Is anyone else hugely disappointed that the shift is just from one corporate OS to another?
These statistics are kind of irrelevant. They really only represent the USA, due to the websites monitored are targeted to and used mostly by American audiences.
Having helped run some large web portals in Europe (information is at least two years out of date now), in the website statistics we found that Linux users toppled OS X by at least two fold.
I predict due to user bug requests, version 1.2 will include a newline after the text is printed; and version 1.3 will add a command line switch to provide backwards compatibility with version 1.1.
I believe version 2 will be a complete rewrite for multi language support.
I could in theory, sell a highly scalable multi user chat system that can be deployed in corporations, community sites etc. Capable of handling 50000 concurrent users on a single machine with meshed networking technologies for running local chat server nodes around the world with user authentication over ldap, ASCII SQL (includes support for all the major SQL servers). Additionally, the chat protocol would offer a lot of features from high compression, secure, speedy webbased interfaces among other nifty ideas.
Customize software for businesses that need something slightly specialized.
Right, well... Nickname, chatroom database hookups I guess? Although I doubt most tech people would even have a problem integrating systems together since the connectors for such things already exist.
Provide on demand bug fix support for a crucial piece of software.
Yeah... I doubt it.
Provide integration expertise.
Generally speaking, in all the Linux, Windows related jobs I've had. We never called in a integration person unless the software was so mindbogglingly bad, and we relied upon for our core business to function while there was no alternatives.
I'm sure there are even more that I haven't thought of yet. The market spawns some incredible creativity.
So far, what you've mentioned doesn't seem that incredible. I think the commercial prospect of selling boxes will get more money.
The catch however, is that the only programmers who are going to make money are the good ones.
Marketing and having a monopoly over something tends to play a big role.
I am currently making quite a decent living writing nothing but open source software.
I don't have a problem making for example the above project come with the sourcecode mind you.
Ohhh thats right , poor developers cannot afford a compiler or IDE or documentation, which BTW companies like MS give away for free on college campuses. Whats that?
It's known that they give it away for free. But! Most of the time it's just at a reduced price. They give stuff like Visual C++ express away for free (enforcing.net usage - can't compile for anything else in express) for all.
They gave it away only to lock those poor innocent minds in their evil development chain of "commercial innovation-stifling products" ? Thats such a load of crap...
You have to admit, it is a excellent strategy and FOSS does try to do the same thing, by giving it away to everyone.
Besides, what is this revolutionary "innovation" thats suddenly going to take place because you can read the code for the kernel? The linux kernel is mostly rehashing decades old OS concepts..
Linux kernel appears to be implementing a lot of new technology actually. I don't really see them 'rehashing decades old OS concepts' as much as just ensuring backwards compatibility with a system that has shown to work quite well in the past.
Windows, however is still playing catch up in this regard. When you consider the fact the desktop distribution only got proper multiuser access controls in 2001 (Windows XP), 2007 (Vista) they employ a sudo-like interface for executing actions however still lack in providing reasonable details to the user, still lacking in very simple technologies such as chroot devised over a decade that properly contain services in sandboxes etc.
That said, Windows Seven is apparently finally catching up with X11 with it's rdesktop protocol, virtualization technologies - But there is still so much it doesn't have on FOSS operating systems and is backwards in many regards.
Two years ago slashdot was filled with comments about how crappy XP was.
Actually, I remember people complaining more about the fact that it's Windows 2000 with a fisherprice theme and also loads of posts of how activation sucks. Although this was about six years ago.
As for two years ago... There were loads of complaints about Windows Genuine Advantage, forced Windows Updates etc.
They all seem to be still legitimate issues to me.
I run Win2k. Half the footprint of XP and I'm out... um... the latest Media Player?
And IE7, latest Microsoft Office, latest DX9 and security updates (a few are still made for win2k, but only ones that large companies are pushing Microsoft to) etc.
The nicer you make the object model, the worse it will match up with the hardware model, and the slower it will perform.
I didn't say nicer, I said more efficient. I actually spent quite few years of my life working on a AmigaOS clone, messing with some very low level and high level API abstraction.
I also really cannot be fucked responding to the usual loud butthurt whining about Vistas performance / UI / whatever the fuck. It works fine, can look like XP, on non-crap hardware. Cry some more.
I've not cried. I've merely disagreed with you. I don't see the benefits, period. You can go on and on spewing all your non-sense, but the point is still: I don't see the benefits. My personal experience shows no amazing advantages.
I am not impressed with what Microsoft have been promoting at all.
People don't see the difference.
There are plenty of people "crying" about it - as you put it. Which is it? Are they crying (or is it now 'whining' as you put it, later on in the post) or aren't they?
Your personal experiences don't mean shit, frankly, and neither do the whinings of people online
I'm not the one whining.
Back to your initial post: I still disagree and I am still someone who went out of his way to "code a tech demo comprised of nothing but DX10 specific functions" and reimplemented the code in DX9 too. Guess what? I was "able see the difference" and it wasn't the rubbish you came up with. I had lower performance from DX10 and Vista, period.
I guess you failed CS 101. A more sophisticated API is always going to be slower than "poke xxx".
A API could also be implemented more efficiently than it's predecessor, granting better performance.
Graphics hardware is moving from being a specialised device which can handle basic primitive drawing to a full fledged massive vector processor. Doing this makes it less efficient at the original task.
I'm really not interested in the excuses. As a developer, I find it slower. I don't see these great improvements at all that you initially stated.
Your time might be worthless, but in the real world developer time costs money - and at the rate of hardware improvement its pretty clear that MS and its customers are happy to take a few % performance hit to have a more featured/safe/simpler/etc API.
Really? Because Vista certainly is not very popular with average Joe. Many people really do not like Vista's new interface at all and have been extremely vocal about it. This from average Joe users to techies. So, I'm not willing to accept this unanimous perception you have that everyone thinks this way.
Additionally, people have made a large stink about the performance hit experienced with Vista on top of it.
Only counterstrike tards care about getting 100fps vs 110fps.
Well, what I saw was more than a mere 10fps difference. You're making assumptions.
TBH I don't get where all this whinging is coming from. I have a 9600GT, its one of the cheapest cards you can get, it runs everything fine under vista? Why the butthurt?
Where did I say I couldn't run the stuff under Vista? I said it was slower and I literally, do not see the improvements for any of my uses.
You implied people like me would see the differences.
Possibly because the Linux Foundation has a history of running press releases saying 'Linux can now do something that *BSD could do ages ago!' only without mentioning the fact that Linux is late to the party, and in some cases not mentioning the fact that the code that they are so proud of was ported to Linux from one of the BSDs.
Is BSD even relevant anymore? - Serious question.
Additionally, there has been IPv6 support in Linux for a very long time already, what was being said was major distributions showing compliance to a certain specification put forward by the DoD.
I'm using IPv6 just fine for several years now. Oh, and NetBSD had IPv6 since 1999 or so.
Just get involved, everyone can get IPv6 right now
I could, but why would I want to?
I don't want the potential vulnerabilities that keep cropping up for IPv6 on my servers. Nor the potential abuse from the unlimited allocation of IP addresses that people can use to evade bans on my services. Any ISP providing IPv6 only has a ipv4 NAT to fallback on for IPv4 usage.
None of my machines run IPv6, to me it's a security risk. None of the "big" operating systems have had a secure IPv6 stack. BSD, Darwin, Windows, VxWorks, and Linux have all had DoS conditions, and one of those bugs had a code execution PoC floating around.
Get someone to code a tech demo comprised of nothing but DX10 specific functions (the large texture sizes etc.) and you'll be able see the difference.
I have, I didn't see a FPS increase at all doing things from spinning cubes to cloud formations.
Infact, running a clean windows xp, windows vista install on the same hardware with my various tests I found:
1) Better FPS under Windows XP with DX9. 2) FPS not showing any difference with Vista's dx9->dx10 compared to the demo that was written using dx10 functions only. 3) DX10 demo was slower than DX9 demo running under Windows XP.
Same logic used, same features used from both.
I also did not perceive any better quality from DX10.
If it can't do simple things better, faster. How is it going to handle the more complex stuff better?
Oh wait... thats because its a _completely retarded idea_. Adding DX10 to XP would mean backporting a bunch of kernel mods, the new driver model, etc - which while "possible" would certainly be a hell of a lot of work.
It is entirely possible to get the DX10 API working on top of DX9 or OpenGL.
I'm not talking about getting the hardware features working of DX10 cards, but the API it self, it was entirely possible for Microsoft to do and some people have even gone that far to try to implement it for Windows XP.
You do realize that Apple has been about control from the beginning right? The Microsoft master plan is total domination over everything computer related.
steamclient_linux.so is a file included with the Linux Steam client, the one that only offers and downloads the dedicated server files. It's accidently inclusion, but it doesn't mean anything.
Slashdot Mirror
These statistics are kind of irrelevant. They really only represent the USA, due to the websites monitored are targeted to and used mostly by American audiences.
Having helped run some large web portals in Europe (information is at least two years out of date now), in the website statistics we found that Linux users toppled OS X by at least two fold.
The year of Linux was 1993, long live Slackware!
I believe version 2 will be a complete rewrite for multi language support.
This is version 1.1. The grammatically correct version.
I could in theory, sell a highly scalable multi user chat system that can be deployed in corporations, community sites etc. Capable of handling 50000 concurrent users on a single machine with meshed networking technologies for running local chat server nodes around the world with user authentication over ldap, ASCII SQL (includes support for all the major SQL servers). Additionally, the chat protocol would offer a lot of features from high compression, secure, speedy webbased interfaces among other nifty ideas.
Right, well... Nickname, chatroom database hookups I guess? Although I doubt most tech people would even have a problem integrating systems together since the connectors for such things already exist.
Yeah... I doubt it.
Generally speaking, in all the Linux, Windows related jobs I've had. We never called in a integration person unless the software was so mindbogglingly bad, and we relied upon for our core business to function while there was no alternatives.
So far, what you've mentioned doesn't seem that incredible. I think the commercial prospect of selling boxes will get more money.
Marketing and having a monopoly over something tends to play a big role.
I don't have a problem making for example the above project come with the sourcecode mind you.
It's known that they give it away for free. But! Most of the time it's just at a reduced price. They give stuff like Visual C++ express away for free (enforcing .net usage - can't compile for anything else in express) for all.
You have to admit, it is a excellent strategy and FOSS does try to do the same thing, by giving it away to everyone.
Linux kernel appears to be implementing a lot of new technology actually. I don't really see them 'rehashing decades old OS concepts' as much as just ensuring backwards compatibility with a system that has shown to work quite well in the past.
Windows, however is still playing catch up in this regard. When you consider the fact the desktop distribution only got proper multiuser access controls in 2001 (Windows XP), 2007 (Vista) they employ a sudo-like interface for executing actions however still lack in providing reasonable details to the user, still lacking in very simple technologies such as chroot devised over a decade that properly contain services in sandboxes etc.
That said, Windows Seven is apparently finally catching up with X11 with it's rdesktop protocol, virtualization technologies - But there is still so much it doesn't have on FOSS operating systems and is backwards in many regards.
But nobody even uses Darwin. Loads of people use Linux, the BSDs and even their commercial counterparts.
But Darwin? .. Who uses it?
I don't really see Apple as the shining example here.
Yeah, Darwin is so featureless, it could never compete with another operating system, nevermind OS X.
I did that once. I kept forgetting the USB key and/or losing as much as my house keys and mobile phone at home (which is a lot).
But then I end up blocking a lot of legitimate users who expect the service to work. It's like blocking all of comcast, AOL etc.
I don't think you've ever experienced kiddies on IRC before.
Actually, I remember people complaining more about the fact that it's Windows 2000 with a fisherprice theme and also loads of posts of how activation sucks. Although this was about six years ago.
As for two years ago... There were loads of complaints about Windows Genuine Advantage, forced Windows Updates etc.
They all seem to be still legitimate issues to me.
And IE7, latest Microsoft Office, latest DX9 and security updates (a few are still made for win2k, but only ones that large companies are pushing Microsoft to) etc.
I didn't say nicer, I said more efficient. I actually spent quite few years of my life working on a AmigaOS clone, messing with some very low level and high level API abstraction.
I've not cried. I've merely disagreed with you. I don't see the benefits, period. You can go on and on spewing all your non-sense, but the point is still: I don't see the benefits. My personal experience shows no amazing advantages.
I am not impressed with what Microsoft have been promoting at all.
There are plenty of people "crying" about it - as you put it. Which is it? Are they crying (or is it now 'whining' as you put it, later on in the post) or aren't they?
I'm not the one whining.
Back to your initial post: I still disagree and I am still someone who went out of his way to "code a tech demo comprised of nothing but DX10 specific functions" and reimplemented the code in DX9 too. Guess what? I was "able see the difference" and it wasn't the rubbish you came up with. I had lower performance from DX10 and Vista, period.
A API could also be implemented more efficiently than it's predecessor, granting better performance.
I'm really not interested in the excuses. As a developer, I find it slower. I don't see these great improvements at all that you initially stated.
Really? Because Vista certainly is not very popular with average Joe. Many people really do not like Vista's new interface at all and have been extremely vocal about it. This from average Joe users to techies. So, I'm not willing to accept this unanimous perception you have that everyone thinks this way.
Additionally, people have made a large stink about the performance hit experienced with Vista on top of it.
Well, what I saw was more than a mere 10fps difference. You're making assumptions.
Where did I say I couldn't run the stuff under Vista? I said it was slower and I literally, do not see the improvements for any of my uses.
You implied people like me would see the differences.
Is BSD even relevant anymore? - Serious question.
Additionally, there has been IPv6 support in Linux for a very long time already, what was being said was major distributions showing compliance to a certain specification put forward by the DoD.
I could, but why would I want to?
I don't want the potential vulnerabilities that keep cropping up for IPv6 on my servers. Nor the potential abuse from the unlimited allocation of IP addresses that people can use to evade bans on my services. Any ISP providing IPv6 only has a ipv4 NAT to fallback on for IPv4 usage.
Nice to see someone who follows my own logic.
6.4 years from now.
Doesn't VLC use software rendering for everything?
I have, I didn't see a FPS increase at all doing things from spinning cubes to cloud formations.
Infact, running a clean windows xp, windows vista install on the same hardware with my various tests I found:
1) Better FPS under Windows XP with DX9.
2) FPS not showing any difference with Vista's dx9->dx10 compared to the demo that was written using dx10 functions only.
3) DX10 demo was slower than DX9 demo running under Windows XP.
Same logic used, same features used from both.
I also did not perceive any better quality from DX10.
If it can't do simple things better, faster. How is it going to handle the more complex stuff better?
It is entirely possible to get the DX10 API working on top of DX9 or OpenGL.
I'm not talking about getting the hardware features working of DX10 cards, but the API it self, it was entirely possible for Microsoft to do and some people have even gone that far to try to implement it for Windows XP.
There, fixed it for you.
Direct X being opensource wouldn't of done anything. It would be very difficult to adapt DX windows code to x11, Linux stuff.
The DX APIs calls are fully documented for everyone though, and Wine has made significant progress in reimplementing the majority of DX.
In two words:
Not yet.
They ported the kernel, not X.
Qt seems to be outdoing Microsoft and Apple's offerings in the UI department actually.
Your phone wouldn't be usable at all with the current Linux offering at the moment anyway. I wouldn't expect anyone to want you to switch 'yet'.
steamclient_linux.so is a file included with the Linux Steam client, the one that only offers and downloads the dedicated server files. It's accidently inclusion, but it doesn't mean anything.