Christ sake!
Here in Poland professional IT developers (software for Banking, Insurance, etc.) usually work for 5-10 USD for hour. 25 USD is considered a very high wage usually awarded to project management people. The software runs well - it has proven to be trustworthy in the biggest of Polish banks, having about 10 million clients countrywide.
Those developers usually know english very well, some have PhD degree, sometimes they are also open-source developers.
And what else than power outages do you expect when everybody upgrades to new 200W or 400W processors requiring water cooling or air-conditioning which also requires power? Add to this all life-quality-improving gadgets which are becoming more and more available like dishwashers, automatic vacuum-cleaners (I vacuum more often with my new sub-eta-sensomatic-automatic vacuum cleaner), etc...
Suddenly everone starts to realize that Open Source can be a good business.
But we have to remember about the roots - RedHat is becoming a little bit prioprietary, a little bit uncompatible... yes! yes! I have has lately some trouble with installing Debian GNU/Linux and FreeBSD on Dell server boxen, which are prepared to run RedHat Linux... RedHat has the drivers, the other distros not (maybe only not yet...)
The difference between Palladium and TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Architecture) may be not obvious at the technological level but it is very simple - TCPA aims at integrity of kernel and system components - to assure you that your system can be trusted. It is easy to achieve with open software, because the system must defend itself from attacs from outside. Palladium, on the other hand, uses similar technology to make sure that the user does not do anything else than what is allowed by content owners. In that case software openness is impossible - otherwise you could do some harm to their system - attacking from inside...
So similar architecture from technical point of view - but different aims yield different results.
In my opinion the easiest way to cope with this threat is to make software companies responsible for their products - see article by Declan McCullagh.
Of course this regulation has to be done carefully - we shall deem liable for damages only those companies that require MONEY for that product: for instance when you install free version of RedHat Linux - RedHat (or anybody else) is not responsible for the damage, yet if you pay for this distro - then RedHat _shall_ be responsible - they can simply buy an insurance against such claims. I am sure that the price that Linux companies will pay for such insurance will be smaller than in case of Microsoft.
Slashdot Mirror
You might not know but the inventor of print, Gutenberg did not want to print large volumes of books - he wanted to print books that would look similar to the hand-copied ones (hence fancy font and illuminations) - see the Gutenberg bible - these were the incunabuli
He wanted to make much money. Were it not for his followers that stole his invention and started mass production of books (very similar to those we now nowadays - set up in antiqua typeface) that cheap books started to exist and made wide dissemination of knowledge possible.
If there were patents in Medieval Times, surely Gutenberg would obtain a one, and no print as we know it would be possible.
click here to see that you are right
When in Windows95/98 appeared stripped versions of programs from Norton Utilities Tools Package nobody complained (for instance the SpeedDisk(Defragmenter), Disk Doctor (ScanDisk), etc.). Those tools were sooo limited that they were good incentive to buy Norton.
On the other hand remember Norton Commander? Total Commander has killed it.
I noticed that not a soul mentioned the patent issue: guess who will patent the solution?
a) the same folks who try to patent xml?
b) the same folks who try to take over all UNIX-like operating systems?
c) the same folks who like to be clicked only once(tm)?
I know I post too late.
You will never emerge -C kde - because who will then give you back several hrs of compilation (it took soooooo... long on FreeBSD 5.1 on single Athlon XP 2200+ machine with 512MB RAM)?
I don't know how it would be in Australia - Munich obviously was not interested in paying for Linux (they are currently migrating...)
They didn't have such a base already? Damn, on every movie when police or FBI are tracking someone they use such a base, and you tell me it did not exist?
Check out:
Retrologic awarded Java byte code obfucator (Open Source! and free!)
not free but you can try before you buy
ZelixKlassMasterYet Another Java Byte Code Obfuscator (YAJBCO)
But I'm not sure they really work - just provide level of security similar to classical machine code. Btw. the MyDoom virus was BurnEye encrypted - so what?
But ylogo cannot be even as half sexy as xlogo
Great job, brother!
But I would also add:
SUSE LINUX for i386 Live-Eval
MandrakeMove
or were you fishing only for non-commercial ones (or Knoppix derivatives) or something?
When I saw in Lessig's blog what presidential candidate Mr Kerry has to say about enforcing IP rights I really shuddered.
Look at: Lessig blog entry and Kerry about technology
Those people from XFree got fed up with the X server not being noticed by anyone. Linux this, linux that, you know, the SCO stuff giving Linux publicity, but nobody says anything about X. Not a word. And they got fed up with this. Like RMS who always was crying loud: NOT LINUX, GNU/Linux. Because Linux is not Linux. It is at least GNU/Linux/XFree/BSD-stuff/something-else.
I think there is nothing surprising: :) - speed and (yes) ease of upgrade, however the necessary recompilation is both blessing and burden (as in *BSD), and sometimes something just does not work in those fancy-python managed-parallel starting init scripts
RedHat (and Fedora) is the easiest way of transition from Windows to Linux, the easiest way to set up your own server - you know all this graphical configuration tools (redhat-config-*) and the kernel which virtually has everything compiled in or as a module, but it is more difficult to change the startup scripts from hand and the upgrade process requires from you (in RedHat case) to have support - besides I have experienced some problems during upgrading over longer time spans - and the config files (if edited by hand) tend sometimes to be clobbered during updates
SuSE is a little more difficult to set up but the startup scripts are easily configured manually, you also get the decent GUI management tools (YaST)
Debian I don't think it is security - I think it is the ease of upgrade, the ease of manual management (clear structure of init files) - the stability during longer periods
Gentoo - of course for geeks and geek-girls
Slackware - for me not enough automation - but you get control...
And here comes the "nothing surprising" part: people have played long enough with RedHat to gain skills and are ready to try something better but more difficult from administrator's point of view.
Now this is fsck-ing crazy - the ISP-s pay for the infrastructure and surely it will be federal gov't that will benefit from this so-called tax. And what with Europe, Asia, etc.? If they don't accept US rules will they be blocked or F-16 sent?
I mean, should they not want $699 from every Intel CPU user...
Of course AMD too (PowerNow!) and $1399 from Centrino users
On the other hand, when comparing reiserfs and xfs you must remember that reiserfs and reiser4 are generally systems that are tuned with many little files in mind and xfs is made for big transfers. So reiserfs shines when you have many little files (e.g. my ext3 broke having to deal with about 500 thousand files in a directory tree of average depth 10 - moving them to reiserfs helped), and xfs is good when you have hardware capable of big transfers - like the SGI(tm) architectures, or at least some ultra-mega-fast-SCSI.
However, I would still stick to the following points:
http://epoxy.mrs.umn.edu/~minerg/fstests/results.
Of course your mileage may vary but I generally got results consistent with those cited.
My own experiences (I have used both reiserfs and xfs with 2.4.20 kernel:
The process of fast gaining power has always resulted in growing arrogance, see for instance Microsoft.
Unfortunately it also applies to Open Source companies. Sigh.
You cannot compare MacOS X with Linux, despite the fact that these operating systems are similar technologically - they are based on *NIX-like architecture.
The reason for that is the simple fact that Linux is CLI (Command Line Interface) first, GUI second. And in MacOS X is the other way round - the interface is the most important part of the OS.
Of course, you can compare the Linux kernel with MacOS kernel, Linux CLI with MacOS CLI, Linux filesystems with MacOS filesystems, and GNOME (or KDE) with MacOS X GUI, you can even compare a disto of your choice (be it RedHat, SuSE, Mandrake, Gentoo, Debian or Slackware) - with MacOS X, but not LINUX as a generic OS, for Christ sake!
Here in Poland professional IT developers (software for Banking, Insurance, etc.) usually work for 5-10 USD for hour. 25 USD is considered a very high wage usually awarded to project management people. The software runs well - it has proven to be trustworthy in the biggest of Polish banks, having about 10 million clients countrywide.
Those developers usually know english very well, some have PhD degree, sometimes they are also open-source developers.
And what else than power outages do you expect when everybody upgrades to new 200W or 400W processors requiring water cooling or air-conditioning which also requires power? Add to this all life-quality-improving gadgets which are becoming more and more available like dishwashers, automatic vacuum-cleaners (I vacuum more often with my new sub-eta-sensomatic-automatic vacuum cleaner), etc...
Suddenly everone starts to realize that Open Source can be a good business.
But we have to remember about the roots - RedHat is becoming a little bit prioprietary, a little bit uncompatible... yes! yes! I have has lately some trouble with installing Debian GNU/Linux and FreeBSD on Dell server boxen, which are prepared to run RedHat Linux... RedHat has the drivers, the other distros not (maybe only not yet...)
I have seen something like this somewhere... it was in Terminator II!!!
The difference between Palladium and TCPA (Trusted Computing Platform Architecture) may be not obvious at the technological level but it is very simple - TCPA aims at integrity of kernel and system components - to assure you that your system can be trusted. It is easy to achieve with open software, because the system must defend itself from attacs from outside. Palladium, on the other hand, uses similar technology to make sure that the user does not do anything else than what is allowed by content owners. In that case software openness is impossible - otherwise you could do some harm to their system - attacking from inside...
So similar architecture from technical point of view - but different aims yield different results.
In my opinion the easiest way to cope with this threat is to make software companies responsible for their products - see article by Declan McCullagh.
Of course this regulation has to be done carefully - we shall deem liable for damages only those companies that require MONEY for that product: for instance when you install free version of RedHat Linux - RedHat (or anybody else) is not responsible for the damage, yet if you pay for this distro - then RedHat _shall_ be responsible - they can simply buy an insurance against such claims. I am sure that the price that Linux companies will pay for such insurance will be smaller than in case of Microsoft.