"Mac OS may not have the gaping holes that let viruses spread, but worms, spyware and even keyloggers are out there."
Once Mac's hit primetime and begin to take a larger market share of the personal computer industry, then we'll start to see some serious viruses. Won't be long. Hackers will find holes. It just isn't worth their time and effort right now to affect a small percent of computer users.
I checked out the Eclipse. Wasn't that impressed. To me it seemed too busy. I never understood the one editor fits all languages concept. Pick a language and write an IDE for it. Whats so difficult? I can see why most people on here seem to prefer the IntelliJ IDE.
Whats the replacement? Java?? C#?? Thats like saying SQL is dying. Perhaps people are perceiving that C++ is dying simply because of the incredibly over hyped "web-centric" world of the programming in the new millenia. Languages like PHP and ASP.Net and Javascript (all web languages) have taken the forefront because business these days are demanding more web (scripting) applications. But that doesn't mean C++ is dying by any means.
In fact a lot of your network servers, programming IDEs and language interpreters are written in C++. It's true that C++ jobs are decreasing a little but again that is only because C++ is becoming more of a specialized language as it should be. A lot of apps do not require the complexity of C++ when a language like C# will do the job. But there are limits to what C# and Java can do. The only other language, I could think of that could have possibly taken C++'s place back in the 80's was Pascal or Object Pascal (aka Delphi), but never did. Besides libraries like the STL make C++ even more powerful and easier in many cases.
> Even Jbuilder6, years ago was a better IDE than vs.net 2005 is today.
JBuilder 6??? Are you talking about that "has been" company called Borland. Borland's technology was great for my 16bit DOS C/Pascal and assembly projects. Thats was about it. Lets be honest here. Visual Studio has been the #1 development environment for over 10 years. In the early 90's Microsoft created the most successful programming language ever. Visual Basic, from which all IDEs are now measured against. VB wasn't such a great language. In fact it was kinda weak. But it was easy to use, and thats spells power in my book. Visual Studio today is still easy to use, powerful built-in debugger, powerful built in help (MSDN) and fully expandable via add-ins. Besides, programming is hard enough without needing to have to learn how to program your editor. (ie. emacs LISP)
I firmly believe if VS was available for Linux tomorrow, you'd see a lot more software (and better software) written for Linux.
> it's time to go back to the real way to debug: print out or echo statements in vi
ummm.. that was a great way to debug in 1987 but in 2006 it's better to let the machine help you then waste precious time with print statements. Also vi is not considered an editor most people want to spend time learning. It's powerful but it's not practical anymore. Take a look at visual slick edit.
Man, it seems everyone in the world is trying to make alternatives to Microsoft's wares. First off, the above article does not explain how Java is going to somehow provide an alternative to.NET. Java has been around for a good 10 years and I don't how the involvment of Oracle is going to magically revive the language..NET has been around for less than half that, and already is taking over Java. Why?
Very few have managed to do is what Microsoft has done for years. Make software and software development easy to use! Ease of use for the computer user and just as importantly, ease of use for the developer. As a developer who has worked with C/C++ C#, VB and Java for years, I've found all but the Java language to have had a well designed and programmer friendly development environment. Java has tons of IDEs out there and they all pretty much suck.
Programmers are people and people are inherently lazy. Lazy in the sence that people don't want to go out of the way if they don't have too. In programming terms, a good IDE can make all the difference. Microsoft doesn't always create the best technology but they make it friendly and thats why they sell. I've been waiting years for alternatives to Word, Access, Visual Studio, and Windows and I haven't seen it yet. In my opinion, if Sun and Oracle are going to try and make a.NET, alternative they should be focusing on an easy to use and powerful development environment. The Java language is powerful enough. Now it's time for a useful IDE.
Your missing the whole point. If you look above I mentioned that most people don't know the difference between an Apple and a PC. This being the case do really think they'll know what dual-core is? Its all junk marketing like MMX or Hyper-Threading. It's all bullshit to sell a chip. Technology today is 90% marketing 10% usefullness. Do you need these technologies to check your e-mail, or browse a web site or type a paper in Word? HELL NO! You don't need to spend more than a few hundred in fact. Now, some people (like yourself perhaps) will opt for advanced machines with RAID controllers or 2GB of parity memory or 22" flat screens or multi-processing machines. But these people are the exception. A much smaller exception. Apple did "attempt" to appeal to the sub $1000 market with the Mac Mini. But it's a joke. It's slow and can't be expanded upon much and it still doesn't come with a monitor. It's $500 by itself for the base model.
You have to compare Apples with Apples! (No pun intended)
because the prices are simply to damn high. Lets face it, most consumers don't know the difference between a Mac and PC but they do know the difference between a $500 DELL and a $1400 Mac! It's not rocket science. If Apple's ulterior motive for moving to Intel's architecture is to eventually compete with Wintel systems, they are gonna have to do something about there pricing. As far as I see it, the main difference between the two systems will eventually come down to the operating system and charging someone a rediculas premium for "everyday hardware" so they can run your OS is pretty ballsy. Especially when Apple has no way of hiding the prices (like they used to) behind fancy and unneccessary hardware like SCSI.
This doesn't surprise me. Look at it this way, your giving away the source code. Yes, the code is changed often and is highly secure for systems like Linux and Darwin but your're also giving hackers a road map as how to proceed in compromising a system. Staying proprietary has it's merits. There's just no denying it. On the flip side, you also have to remember that Microsoft's system runs on a high percentage of the worlds computers. And most of those computers are run by non-technical people who run as root user (Administator in Windows' case). This gives hackers a much larger and less secure target so it would appear that Windows has all the security problems (viruses, spyware, etc). Linux, users on the hand are more knowledgable users than their Windows counterparts and so this, in and of itself, leads to less commpromises. Linux users "get" the concept of running multiple, non-root accounts which, as we all know, is a much more secure way of running a system.
In 2003, the most stolen car was the 1995 Saturn SL, now does this mean a 1995 Saturn SL is an insecure car technically? Or could this mean that it's in car thieves' financial interest to steal this car? It's a Tech Vs. Economics question. I think it's all about perception and what people want to believe. All I can say is I've run some very secure Windows systems and never had a problem. As for the mom and dad Windows users, perhaps the next version of Windows will run as a non-root by default and I bet we'll all see less Windows compromises.
I don't see Google creating a full blown OS with drivers and full hardware compatibility like that of Microsoft (at least not for years to come) but I can see them selling some kind of search system in the mean time, which would make sence since computer users spend most of the time using the Internet as opposed to just local applications. Almost like an OS that boots off the Internet. All you would need is some software driver that recognizes your NIC, grabs an IP, connects to the google applications site and lets you connect to their popular searching tools. Just a browser and TCP/IP stack. No viruses, spyware, etc. Like a kiosk. Could be useful for libraries, schools or even the home.
If KDE is so advanced, why gnome?
on
KDE 3.5 Released
·
· Score: 1
In my opinion, Linux needs to adopt a single desktop. Why the need for so many incompatible systems like KDE, gnome, Enlightenment, fvwm, etc? Each with their own libraries and configuration tools. I don't get it. No wonder simple windowing concepts like drag-and-drop and copy-and-paste are still so difficult to use in X. Pick one GUI. Pick one library. Then stick with it and make it better! Even Apple, which uses an open-source BSD unix at it's core, only recognizes one desktop. Sure, one could argue that there are many web servers, database servers, FTP servers and other overlapping applications in Linux to choose from, but I feel the GUI is the one component in an operating system that ties all the other software together. It's high time the "Tower of Babble" for desktop environments in open-source land be knocked down.
Linux and Windows are (I think) both easy to setup as a barebones OS. The question becomes one of finding software, installing the software and maintaing the software. In this arena, Windows is the clear winner. Windows (most of the time) makes installation of software easy, with it's integrated setup files consisting of all required library, configuration and help files compressed into a single setup program. Linux on the other hand requires the user herself to locate all the required libraries and the correct versions and thats if the software is in binary form. Things really get hairy in source form, since the correct C compiler version and C libraries are required as well in order to compile the program correctly or at least occording to the enclosed README. Moreover, if the makefile really gets fancy you could find yourself downloading and installing a bunch of different helper interepters just to compile a program. Yes, there are package management programs but what good is such a program when a library required by a program is no longer available? Since installing software is big part of system migration, Linux needs a different approach to installing software and I think this is where Microsoft has the upper hand.
However, once things are in place (installed) then Linux is no more difficult than Windows to maintain. In fact, Linux can be easier since it's configuration files are text based and not located in a global binary registry as in Windows which has been known to get corrupted. This is why Live CDs like Knoppix have become so popular, since everything comes installed for you.
BUT one must be familiar with the command line in order to use Linux effectively. GUIs like GNOME or KDE **WILL NOT REPLACE** knowledge of concepts like permissions, pipes, signals, environment variables and standard input/output. I think this is where less knowledgable administrators get frustrated with Linux since they attempt to treat it like just another version of Windows. Unix, Linux, BSD, whatever you call it, was designed for a different audience. The programming audience. Just look at at any Unix startup script and you'll realize that fact.
So is Windows easier to use, maintain and/or migrate to, than Linux? Not necessarily, but lest we forget Unix's (or in this case, Linux's) design was centered around the assumption that it's user will have some knowledge of programming. On the other hand, Windows NT and it's newer server brethren were born from concepts designed and implemented by "user friendly" graphical desktop operating systems. Sure X windows has some marvelous and highly configurable GUIs, but nowhere near the usability of the Windows OS and the market shows that.
There seems to be a new trend lately. It seems more and more that we, as a society have to listen to (and put up with) other people's noice and bad taste in music. Have you noticed this? I have. As each year passes I hear more boom-boom bass sounds coming from some kid's little Honda shit box pumping out rap music. More and more I'm forced to listen to people talking on cell phones in restaurants and movie theatures. Motorcycle riders taking off their mufflers so that when I'm sleeping at night my selfish asshole neighbor can live out his Harley hog fantasies at 3am. And if that isn't enough we now have to listen to music coming from people's cell phones when a call is being received. I believe there are certain people in society that just aren't getting the attention their egos deserve. Where did these "Creatures of Aural Contamination" come from? And why are the rest of us forced to have to put with their noise and lousy tastes in music? I say we need a device that attaches to your ass and plays a ring tone made entirely of fart sounds when a bowel movement is imminent. This way I'll know exactly when the guy sitting next to me at the restaurant needs to take a dump!
I'm glad to see this. It seems MySQL gets way too much attention these days in the open source community. Not that it is a junky database server or anything, but I've been using Postgres for 4 years now and the system simply amazes me with every new release. It's power, ease of setup & maintenence and incredible stability (as far as I see it) is simply unmatched in the "free" database world. I would take it any day over an MSSQL Server. It's nice to see a company like Sun decide to include it in it's system and support it.
But if you think about it. Sun should have learned over those 9 years and made their system more secure. If Microsoft created a more secure system in 2-3 years then maybe their design is better? Remember that.NET is desiged to run in MS environment only. Java is "supposed" to run everywhere. "compile once, run everyone" doesn't necessarily mean "compile once, run securely everywhere".
OK. I've got some ratings ideas... We could do it just like the movies (ie. Rated PG, R, PG-13)
How about...
Rated DFC - Doesn't F@#king Compile (not permitted in working environment) Rated JARGSS - Just Another Retarted GUI Screen Scraper (The "real console program" is also required and all that is needed) Rated TMHNTC - Too Many Helpers Needed To Compile (bash, yacc, perl, autoconf, python, etc) Rated WORT - Waste of Router's Time (don't even bother clicking the download link) Rated DS - Documentation Sucks (use only if you like reading uncommented and messy code) Rated TMSD - Too Many Stupid Dependencies (requires 9,000 x.so files that you probably don't have) Rated ROB - Requires O'Reilly Book (trip to Borders highly recommended) Rated POD - Pillow On Desk (so you don't hurt your head when you slam it) Rated SRFIPD - Small Readme File Is Program's Documentation (same as Rated DS) Rated MAWLHTETOCF - Might As Well Learn How To Edit The Original Config Files (same as Rated JARGSS)
> The change is mostly a legal/tax thing to avoid the problems of pursuing revenue-generating avenues > while remaining a non-profit. There will be no change to the development process and end-users won't notice much difference either
S U R E . . . . . . .
In the beginning, this little non-profit organization set out to destroy the evil Microsoft IE browser and yet again restore peace throughout browser land! GO MOZILLA GO!!
Of course now, once 10% browser usability was realized, the greed of man set in and statements like "end-users won't notice much difference" became more common place.
> It might not wash your car, but you *could* set up a home security/surveillance system
And this can't be done with CE or tons of other embedded operating systems? Besides eCOS is open source and has been doing embedded for a long time. So what has Linux offered new here?
> Been here recently?
Yes and it's mostly semi-polished distros, that never seem to detect all of your hardware. If you're to run an apache server it's great. But not for mom and dad.
> This is one of the most ignorant comments I've seen for a long time.
No it's just a little common sence and a about 10 years experience with Linux. It's also not getting overly excitied about an OS simply because it's free. Sometimes free or open source is not the answer.
> Now add to that, the cost of Office, Visual Studio, Photoshop and about 200 other commercial applications for which Linux has dozens of alternatives that > ship in that core OS, and you'll see why $129 vs. $5,000 or more makes much more sense. > Stop comparing Apples to Porsches.
First off try writing a word document in Open Office or any other Linux office product and pass it to a someone using MS Word. There is very little compatibility. The rest of the world uses MS Office, so this is a major problem. I had Open Office and I unloaded it.
Second, nothing compares to Visual Studio. NOTHING!!! What KDevelop? Please!! I don't think you can even put the two in the same universe. You can't even compare MSDN to man pages. Again, they're not in the same universe! If you like ancient development tools like vi or emacs or gdb then they should be free. Who would pay for them? NOT ME!! I'll stick with Visual Studio and write my programs in days not months.
> Its an entire environment of productivity tools I'VE YET TO SEE PRODUCTIVITY AND THE NAME OF ANY GNU PRODUCT IN THE SAME SENTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Lets face it, Windows works fine. The days of Windows 9x kernel crashes are long gone. Sure there are bugs. All software has bugs. Sure it has secuirty holes. All systems do. In fact any system in use by more than 90% of the population will be exploited by some script kiddies or hackers. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles.
Lets, for the sake of argument, assume that tomorrow Linux takes over Windows on the desktop. So what will Linux do that Windows can't already do? Will it wash my car? Make a nice scrambled egg and bacon? Still has a web browser. Still has an email program. Still point and click. Someone will monopolize it at some point. If it's not Microsoft, it's Redhat or Xandros. What makes us all think that a company like Xandros or Suse or Redhat has our (the users) best interest at heart? Think this stuff is going to be free forever??? YEAH RIGHT!! Xandros is already charging over $100 for it's system. Same with Redhat and Suse. So where is the free folks? Only a matter of time before licensing fees are added. Think IBM invested tons of $$$ into the kernel cause they wanted to be nice? We don't live in Utopia! It's inevitable, someone or some company is going to make a S#$T Load Of Money.
Also, why is the open source community spending millions of hours duplicating an already successful system? Make something new! Linux is a great system. But why is a desktop so important? Perhaps the decision makers of Linux should focus on newer ways of doing things. Perhaps a desktop is not the way to go. I don't know about you but I got tired of icons. I'd like to be able to think about a file and have it open. Eventually (and perhaps not so far away in time) the desktop will not look anything like it does now. So why try to duplicate an already successful desktop system? So that a couple of geeks sitting in a Starbucks can having bragging rights? Apple already did the desktop thing on Unix and ya know what? It looks a helluva lot like Windows. Still has a browser, emailer and square shaped icons. Honestly, most people could care less about whether their system is using KDE, GNOME, Windows Explorer or Aqua. To me (and most people ) it's all the same. In my opinion, if Linux is to become more than just a platform to run Apache, MySQL and a couple of cell phones, I think Linux needs to innovate and not duplicate.
You didn't specify what your background in network operating systems are, so I am making the assumption you've never setup or used a server before.
In other words, if you're comfortable with Windows, buy a Windows server and use that. People in here (the Linux freaks especially) will scare you into using their system. (Remember this site is called/. not C:\)
Don't setup a Linux or BSD server if you've never installed or used one before, unless of course you can afford some downtime reading lots of O'Reilly books. Patience and persistence is a virtue in Unix.
Although personally, I prefer FreeBSD myself, Unix (in any variant), takes time to master and can be tricky to install, use effectively and backup if you're not familiar with Unix's methodologies. One also musn't forget, Open source is just that. Open Source! It's basically, use at your own risk and I wouldn't recommend it to someone who has no concept of shell scripting or working extensively with command prompts. Although some of the Open Source apps (ie. Postgresql, Samba, Apache) are pretty damn good.
Windows has come a long way and if money is not an issue and you're not that comfortable with Unix to start with then why struggle learning a new system? If this is the case, I'd stick with a Windows server and master running a network before taking on a new operating system. You can always add a *nix server down the road.
"Linux has a slight advantage in that computer science students are learning it, but Microsoft has made life easier for non-techies, particularly with its improved patches."
This paragraph says it all.
First off, a system is only going to be as secure as the person who's using the system knows how to secure it. I've seen tons of Linux and BSD boxes with services running for no reason. Just check out Redhat's default installation and you'll see ports open all over the place that are not being used. At least that the way Redhat did things.
Secondly, Linux has 3 advantages over Windows.
1. The obvious. Linux should be more secure because it's a much simpler system than Windows! I don't think anyone can deny that. Wouldn't make sence if Linux was less secure than Windows, especially since lots of it's functionality was taken from more time proven Unix systems.
2. The people who use Linux are more likely to be experienced computers users than their Windows counterparts. Linux doesn't have to appeal to a bunch of mouse clickers who expect things to work all the time. Us geeks are willing to bend over backwards to make things work.
3. Windows operates over 90% of the world's computers, so hackers and virus writers have a much bigger target. Besides, it wouldn't make much sense for anyone to write viagra adware for Linux when most of it's users aren't even getting laid!
Slashdot Mirror
instead of bad parenting. This is America baby. You can't mess with chidren and parents. Thats taboo.
"Mac OS may not have the gaping holes that let viruses spread, but worms, spyware and even keyloggers are out there."
Once Mac's hit primetime and begin to take a larger market share of the personal computer industry, then we'll start to see some serious viruses. Won't be long. Hackers will find holes. It just isn't worth their time and effort right now to affect a small percent of computer users.
I checked out the Eclipse. Wasn't that impressed. To me it seemed too busy. I never understood the one editor fits all languages concept. Pick a language and write an IDE for it. Whats so difficult? I can see why most people on here seem to prefer the IntelliJ IDE.
Whats the replacement? Java?? C#?? Thats like saying SQL is dying. Perhaps people are perceiving that C++ is dying simply because of the incredibly over hyped "web-centric" world of the programming in the new millenia. Languages like PHP and ASP.Net and Javascript (all web languages) have taken the forefront because business these days are demanding more web (scripting) applications. But that doesn't mean C++ is dying by any means.
In fact a lot of your network servers, programming IDEs and language interpreters are written in C++. It's true that C++ jobs are decreasing a little but again that is only because C++ is becoming more of a specialized language as it should be. A lot of apps do not require the complexity of C++ when a language like C# will do the job. But there are limits to what C# and Java can do. The only other language, I could think of that could have possibly taken C++'s place back in the 80's was Pascal or Object Pascal (aka Delphi), but never did. Besides libraries like the STL make C++ even more powerful and easier in many cases.
> Even Jbuilder6, years ago was a better IDE than vs.net 2005 is today.
JBuilder 6??? Are you talking about that "has been" company called Borland. Borland's technology was great for my 16bit DOS C/Pascal and assembly projects. Thats was about it. Lets be honest here. Visual Studio has been the #1 development environment for over 10 years. In the early 90's Microsoft created the most successful programming language ever. Visual Basic, from which all IDEs are now measured against. VB wasn't such a great language. In fact it was kinda weak. But it was easy to use, and thats spells power in my book. Visual Studio today is still easy to use, powerful built-in debugger, powerful built in help (MSDN) and fully expandable via add-ins. Besides, programming is hard enough without needing to have to learn how to program your editor. (ie. emacs LISP)
I firmly believe if VS was available for Linux tomorrow, you'd see a lot more software (and better software) written for Linux.
> it's time to go back to the real way to debug: print out or echo statements in vi
ummm.. that was a great way to debug in 1987 but in 2006 it's better to let the machine help you then waste precious time with print statements. Also vi is not considered an editor most people want to spend time learning. It's powerful but it's not practical anymore. Take a look at visual slick edit.
Man, it seems everyone in the world is trying to make alternatives to Microsoft's wares. First off, the above article does not explain how Java is going to somehow provide an alternative to .NET. Java has been around for a good 10 years and I don't how the involvment of Oracle is going to magically revive the language. .NET has been around for less than half that, and already is taking over Java. Why?
.NET, alternative they should be focusing on an easy to use and powerful development environment. The Java language is powerful enough. Now it's time for a useful IDE.
Very few have managed to do is what Microsoft has done for years. Make software and software development easy to use! Ease of use for the computer user and just as importantly, ease of use for the developer. As a developer who has worked with C/C++ C#, VB and Java for years, I've found all but the Java language to have had a well designed and programmer friendly development environment. Java has tons of IDEs out there and they all pretty much suck.
Programmers are people and people are inherently lazy. Lazy in the sence that people don't want to go out of the way if they don't have too. In programming terms, a good IDE can make all the difference. Microsoft doesn't always create the best technology but they make it friendly and thats why they sell. I've been waiting years for alternatives to Word, Access, Visual Studio, and Windows and I haven't seen it yet. In my opinion, if Sun and Oracle are going to try and make a
Your missing the whole point. If you look above I mentioned that most people don't know the difference between an Apple and a PC. This being the case do really think they'll know what dual-core is? Its all junk marketing like MMX or Hyper-Threading. It's all bullshit to sell a chip. Technology today is 90% marketing 10% usefullness. Do you need these technologies to check your e-mail, or browse a web site or type a paper in Word? HELL NO! You don't need to spend more than a few hundred in fact. Now, some people (like yourself perhaps) will opt for advanced machines with RAID controllers or 2GB of parity memory or 22" flat screens or multi-processing machines. But these people are the exception. A much smaller exception. Apple did "attempt" to appeal to the sub $1000 market with the Mac Mini. But it's a joke. It's slow and can't be expanded upon much and it still doesn't come with a monitor. It's $500 by itself for the base model.
You have to compare Apples with Apples! (No pun intended)
because the prices are simply to damn high. Lets face it, most consumers don't know the difference between a Mac and PC but they do know the difference between a $500 DELL and a $1400 Mac! It's not rocket science. If Apple's ulterior motive for moving to Intel's architecture is to eventually compete with Wintel systems, they are gonna have to do something about there pricing. As far as I see it, the main difference between the two systems will eventually come down to the operating system and charging someone a rediculas premium for "everyday hardware" so they can run your OS is pretty ballsy. Especially when Apple has no way of hiding the prices (like they used to) behind fancy and unneccessary hardware like SCSI.
This doesn't surprise me. Look at it this way, your giving away the source code. Yes, the code is changed often and is highly secure for systems like Linux and Darwin but your're also giving hackers a road map as how to proceed in compromising a system. Staying proprietary has it's merits. There's just no denying it. On the flip side, you also have to remember that Microsoft's system runs on a high percentage of the worlds computers. And most of those computers are run by non-technical people who run as root user (Administator in Windows' case). This gives hackers a much larger and less secure target so it would appear that Windows has all the security problems (viruses, spyware, etc). Linux, users on the hand are more knowledgable users than their Windows counterparts and so this, in and of itself, leads to less commpromises. Linux users "get" the concept of running multiple, non-root accounts which, as we all know, is a much more secure way of running a system.
In 2003, the most stolen car was the 1995 Saturn SL, now does this mean a 1995 Saturn SL is an insecure car technically? Or could this mean that it's in car thieves' financial interest to steal this car? It's a Tech Vs. Economics question. I think it's all about perception and what people want to believe. All I can say is I've run some very secure Windows systems and never had a problem. As for the mom and dad Windows users, perhaps the next version of Windows will run as a non-root by default and I bet we'll all see less Windows compromises.
I don't see Google creating a full blown OS with drivers and full hardware compatibility like that of Microsoft (at least not for years to come) but I can see them selling some kind of search system in the mean time, which would make sence since computer users spend most of the time using the Internet as opposed to just local applications. Almost like an OS that boots off the Internet. All you would need is some software driver that recognizes your NIC, grabs an IP, connects to the google applications site and lets you connect to their popular searching tools. Just a browser and TCP/IP stack. No viruses, spyware, etc. Like a kiosk. Could be useful for libraries, schools or even the home.
In my opinion, Linux needs to adopt a single desktop. Why the need for so many incompatible systems like KDE, gnome, Enlightenment, fvwm, etc? Each with their own libraries and configuration tools. I don't get it. No wonder simple windowing concepts like drag-and-drop and copy-and-paste are still so difficult to use in X. Pick one GUI. Pick one library. Then stick with it and make it better! Even Apple, which uses an open-source BSD unix at it's core, only recognizes one desktop. Sure, one could argue that there are many web servers, database servers, FTP servers and other overlapping applications in Linux to choose from, but I feel the GUI is the one component in an operating system that ties all the other software together. It's high time the "Tower of Babble" for desktop environments in open-source land be knocked down.
Linux and Windows are (I think) both easy to setup as a barebones OS. The question becomes one of finding software, installing the software and maintaing the software. In this arena, Windows is the clear winner. Windows (most of the time) makes installation of software easy, with it's integrated setup files consisting of all required library, configuration and help files compressed into a single setup program. Linux on the other hand requires the user herself to locate all the required libraries and the correct versions and thats if the software is in binary form. Things really get hairy in source form, since the correct C compiler version and C libraries are required as well in order to compile the program correctly or at least occording to the enclosed README. Moreover, if the makefile really gets fancy you could find yourself downloading and installing a bunch of different helper interepters just to compile a program. Yes, there are package management programs but what good is such a program when a library required by a program is no longer available? Since installing software is big part of system migration, Linux needs a different approach to installing software and I think this is where Microsoft has the upper hand.
However, once things are in place (installed) then Linux is no more difficult than Windows to maintain. In fact, Linux can be easier since it's configuration files are text based and not located in a global binary registry as in Windows which has been known to get corrupted. This is why Live CDs like Knoppix have become so popular, since everything comes installed for you.
BUT one must be familiar with the command line in order to use Linux effectively. GUIs like GNOME or KDE **WILL NOT REPLACE** knowledge of concepts like permissions, pipes, signals, environment variables and standard input/output. I think this is where less knowledgable administrators get frustrated with Linux since they attempt to treat it like just another version of Windows. Unix, Linux, BSD, whatever you call it, was designed for a different audience. The programming audience. Just look at at any Unix startup script and you'll realize that fact.
So is Windows easier to use, maintain and/or migrate to, than Linux? Not necessarily, but lest we forget Unix's (or in this case, Linux's) design was centered around the assumption that it's user will have some knowledge of programming. On the other hand, Windows NT and it's newer server brethren were born from concepts designed and implemented by "user friendly" graphical desktop operating systems. Sure X windows has some marvelous and highly configurable GUIs, but nowhere near the usability of the Windows OS and the market shows that.
There seems to be a new trend lately. It seems more and more that we, as a society have to listen to (and put up with) other people's noice and bad taste in music. Have you noticed this? I have. As each year passes I hear more boom-boom bass sounds coming from some kid's little Honda shit box pumping out rap music. More and more I'm forced to listen to people talking on cell phones in restaurants and movie theatures. Motorcycle riders taking off their mufflers so that when I'm sleeping at night my selfish asshole neighbor can live out his Harley hog fantasies at 3am. And if that isn't enough we now have to listen to music coming from people's cell phones when a call is being received. I believe there are certain people in society that just aren't getting the attention their egos deserve. Where did these "Creatures of Aural Contamination" come from? And why are the rest of us forced to have to put with their noise and lousy tastes in music? I say we need a device that attaches to your ass and plays a ring tone made entirely of fart sounds when a bowel movement is imminent. This way I'll know exactly when the guy sitting next to me at the restaurant needs to take a dump!
I'm glad to see this. It seems MySQL gets way too much attention these days in the open source community. Not that it is a junky database server or anything, but I've been using Postgres for 4 years now and the system simply amazes me with every new release. It's power, ease of setup & maintenence and incredible stability (as far as I see it) is simply unmatched in the "free" database world. I would take it any day over an MSSQL Server. It's nice to see a company like Sun decide to include it in it's system and support it.
But if you think about it. Sun should have learned over those 9 years and made their system more secure. If Microsoft created a more secure system in 2-3 years then maybe their design is better? Remember that .NET is desiged to run in MS environment only. Java is "supposed" to run everywhere. "compile once, run everyone" doesn't necessarily mean "compile once, run securely everywhere".
OK. I've got some ratings ideas... We could do it just like the movies (ie. Rated PG, R, PG-13)
How about...
Rated DFC - Doesn't F@#king Compile (not permitted in working environment)
Rated JARGSS - Just Another Retarted GUI Screen Scraper (The "real console program" is also required and all that is needed)
Rated TMHNTC - Too Many Helpers Needed To Compile (bash, yacc, perl, autoconf, python, etc)
Rated WORT - Waste of Router's Time (don't even bother clicking the download link)
Rated DS - Documentation Sucks (use only if you like reading uncommented and messy code)
Rated TMSD - Too Many Stupid Dependencies (requires 9,000 x.so files that you probably don't have)
Rated ROB - Requires O'Reilly Book (trip to Borders highly recommended)
Rated POD - Pillow On Desk (so you don't hurt your head when you slam it)
Rated SRFIPD - Small Readme File Is Program's Documentation (same as Rated DS)
Rated MAWLHTETOCF - Might As Well Learn How To Edit The Original Config Files (same as Rated JARGSS)
> The change is mostly a legal/tax thing to avoid the problems of pursuing revenue-generating avenues
> while remaining a non-profit. There will be no change to the development process and end-users won't notice much difference either
S U R E . . . . . . .
In the beginning, this little non-profit organization set out to destroy the evil Microsoft IE browser and yet again restore peace throughout browser land! GO MOZILLA GO!!
Of course now, once 10% browser usability was realized, the greed of man set in and statements like "end-users won't notice much difference" became more common place.
*** GOD BLESS CORPORATE AMERICA ***
> It might not wash your car, but you *could* set up a home security/surveillance system
And this can't be done with CE or tons of other embedded operating systems? Besides eCOS is open source and has been doing embedded for a long time. So what has Linux offered new here?
> Been here recently?
Yes and it's mostly semi-polished distros, that never seem to detect all of your hardware. If you're to run an apache server it's great. But not for mom and dad.
> This is one of the most ignorant comments I've seen for a long time.
No it's just a little common sence and a about 10 years experience with Linux. It's also not getting overly excitied about an OS simply because it's free. Sometimes free or open source is not the answer.
> Now add to that, the cost of Office, Visual Studio, Photoshop and about 200 other commercial applications for which Linux has dozens of alternatives that
> ship in that core OS, and you'll see why $129 vs. $5,000 or more makes much more sense.
> Stop comparing Apples to Porsches.
First off try writing a word document in Open Office or any other Linux office product and pass it to a someone using MS Word. There is very little compatibility. The rest of the world uses MS Office, so this is a major problem. I had Open Office and I unloaded it.
Second, nothing compares to Visual Studio. NOTHING!!! What KDevelop? Please!! I don't think you can even put the two in the same universe. You can't even compare MSDN to man pages. Again, they're not in the same universe! If you like ancient development tools like vi or emacs or gdb then they should be free. Who would pay for them? NOT ME!! I'll stick with Visual Studio and write my programs in days not months.
> Its an entire environment of productivity tools
I'VE YET TO SEE PRODUCTIVITY AND THE NAME OF ANY GNU PRODUCT IN THE SAME SENTENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As the old saying goes, "if it ain't broke don't fix it." Lets face it, Windows works fine. The days of Windows 9x kernel crashes are long gone. Sure there are bugs. All software has bugs. Sure it has secuirty holes. All systems do. In fact any system in use by more than 90% of the population will be exploited by some script kiddies or hackers. Thats just the way the cookie crumbles.
Lets, for the sake of argument, assume that tomorrow Linux takes over Windows on the desktop. So what will Linux do that Windows can't already do? Will it wash my car? Make a nice scrambled egg and bacon? Still has a web browser. Still has an email program. Still point and click. Someone will monopolize it at some point. If it's not Microsoft, it's Redhat or Xandros. What makes us all think that a company like Xandros or Suse or Redhat has our (the users) best interest at heart? Think this stuff is going to be free forever??? YEAH RIGHT!! Xandros is already charging over $100 for it's system. Same with Redhat and Suse. So where is the free folks? Only a matter of time before licensing fees are added. Think IBM invested tons of $$$ into the kernel cause they wanted to be nice? We don't live in Utopia! It's inevitable, someone or some company is going to make a S#$T Load Of Money.
Also, why is the open source community spending millions of hours duplicating an already successful system? Make something new! Linux is a great system. But why is a desktop so important? Perhaps the decision makers of Linux should focus on newer ways of doing things. Perhaps a desktop is not the way to go. I don't know about you but I got tired of icons. I'd like to be able to think about a file and have it open. Eventually (and perhaps not so far away in time) the desktop will not look anything like it does now. So why try to duplicate an already successful desktop system? So that a couple of geeks sitting in a Starbucks can having bragging rights? Apple already did the desktop thing on Unix and ya know what? It looks a helluva lot like Windows. Still has a browser, emailer and square shaped icons. Honestly, most people could care less about whether their system is using KDE, GNOME, Windows Explorer or Aqua. To me (and most people ) it's all the same. In my opinion, if Linux is to become more than just a platform to run Apache, MySQL and a couple of cell phones, I think Linux needs to innovate and not duplicate.
Relax, or you may pull a hemroid.
You didn't specify what your background in network operating systems are, so I am making the assumption you've never setup or used a server before.
/. not C:\)
In other words, if you're comfortable with Windows, buy a Windows server and use that. People in here (the Linux freaks especially) will scare you into using their system. (Remember this site is called
Don't setup a Linux or BSD server if you've never installed or used one before, unless of course you can afford some downtime reading lots of O'Reilly books. Patience and persistence is a virtue in Unix.
Although personally, I prefer FreeBSD myself, Unix (in any variant), takes time to master and can be tricky to install, use effectively and backup if you're not familiar with Unix's methodologies. One also musn't forget, Open source is just that. Open Source! It's basically, use at your own risk and I wouldn't recommend it to someone who has no concept of shell scripting or working extensively with command prompts. Although some of the Open Source apps (ie. Postgresql, Samba, Apache) are pretty damn good.
Windows has come a long way and if money is not an issue and you're not that comfortable with Unix to start with then why struggle learning a new system? If this is the case, I'd stick with a Windows server and master running a network before taking on a new operating system. You can always add a *nix server down the road.
Too many branches make the tree fall over.
"Linux has a slight advantage in that computer science students are learning it, but Microsoft has made life easier for non-techies, particularly with its improved patches."
This paragraph says it all.
First off, a system is only going to be as secure as the person who's using the system knows how to secure it. I've seen tons of Linux and BSD boxes with services running for no reason. Just check out Redhat's default installation and you'll see ports open all over the place that are not being used. At least that the way Redhat did things.
Secondly, Linux has 3 advantages over Windows.
1. The obvious. Linux should be more secure because it's a much simpler system than Windows! I don't think anyone can deny that. Wouldn't make sence if Linux was less secure than Windows, especially since lots of it's functionality was taken from more time proven Unix systems.
2. The people who use Linux are more likely to be experienced computers users than their Windows counterparts. Linux doesn't have to appeal to a bunch of mouse clickers who expect things to work all the time. Us geeks are willing to bend over backwards to make things work.
3. Windows operates over 90% of the world's computers, so hackers and virus writers have a much bigger target. Besides, it wouldn't make much sense for anyone to write viagra adware for Linux when most of it's users aren't even getting laid!