Microsoft has a replace already in.NET 2.0. You can install software in your user account from internet sites. Its one of the new features. In fact the free versions of visual studio apps only allow installations in this manner.
There is only one benefit to javascript checking in an application. You can alert the user to an error sooner. Aside from possible HCI benefits, there is absolutely no reason to use javascript in a webpage. Any counter argument would be for eye candy or irritating pop up ads. If you want eye candy, use flash. They you are only alienating anyone using a unix system. (not counting x86 linux)
If your server side code is wrong, fix it immediately. Trying to "fix it" by using javascript is dumb. I can turn off javascript in my browser and then i hit your bad server code. Quite a few users intentionally disable javascript or do indirectly by using a product like norton internet security which disables many javascript features and cookies. If you don't understand perl, use another language. managers often don't know what they are talking about anyway. Use php and tell them its perl. Heck if you can control the webserver map pl to php. They won't know the difference. This is assuming you can use php of course.
I supppose that depends on the newspaper or magazine. For instance, look at a newspaper at a university. ANYONE can be a writer regardless of major. The editor will approve almost anything and they don't bother with spell check. I'm speaking from experience since I must tech support my university's newspaper and radio station.
I also know someone that works at the Flint Journal through a mutual friend. Yesterday, someone in my family was murdered. This person called my friend to ask if she had heard anything yet so they had confirmation on the identity of the body! Thats fact checking for you!
OSX does not use the GNU Mach kernel. Debian is the only group using it. The reason is lack of drivers. NeXT used the actual carnagie mellon mach code in 1988 to create NEXTSTEP. Apple bought NeXT in 1996 and continues the line as OSX. Stallman duplicated Mach and someday maybe he'll get past the ext2 hacked file system and lack of agp video drivers to get a usable Mach based system. In the mean time, he'll be stuck with the kernel he had to borrow called Linux. You should consider reading up on the history of Mach some time. Its very interesting. Darwin (OSX) derived from the Mach 3 kernel which had BSD 4.3/4.4 code injected into it. Apple decided to use a modern BSD network stack and drop the idea of using messages to allocate memory. They included the freebsd 5.x fine grain locked network stack into Mac OS 10.4. Apple also considered using the Linux kernel while developing what became OSX. In the end, they bought NeXT and used the Mach kernel because they feared Linus wouldn't allow their kernel changes back into the main kernel source.
I see you've used the kernel + environment argument. I agree that the environment is very important to the operating system and that basic tools are part of the system. I think thats why stallman has begged people to call it GNU/Linux since there is a GNU userland. FreeBSD is different than NetBSD because both the kernel and userland are quite different in some respects. Gnu tools had to be used on solaris since sun didn't provide adequate (or free) tools. Who wants to pay for a compiler when gcc is free? I think gcc is the most important contribution to open source. Windows 2003 is certainly not vms. Microsoft hired VMS engineers to develop the system, but its not the same system. The posix layer and os/2 subsystems of windows NT are additions to get contracts and allow for easier porting. Similarly the GNU tools running on that posix layer do not mean that windows is a UNIX system. I guess there is a need for cygwin, but i've never understood why so many linux users run windows with cgywin instead of the real thing. I speak of computer science professors and fellow students at my university. I am not fond of linux and i even dual boot it on my laptop.
Lets look at your list: 1) Everything is a file 2) Every system resource can be easily manipulated via text processing tools (and these tools are part of a standard command set with a set of standard options) 3) An administrator can move from one UNIX system to another with *very* little ramp-up time
1) Everything is a file in most systems. I know what you mean, but even if its a binary database like the netinfo database osx uses or an openldap database used on a linux file server for authentication, its a file. I prefer running freebsd to OSX on servers because i find them easier to administer through ssh. I like command line vs a gui interface for many tasks unlike others my age.
2) This requirement is not met completely with OSX, but mostly it is. Even property lists (think ini file in windows or conf file in unix/linux) are text based. (well xml) You can certainly open them up in vim on an osx system and change properties. I've done this to fix issues with groupwise and other apps on osx. There is a/dev in osx and many programs including vlc use it to read dvds and other information just as they would on a linux or bsd host. BSD sockets are present and other file stream based resources. The key thing lacking in osx is administration via the CLI and that is even possible via apple comamnd line tools, although quite painful. The new replacement for cron and init are not unix like in 10.4, but its still quite a good idea.
3) I don't think this is true for any unix system. Basics are the same like cp, rm, and so forth but anything serious changes on all unix like systems. For instance i tend to use ps -ax to do process lists. It works in bsd and osx fine, and in linux i get a nag about the - but it works. Try it in solaris and you ge
There is a mono port for BSD but it does not work properly. I'm specifically talking about FreeBSD 5.x. I've filed bug reports, etc. I have not tried it since 6.0 came out, maybe the situation is better. If you tried to run it with a simple app it would run, but actually try to run any real code or the webserver and the garbage collector would crash. It does use the boehm gc but it doesn't like freebsd's newer thread libraries too much. You can only count linux and windows for 100% support of what novell has done. Mac OS X works for gui apps but not webapps yet. Most mac users would want it for web development at this point.
Vista is more like 10.3 or 10.4. It will run like 10.4.. kernel crashes, games don't run, etc. Apple and Microsoft are on the same page. Its not even my hardware. I see crashes on G5's at work all the time.
I don't see what all the complaints are about anyway. Microsoft is giving an opportunity for apple and the open source community (linux, bsd, solaris) to get ahead. Why not take the opportunity? If there are enough features and INTEGRATION then end users will want to try Mac OS or Linux. Apple can integrate but i think the linux community needs to work on it. Either KDE or GNOME needs to die. Every OS feature needs to be tunable/controlled in the gui. Someone needs to finally make a true linux desktop system. (ubuntu doesn't count as they can't even do dhcp right) Please someone step up and do this. I know i'm going to try. Everyone complains about microsoft but i dont' see action. Sign up for your favorite OSS project and get to work. Give consumers a reason to switch.
I fit category 1 and 3 above and I still think java runs very fast for server based code. Running a java servlet container is very fast. A few applications like jedit, intellij idea and limewire seem fast on the graphical front. Someone can write a slow.NET, C++, or objective c app too.
Java's benefit is its age and portability. Its fairly mature and very fast when running under the server vm for some time. Quick command line apps are best served with C code. Compile C code with g++ instead of gcc sometime. Not only will your code run slower, but it will be larger as well. Likewise time a Visual C++ app vs a.NET gui app starting up. The advantage of Java and.NET is the massive amount of libraries that are guaranteed to be there. The STL in C++ is not implemented consistently across compilers or platforms. My big complaint with java isn't speed, but organization. I find the namespaces cluttered and confusing compared to.NET. Think about it. They have io and nio. Try to write XML code sometime! Oh god. Java is more portable than.NET though. The price is a consistant namespace layout. Maybe someday if Mono matured to a point it was portable and at least.NET 1.0 compatible we'd see a real shift in software development. I'd use c# in bsd for example. Its great for web development compared to the servlet api.
If your vision of java is applets think again. No one uses java for applets anymore. If you do, you missed DHTML and its recent variants. Client side code is ignorant anyway. Browsers aren't standarized enough for that yet. Java is good for server side code and if written properly, desktop gui applications.
Mono is cross platform? Ok.. it runs on linux and windows. it sort of works in mac os x, but not for web development. On a bsd forget it. Name another platform.. plus from my understanding there are lots of issues with porting the garbage collector to various architectures and operating systems. In contrast, java runs on my cell phone, mac, windows, freebsd, linux, etc.
If you want to get techincal, almost all systems are non unix like at this point. Name one operating system that is actually UNIX! The open group certified solaris and AIX as UNIX. Is Sco Unixware the real unix? Its not certified as such. Do we define a system because it is certified as UNIX (can use the UNIX name)? Do we say something is UNIX because it implements a POSIX interface? Do we claim that by implementing SUS2 or 3 that a system is UNIX?
My personal definition is anything directly derived from SysV or BSD code is UNIX. That would include sco (microsoft xenix), solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD, Darwin/OpenDarwin/NEXTSTEP/OSX, etc. It does NOT include Linux or GNU Mach.
Cocoa, carbon and the like are api's implemented on top of the operating system. All apple gui apps are running on them. Your argument is like saying solaris 10 is no longer UNIX because they used GNOME for the Java desktop system. Linux has a linker that works different than FreeBSD... see the issue here. You use elf executables so you are not true UNIX.. no wait i use old a.out style executables... i'm better. I agree apple's dynamic linking style is a bit different than old school conventional UNIX but defining one (albiet major) change constitutes calling something a non-unix, we have a serious clasification issue. On a side note, all major unix like systems can run GNUstep too!
Wrong. Darwin does not use a pure Mach kernel. It has several components that are in fact monolithic including memory allocation. The userland is optional, the kernel is not. Even if you do not pick the BSD subsystem, there is still a fair amount of bsd code in the base install. I have custom installed OSX at work without the bsd subsystem for disk images. I know you can avoid installing part of the bsd subsystem.. primarily tcsh and bash in older versions and most of the userland utilities are missing.
Mach is based on BSD code. Read about Mach online sometime. As I said, apple doesn't even use a pure implementation. GNU/Hurd with GNU/Mach is more Mach than Darwin is.
You made many interesting points, but quite frankly you are dead wrong on OSX. Mac OS X contains the FreeBSD userland and many gnu tools including gcc, gnu make, vim, etc. X11 is included with the operating system. Granted, OSX has a gui but you don't need to use it for administration. Apple ships apache, php, jboss, postfix, and many other goodies in OSX server and desktop. (no postfix in client) Remember, OSX is NEXTSTEP which was based on BSD many years ago. Since then, apple has put a lot of netbsd and freebsd code into the system.
The big difference is that you have to deal with the netinfo database. Many user account settings in server are optionally stored in OpenLDAP. There is still an/etc directory with many configuration options. Its different like freebsd is to solaris but i wouldn't say its not unix like. Both are unix like in their own ways. There are even this level of differences amung linux distros. Look at administering a gentoo box vs a redhat system. Gentoo picked a more BSD style file system and configuration setup. Ports vs packages. etc.
Linux use can't be measured by sales just like BSD use can't be measured by sales. I find it interesting microsoft isn't doing better with server sales. Think about it, that means people are actually buying Linux, Solaris, AIX, SCO (eww), mac os x and any other os that gets sold for server environments. Now if you count in the people that downloaded linux, bsd or even open solaris how much share does Microsoft really have?
And this is because HR people won't do their jobs correctly. As a sys admin, it is our job to talk with users and find out what their needs actually are. Then we research the best solution and if we can actually get approval (budget), it is implemented. In HR, they sit on their ass all day trying to bold something in word and wondering why their printer is blinking at them. They get a few buzz words from dice.com and then filter out resumes based on that. Sometimes those buzz words come from their boss who heard it on cnn fn or a microsoft ad in their favorite magazine. HR people piss me off and worst of all my mother is one!
I agree with you aside from the administration end. mysql is much more consolidated on disk and much easier to administer using their tools and adding phpMyAdmin. I think postgreSQL is very attractive to oracle devlopers or people who have prior experience with oracle. mysql was easy for me to learn coming from a sql server 7/2000 background. As for performance, mysql 5.0.16 seems much slower than 4.1.x did. I upgraded to mysql 5.0 a few weeks ago and noticed that it killed performance on my php sites. I use a product called e107 for cms duty and while the software is written poorly, it also is noticably slower. Then again, most sane people wouldn't write code that generates 117 queries on one page using 2 database connections. It also seemed to toast file uploads. It does seem more consistent on my blogging site though. (java)
mysql may yet have life in it though. Many operating systems still can't run oracle. mysql and postgresql are the two most likely alternatives. Sadly there are days i miss sql server.
I administer two xserve systems. G4 (10.2 server) and G5 (10.4 server) for two different departments. Here is my experience.
1. Setting up some services is very easy. Mail, file sharing and so forth are great. 2. Disk i/o for certain services (databases in particular) is very slow!!!!!! Its the fundamental flaw with OSX. I suspect the next release to run better presuming apple rips off freebsd's fine grained virtual file system code. 3. Forced upgraded. 10.2 does not get security patches very often. Samba was never patched for a bad hole and although i can replace it with my own compiled version, i lose apple's ease of administration. Solution is to buy 10.4 server but my boss won't approve it.
If you do go with osx server anyway, consider the xserve. They are very sweet and the cost of a osx license plus a nice g5 box is the same as an xserve anyway.
Also remember apple is going intel so you may not get OS upgrades in the future. They have not said if they will release 10.5 as a ppc build yet.
But that is also the problem with linux. You MUST recompile apps all the frickin time. Want to upgrade gnome? api breakage... time to recompile EVERYTHING that depends on it. Need to upgrade php because of a security hole (just like classic asp)? Breakage... you see open source people don't get that binary compatibility is a GOOD thing. I'm not saying microsoft does everything right, but there are advantages to windows. That being said, I think *nix based systems are more stable and perform better under load. Administration is a wash. Both require patching (or upgrading) and both require proper audity and testing to maintain secure systems. Windows people jump in thinking its easy. My first question to a windows admin is have you ever modified the registry. If they say know, i know they are an idiot. You must touch the registry for performance tuning and occasionally disabling things to make your box secure. Its a little more gui friendly in win2k3 but its not 100 percent. Registry =/etc people! Frankly, i find/etc much easier to manage.
Linux is a bit more versitle but some things still require following conventions like using ldap schemas (active directory anyone?)
Also remember that microsoft has to run part of hotmail on non windows systems! (freebsd if i recall correctly) Its simply a scalability issue there. They need a real MTA and only make exchange and that half ass smtp service.
I don't run with htt on but I do have an SMP box. (2 xeon 2ghz) The ati software works fine on my desktop, so it must be an issue specific to hyperthreading.
Yes. Sun and Microsoft both had a few years with really bad print spoolers. I remember a security hole in notepad in NT4. At the same time, sun had several bad holes hit them in their print spooler, rpc, etc. Just look at the solaris 7 patch list. I remember there being over 50mb zipped of patches.. probably at least 100 in the x86 build.
Plus any *nix host got hit quite often if it included sendmail, bind or wu-ftpd. Sendmail has improved quite a bit in recent versions (8.12+) and bind got a bit better with bind9 but wu-ftpd never got fixed. Of course i think most people run proftpd or something else now. Apache 1.2 sucked as i recall as well.
I think attack vectors on unix and linux systems are web apps, etc now. Look at php's track record. I'd also like to point out that apple does NOT patch older versions of mac os. Sure 10.2 is about 3 years old, but why don't they release samba patches? (10.2.8 server) I had to disable samba due to attacks on the samba host. Apple's no better than sun, *bsd or the linux community. Every vendor has improved since the 90s, even Microsoft.
windows >= Linux >= Solaris >= Mac OS X >= BSD. (in terms of security) I suspect the equal signs are used more than the great thans in that statement.
Its about time Microsoft did something with the Office UI. I think this is the first "innovation" from them since they went to 32bit code for office. Who did they steal it from?
I think troll is a little unfair here. Its not just microsoft though. The AMD64 (or whatever you want to call it) port of freebsd is not as stable as its 32 bit counterpart. I think most os vendors are in the planning, fixing or finishing touches phases on 64 bit versions. I would guess Linux is the farthest along and i'm not a big linux fan. Linux is powering servers and so forth right now. (ibm and sun for example) Everyone else is playing catch up.
I suspect this is happening to 1. push intel into actually making all their chips 64bit and 2. to try to help amd get market share since intel has gone all friendly with apple. If I were Microsoft, I'd stick it to intel any way i could right now. Intel has helped the bsd community for quite some time with drivers and so forth. I'm starting to wonder if helping the freebsd project was a way to prepare to wow apple since they use userland components and so forth for darwin. I'm sure owning the server market was the other factor. Lets face it, if you don't run linux or windows you probably run bsd.
I'm just pissed i bought my wife an ibook last month if the rumor is true wiht the intel ibooks. Of course it would be a door stop in windows land in about 2 years, but linux and bsd will run sweet for years to come. Time to switch all the old servers and desktops around to *nix.:)
The manpage does not exist on my 10.4.3 system at work, but I also don't have the developer tools installed. Maybe that is the difference. I'll check tonight at home on my ibook with xcode 2.1 on it.
Its an open source java based blog software. I've been working on it for about 3 years on and off in my spare time. The code is not so good, but it works. I just released a windows client that will be GPL'd and the java code is BSD Licensed. The project is also on source forge.
I wrote this because livejournal was very slow at the time it was started. I got sick of waiting for LJ servers and I did't feel like paying.
My current setup is mysql 5 + tomcat 5.5 + apache 2 + freebsd.
Yes, but I think it should be pointed out that idiots exist in the Novell camp as well. My university has a large Novell network where every department excluding marketing, the library, the newspaper and engineering college use Novell file servers, print servers and the like. My boss is one of the novell administrators and he actually doesn't like open source software and hates the novell linux movement. He can barely use command line software. He ignores the novell strategy with linux and our server MUST be rebooted monthly or we lose iPrint and zen app support. I know this is a configuration problem and it reminds me of my former boss who had to reboot NT servers monthly. Regardless of platform, you should be able to pull off several month uptime if your servers are configured correctly.
My experiences have led me to believe that most novell solutions are duplicates to Microsoft, Apple or Sun solutions. When a solution is part of the OS, why buy a third party solution? The trouble with have syncing pda's with groupwise gives me nightmares. Intellisync does not work correctly, using novell's solution doesn't work and trying to use outlook/activesync with groupwise is just plain stupid.
In a perfect world you are right. I just don't think we'll see that level of co-operation from hardware vendors. At this point, all i want is a video driver for my favorite OS. I don't care if its closed or open source. i386 linux people are lucky. They get drivers from nvidia and ati. I find that i'm actually considering buying an nvidia card so i can get a video driver for freebsd that works with opengl. My favorite game in the world is unplayable because ATI won't grow up.
None of my desktops can not be bought at the mall. Well i guess my dell workstation could be ordered at the mall, but not picked up there. My other pc was home built. I wanted portable unix and my iBook dual boots OSX (10.4) and a linux distro. I also own a sparc which you can not purchase at the mall.
My OS list in my home is as follows: OSX x 3 Windows x 1 FreeBSD x 2 OpenBSD x 1 Linux x 1 Solaris x 1
This includes my computers (2 pcs, 1 ibook , 1 sparc) and my wife's computers (all macs 2 osx + 1 openbsd ).
While I don't base my purchasing decisions solely on whats at the mall, most of the planet does!
Also as for laptops, its possible to build one to some degree with a barebones kit from asus and the like. I find barebones kits pointless since most of the decisions that matter are not made by you. In a laptop, you pick which pentium or amd chip, ram and hard drive. Big deal. Might as well buy a warrentied laptop from a vendor. Also, asus has a bad track record with their bios support for ACPI. It doesn't effect linux a lot but its terrible for *BSD. I looked at pc laptops to run linux or bsd on but could not get an affirmative from anyone on a model that worked 100 percent in linux or bsd. My requirements were wireless, video at native resolution, and sound.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has a replace already in .NET 2.0. You can install software in your user account from internet sites. Its one of the new features. In fact the free versions of visual studio apps only allow installations in this manner.
There is only one benefit to javascript checking in an application. You can alert the user to an error sooner. Aside from possible HCI benefits, there is absolutely no reason to use javascript in a webpage. Any counter argument would be for eye candy or irritating pop up ads. If you want eye candy, use flash. They you are only alienating anyone using a unix system. (not counting x86 linux)
If your server side code is wrong, fix it immediately. Trying to "fix it" by using javascript is dumb. I can turn off javascript in my browser and then i hit your bad server code. Quite a few users intentionally disable javascript or do indirectly by using a product like norton internet security which disables many javascript features and cookies. If you don't understand perl, use another language. managers often don't know what they are talking about anyway. Use php and tell them its perl. Heck if you can control the webserver map pl to php. They won't know the difference. This is assuming you can use php of course.
I supppose that depends on the newspaper or magazine. For instance, look at a newspaper at a university. ANYONE can be a writer regardless of major. The editor will approve almost anything and they don't bother with spell check. I'm speaking from experience since I must tech support my university's newspaper and radio station.
I also know someone that works at the Flint Journal through a mutual friend. Yesterday, someone in my family was murdered. This person called my friend to ask if she had heard anything yet so they had confirmation on the identity of the body! Thats fact checking for you!
OSX does not use the GNU Mach kernel. Debian is the only group using it. The reason is lack of drivers. NeXT used the actual carnagie mellon mach code in 1988 to create NEXTSTEP. Apple bought NeXT in 1996 and continues the line as OSX. Stallman duplicated Mach and someday maybe he'll get past the ext2 hacked file system and lack of agp video drivers to get a usable Mach based system. In the mean time, he'll be stuck with the kernel he had to borrow called Linux. You should consider reading up on the history of Mach some time. Its very interesting. Darwin (OSX) derived from the Mach 3 kernel which had BSD 4.3/4.4 code injected into it. Apple decided to use a modern BSD network stack and drop the idea of using messages to allocate memory. They included the freebsd 5.x fine grain locked network stack into Mac OS 10.4. Apple also considered using the Linux kernel while developing what became OSX. In the end, they bought NeXT and used the Mach kernel because they feared Linus wouldn't allow their kernel changes back into the main kernel source.
/dev in osx and many programs including vlc use it to read dvds and other information just as they would on a linux or bsd host. BSD sockets are present and other file stream based resources. The key thing lacking in osx is administration via the CLI and that is even possible via apple comamnd line tools, although quite painful. The new replacement for cron and init are not unix like in 10.4, but its still quite a good idea.
I see you've used the kernel + environment argument. I agree that the environment is very important to the operating system and that basic tools are part of the system. I think thats why stallman has begged people to call it GNU/Linux since there is a GNU userland. FreeBSD is different than NetBSD because both the kernel and userland are quite different in some respects. Gnu tools had to be used on solaris since sun didn't provide adequate (or free) tools. Who wants to pay for a compiler when gcc is free? I think gcc is the most important contribution to open source. Windows 2003 is certainly not vms. Microsoft hired VMS engineers to develop the system, but its not the same system. The posix layer and os/2 subsystems of windows NT are additions to get contracts and allow for easier porting. Similarly the GNU tools running on that posix layer do not mean that windows is a UNIX system. I guess there is a need for cygwin, but i've never understood why so many linux users run windows with cgywin instead of the real thing. I speak of computer science professors and fellow students at my university. I am not fond of linux and i even dual boot it on my laptop.
Lets look at your list:
1) Everything is a file
2) Every system resource can be easily manipulated via text processing tools (and these tools are part of a standard command set with a set of standard options)
3) An administrator can move from one UNIX system to another with *very* little ramp-up time
1) Everything is a file in most systems. I know what you mean, but even if its a binary database like the netinfo database osx uses or an openldap database used on a linux file server for authentication, its a file. I prefer running freebsd to OSX on servers because i find them easier to administer through ssh. I like command line vs a gui interface for many tasks unlike others my age.
2) This requirement is not met completely with OSX, but mostly it is. Even property lists (think ini file in windows or conf file in unix/linux) are text based. (well xml) You can certainly open them up in vim on an osx system and change properties. I've done this to fix issues with groupwise and other apps on osx. There is a
3) I don't think this is true for any unix system. Basics are the same like cp, rm, and so forth but anything serious changes on all unix like systems. For instance i tend to use ps -ax to do process lists. It works in bsd and osx fine, and in linux i get a nag about the - but it works. Try it in solaris and you ge
There is a mono port for BSD but it does not work properly. I'm specifically talking about FreeBSD 5.x. I've filed bug reports, etc. I have not tried it since 6.0 came out, maybe the situation is better. If you tried to run it with a simple app it would run, but actually try to run any real code or the webserver and the garbage collector would crash. It does use the boehm gc but it doesn't like freebsd's newer thread libraries too much. You can only count linux and windows for 100% support of what novell has done. Mac OS X works for gui apps but not webapps yet. Most mac users would want it for web development at this point.
Vista is more like 10.3 or 10.4. It will run like 10.4.. kernel crashes, games don't run, etc. Apple and Microsoft are on the same page. Its not even my hardware. I see crashes on G5's at work all the time.
I don't see what all the complaints are about anyway. Microsoft is giving an opportunity for apple and the open source community (linux, bsd, solaris) to get ahead. Why not take the opportunity? If there are enough features and INTEGRATION then end users will want to try Mac OS or Linux. Apple can integrate but i think the linux community needs to work on it. Either KDE or GNOME needs to die. Every OS feature needs to be tunable/controlled in the gui. Someone needs to finally make a true linux desktop system. (ubuntu doesn't count as they can't even do dhcp right) Please someone step up and do this. I know i'm going to try. Everyone complains about microsoft but i dont' see action. Sign up for your favorite OSS project and get to work. Give consumers a reason to switch.
I fit category 1 and 3 above and I still think java runs very fast for server based code. Running a java servlet container is very fast. A few applications like jedit, intellij idea and limewire seem fast on the graphical front. Someone can write a slow .NET, C++, or objective c app too.
.NET gui app starting up. The advantage of Java and .NET is the massive amount of libraries that are guaranteed to be there. The STL in C++ is not implemented consistently across compilers or platforms. My big complaint with java isn't speed, but organization. I find the namespaces cluttered and confusing compared to .NET. Think about it. They have io and nio. Try to write XML code sometime! Oh god. Java is more portable than .NET though. The price is a consistant namespace layout. Maybe someday if Mono matured to a point it was portable and at least .NET 1.0 compatible we'd see a real shift in software development. I'd use c# in bsd for example. Its great for web development compared to the servlet api.
Java's benefit is its age and portability. Its fairly mature and very fast when running under the server vm for some time. Quick command line apps are best served with C code. Compile C code with g++ instead of gcc sometime. Not only will your code run slower, but it will be larger as well. Likewise time a Visual C++ app vs a
If your vision of java is applets think again. No one uses java for applets anymore. If you do, you missed DHTML and its recent variants. Client side code is ignorant anyway. Browsers aren't standarized enough for that yet. Java is good for server side code and if written properly, desktop gui applications.
Mono is cross platform? Ok.. it runs on linux and windows. it sort of works in mac os x, but not for web development. On a bsd forget it. Name another platform.. plus from my understanding there are lots of issues with porting the garbage collector to various architectures and operating systems. In contrast, java runs on my cell phone, mac, windows, freebsd, linux, etc.
If you want to get techincal, almost all systems are non unix like at this point. Name one operating system that is actually UNIX! The open group certified solaris and AIX as UNIX. Is Sco Unixware the real unix? Its not certified as such. Do we define a system because it is certified as UNIX (can use the UNIX name)? Do we say something is UNIX because it implements a POSIX interface? Do we claim that by implementing SUS2 or 3 that a system is UNIX?
My personal definition is anything directly derived from SysV or BSD code is UNIX. That would include sco (microsoft xenix), solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD, Darwin/OpenDarwin/NEXTSTEP/OSX, etc. It does NOT include Linux or GNU Mach.
Cocoa, carbon and the like are api's implemented on top of the operating system. All apple gui apps are running on them. Your argument is like saying solaris 10 is no longer UNIX because they used GNOME for the Java desktop system. Linux has a linker that works different than FreeBSD... see the issue here. You use elf executables so you are not true UNIX.. no wait i use old a.out style executables... i'm better. I agree apple's dynamic linking style is a bit different than old school conventional UNIX but defining one (albiet major) change constitutes calling something a non-unix, we have a serious clasification issue. On a side note, all major unix like systems can run GNUstep too!
Wrong. Darwin does not use a pure Mach kernel. It has several components that are in fact monolithic including memory allocation. The userland is optional, the kernel is not. Even if you do not pick the BSD subsystem, there is still a fair amount of bsd code in the base install. I have custom installed OSX at work without the bsd subsystem for disk images. I know you can avoid installing part of the bsd subsystem.. primarily tcsh and bash in older versions and most of the userland utilities are missing.
Mach is based on BSD code. Read about Mach online sometime. As I said, apple doesn't even use a pure implementation. GNU/Hurd with GNU/Mach is more Mach than Darwin is.
You made many interesting points, but quite frankly you are dead wrong on OSX. Mac OS X contains the FreeBSD userland and many gnu tools including gcc, gnu make, vim, etc. X11 is included with the operating system. Granted, OSX has a gui but you don't need to use it for administration. Apple ships apache, php, jboss, postfix, and many other goodies in OSX server and desktop. (no postfix in client) Remember, OSX is NEXTSTEP which was based on BSD many years ago. Since then, apple has put a lot of netbsd and freebsd code into the system.
/etc directory with many configuration options. Its different like freebsd is to solaris but i wouldn't say its not unix like. Both are unix like in their own ways. There are even this level of differences amung linux distros. Look at administering a gentoo box vs a redhat system. Gentoo picked a more BSD style file system and configuration setup. Ports vs packages. etc.
The big difference is that you have to deal with the netinfo database. Many user account settings in server are optionally stored in OpenLDAP. There is still an
Linux use can't be measured by sales just like BSD use can't be measured by sales. I find it interesting microsoft isn't doing better with server sales. Think about it, that means people are actually buying Linux, Solaris, AIX, SCO (eww), mac os x and any other os that gets sold for server environments. Now if you count in the people that downloaded linux, bsd or even open solaris how much share does Microsoft really have?
And this is because HR people won't do their jobs correctly. As a sys admin, it is our job to talk with users and find out what their needs actually are. Then we research the best solution and if we can actually get approval (budget), it is implemented. In HR, they sit on their ass all day trying to bold something in word and wondering why their printer is blinking at them. They get a few buzz words from dice.com and then filter out resumes based on that. Sometimes those buzz words come from their boss who heard it on cnn fn or a microsoft ad in their favorite magazine. HR people piss me off and worst of all my mother is one!
I agree with you aside from the administration end. mysql is much more consolidated on disk and much easier to administer using their tools and adding phpMyAdmin. I think postgreSQL is very attractive to oracle devlopers or people who have prior experience with oracle. mysql was easy for me to learn coming from a sql server 7/2000 background. As for performance, mysql 5.0.16 seems much slower than 4.1.x did. I upgraded to mysql 5.0 a few weeks ago and noticed that it killed performance on my php sites. I use a product called e107 for cms duty and while the software is written poorly, it also is noticably slower. Then again, most sane people wouldn't write code that generates 117 queries on one page using 2 database connections. It also seemed to toast file uploads. It does seem more consistent on my blogging site though. (java)
mysql may yet have life in it though. Many operating systems still can't run oracle. mysql and postgresql are the two most likely alternatives. Sadly there are days i miss sql server.
I administer two xserve systems. G4 (10.2 server) and G5 (10.4 server) for two different departments. Here is my experience.
1. Setting up some services is very easy. Mail, file sharing and so forth are great.
2. Disk i/o for certain services (databases in particular) is very slow!!!!!! Its the fundamental flaw with OSX. I suspect the next release to run better presuming apple rips off freebsd's fine grained virtual file system code.
3. Forced upgraded. 10.2 does not get security patches very often. Samba was never patched for a bad hole and although i can replace it with my own compiled version, i lose apple's ease of administration. Solution is to buy 10.4 server but my boss won't approve it.
If you do go with osx server anyway, consider the xserve. They are very sweet and the cost of a osx license plus a nice g5 box is the same as an xserve anyway.
Also remember apple is going intel so you may not get OS upgrades in the future. They have not said if they will release 10.5 as a ppc build yet.
But that is also the problem with linux. You MUST recompile apps all the frickin time. Want to upgrade gnome? api breakage... time to recompile EVERYTHING that depends on it. Need to upgrade php because of a security hole (just like classic asp)? Breakage... you see open source people don't get that binary compatibility is a GOOD thing. I'm not saying microsoft does everything right, but there are advantages to windows. That being said, I think *nix based systems are more stable and perform better under load. Administration is a wash. Both require patching (or upgrading) and both require proper audity and testing to maintain secure systems. Windows people jump in thinking its easy. My first question to a windows admin is have you ever modified the registry. If they say know, i know they are an idiot. You must touch the registry for performance tuning and occasionally disabling things to make your box secure. Its a little more gui friendly in win2k3 but its not 100 percent. Registry = /etc people! Frankly, i find /etc much easier to manage.
Linux is a bit more versitle but some things still require following conventions like using ldap schemas (active directory anyone?)
Also remember that microsoft has to run part of hotmail on non windows systems! (freebsd if i recall correctly) Its simply a scalability issue there. They need a real MTA and only make exchange and that half ass smtp service.
I don't run with htt on but I do have an SMP box. (2 xeon 2ghz) The ati software works fine on my desktop, so it must be an issue specific to hyperthreading.
Yes. Sun and Microsoft both had a few years with really bad print spoolers. I remember a security hole in notepad in NT4. At the same time, sun had several bad holes hit them in their print spooler, rpc, etc. Just look at the solaris 7 patch list. I remember there being over 50mb zipped of patches.. probably at least 100 in the x86 build.
Plus any *nix host got hit quite often if it included sendmail, bind or wu-ftpd. Sendmail has improved quite a bit in recent versions (8.12+) and bind got a bit better with bind9 but wu-ftpd never got fixed. Of course i think most people run proftpd or something else now. Apache 1.2 sucked as i recall as well.
I think attack vectors on unix and linux systems are web apps, etc now. Look at php's track record. I'd also like to point out that apple does NOT patch older versions of mac os. Sure 10.2 is about 3 years old, but why don't they release samba patches? (10.2.8 server) I had to disable samba due to attacks on the samba host. Apple's no better than sun, *bsd or the linux community. Every vendor has improved since the 90s, even Microsoft.
windows >= Linux >= Solaris >= Mac OS X >= BSD. (in terms of security) I suspect the equal signs are used more than the great thans in that statement.
Its about time Microsoft did something with the Office UI. I think this is the first "innovation" from them since they went to 32bit code for office. Who did they steal it from?
I think troll is a little unfair here. Its not just microsoft though. The AMD64 (or whatever you want to call it) port of freebsd is not as stable as its 32 bit counterpart. I think most os vendors are in the planning, fixing or finishing touches phases on 64 bit versions. I would guess Linux is the farthest along and i'm not a big linux fan. Linux is powering servers and so forth right now. (ibm and sun for example) Everyone else is playing catch up.
:)
I suspect this is happening to 1. push intel into actually making all their chips 64bit and 2. to try to help amd get market share since intel has gone all friendly with apple. If I were Microsoft, I'd stick it to intel any way i could right now. Intel has helped the bsd community for quite some time with drivers and so forth. I'm starting to wonder if helping the freebsd project was a way to prepare to wow apple since they use userland components and so forth for darwin. I'm sure owning the server market was the other factor. Lets face it, if you don't run linux or windows you probably run bsd.
I'm just pissed i bought my wife an ibook last month if the rumor is true wiht the intel ibooks. Of course it would be a door stop in windows land in about 2 years, but linux and bsd will run sweet for years to come. Time to switch all the old servers and desktops around to *nix.
The manpage does not exist on my 10.4.3 system at work, but I also don't have the developer tools installed. Maybe that is the difference. I'll check tonight at home on my ibook with xcode 2.1 on it.
Irony is that the parent posted as anonymous coward aka in the closet.
Ok since everyone else is pushing their favorite blog software, I'll push mine. http://www.justjournal.com/
Its an open source java based blog software. I've been working on it for about 3 years on and off in my spare time. The code is not so good, but it works. I just released a windows client that will be GPL'd and the java code is BSD Licensed. The project is also on source forge.
I wrote this because livejournal was very slow at the time it was started. I got sick of waiting for LJ servers and I did't feel like paying.
My current setup is mysql 5 + tomcat 5.5 + apache 2 + freebsd.
Yes, but I think it should be pointed out that idiots exist in the Novell camp as well. My university has a large Novell network where every department excluding marketing, the library, the newspaper and engineering college use Novell file servers, print servers and the like. My boss is one of the novell administrators and he actually doesn't like open source software and hates the novell linux movement. He can barely use command line software. He ignores the novell strategy with linux and our server MUST be rebooted monthly or we lose iPrint and zen app support. I know this is a configuration problem and it reminds me of my former boss who had to reboot NT servers monthly. Regardless of platform, you should be able to pull off several month uptime if your servers are configured correctly.
My experiences have led me to believe that most novell solutions are duplicates to Microsoft, Apple or Sun solutions. When a solution is part of the OS, why buy a third party solution? The trouble with have syncing pda's with groupwise gives me nightmares. Intellisync does not work correctly, using novell's solution doesn't work and trying to use outlook/activesync with groupwise is just plain stupid.
In a perfect world you are right. I just don't think we'll see that level of co-operation from hardware vendors. At this point, all i want is a video driver for my favorite OS. I don't care if its closed or open source. i386 linux people are lucky. They get drivers from nvidia and ati. I find that i'm actually considering buying an nvidia card so i can get a video driver for freebsd that works with opengl. My favorite game in the world is unplayable because ATI won't grow up.
None of my desktops can not be bought at the mall. Well i guess my dell workstation could be ordered at the mall, but not picked up there. My other pc was home built. I wanted portable unix and my iBook dual boots OSX (10.4) and a linux distro. I also own a sparc which you can not purchase at the mall.
My OS list in my home is as follows:
OSX x 3
Windows x 1
FreeBSD x 2
OpenBSD x 1
Linux x 1
Solaris x 1
This includes my computers (2 pcs, 1 ibook , 1 sparc) and my wife's computers (all macs 2 osx + 1 openbsd ).
While I don't base my purchasing decisions solely on whats at the mall, most of the planet does!
Also as for laptops, its possible to build one to some degree with a barebones kit from asus and the like. I find barebones kits pointless since most of the decisions that matter are not made by you. In a laptop, you pick which pentium or amd chip, ram and hard drive. Big deal. Might as well buy a warrentied laptop from a vendor. Also, asus has a bad track record with their bios support for ACPI. It doesn't effect linux a lot but its terrible for *BSD. I looked at pc laptops to run linux or bsd on but could not get an affirmative from anyone on a model that worked 100 percent in linux or bsd. My requirements were wireless, video at native resolution, and sound.