Fujitsu runs Solaris 9 and 10.
I've used them both on Primepower servers.
As a matter of fact, in Solaris 10, There was no "Fujitsu" distribution... it was just Solaris.
Also, the new APL Line (Replacing the Sun 15-25K line) is a joint venture between Sun and Fujitsu and uses the best parts of both of their high end platforms and is sold by BOTH companies.
Well, I've been using Fedora 5 for a couple of weeks now myself, and this is what I have to say about it:
I've found that for the most part I hate all X related desktops, and I've tried a few... enlightenment, gnome, kde, afterstep... I hate them all.
The gnome 2.14 with fedora 5 is fabulous... It's got enough eye-candy to make it pleasant, with a minimal feel that is just usable.
The memory footprint of the standard fedora 5 seems to be smaller than fedora 4, and things seem snappier.
The Hardware compatibility seems to be better... My thumb drive used to show up as 2 different mount points even though it only had one partition, where in fedora 5, it does not.
Security is better... thumb drives and cds do not automount if you're logged in as root at the console, but if you're a normal user, then they mount perfectly.
If you use fedora 5 and have experience with fedora 4, you will definitely be glad you moved up.
I've used them all... I reformat my computer and put a new OS on it constantly... Right now, Fedora 5 is going to stay... at least for the time being... it hasn't upset me too much yet, and that's better than most linux distros.
I really thought Batman Forever was pretty good.
I should probably say something more, but really, I thought the film was pretty decent on it's own right.
Security is extremely important, and it's absolutely necessary, and I would say we all agree that every "reasonable effort" should be taken to make applications, operating systems, and IT infrastructures as secure as possible.
The flip side to that is usability... or rather the service being provided.
We can not lose functionality for security... If you want ultimate security, let's just turn off networks and go back to hard wires, or no wires at all. (Of course we know that will not happen)
At what point does usability and function lose over security or vice versa?
I think that there's a middle ground of course, but where is it?
I worked for AT&T's Bell Labs at that time, and we actually did buy the web browsers... Why you ask?
For support... The OpenSource community is great and I use it regularly, but at "that" time... Opensource wasn't the biggest movement going, and if stuff was broken, you needed to be able to fix it QUICK.
So what do you do? You pay for it... That model is still in use today actually, and it works well.
You know, I've used lots of versions of Linux in my day... Versions of Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE... I really can't say any one is better than the other.
It really comes down to what you've played with and are used to. Debian has apt-get, and with an additional package so can pretty much any of the others.
If you don't want to pay for support, then Red Hat may be the best for you because more people use the "Fedora Core" in the US than any other version I'd guess, but SuSE has a big following as well... so that can be considered a toss up.
I think the best bet is for you to mess with more than one and pick the one that you like the best.
One issue is that with the current CPU designs in the x86 arena, you can't get much more out of clock speeds.
I read somewhere, and I really don't remember where, (It may have been a presentation somewhere by a CPU vendor) that the difference in perfromance of a 2.6Ghz P4 and a 3.2 Ghz P4 in real world is actually like 1 percent.
There comes a point where the clocking can't equate to a performance increase with enough punch for it to even matter.
I think it goes along with the Mhz or now Ghz Myth we know to be true.
Clock Speed does not equate to performance in all instances.
That's why most of the other CPU vendors out there are looking into dual core designs.
Now, I agree that most code that person uses on the desktop is not there, and most likely won't be there for a bit, but it will have to come eventually as the requirements of users change.
If Oracle or whoever and code their databases for SMP, then why can't OS vendors or game manufacturers?
I don't really think they are going to have much choice in the matter unless some company can come up with a way to actually get Ghz to scale in a linear fashion, which at this point in time, they have not.
Well, I don't know if that bubble is really bursting.
Here's why I say that... Keep in mind that I'm not a huge fan of all microsoft's products, but do realize when they do something "good".
I agree that there have been tons of viruses that utilize MS exchange. However, as far as calendaring and email is concerned, business environments would be hard pressed to find a solution that is set up as easy as the MS exchange one. Exchange is an easy to use product and isn't all that bad (minus some of the security issues).
The small shops won't have the expertise to utilize linux, as the desktop environment is still not solidified to the point of EVERYTHING always working together at least with some semblance ease. If something doesn't work natively in windows, chances are, the manufacturer of a product has made a windows driver that will work with it.
The larger environments won't be willing to risk an infrastructure change of that size.
Large shops have tools in place to monitor software and files on users computers as well as be able to upgrade the software on those computers through network tools and other items.
Yes, Linux has these tools, but your Windows Administrator in a certain environment doesn't have the time to learn "yumm" (Is it 2 M's or one) when he's dealing with the issues he already has to deal with. There is, unfortunately a learning curve associated with the migration away from Windows.
I work in what I would consider a relatively decent sized environment and I have responsible for some relatively big servers and services, but even I can't run Linux on my laptop. I've done it, and it works fine (for me, but I've used Linux for awhile) BUT, I am technically not responsible for the on-going support and service of my laptop and as such, the guys that are responsible, refuse to let me run linux on my machine because they don't have the experience with supporting it.
If they let me do it, then they have to let everyone do it, and that can end up being a support nightmare for them. Will they probably have less issues, sure... technically, as the software issues will lessen.
The question is... Will they make up for in user problems? Someone not being able to mount that floppy in linux, or that CD-ROM not mounting correctly or whatever... whether it's really Linux's fault or not.
It's just a stretch to think that people will leave MS because they cost money. Businesses expect them to cost money and they are willing to pay for what they consider "piece of mind".
I would have thought Dual core chips would have already been available by Intel already.
People complain a lot about Sun Microsystems, but the Dual Core in Sun's SPARC IV has been out since last April or May I believe.
Doesn't AMD already have dual core cpu's shipping as well? IBM is working on a dual core G5 as well aren't they?
Heck, is this even news?
Shouldn't we be talking about 4 core cpus that are already working in development labs around the world. Sun and IBM both have those... I would bet money that AMD and Intel both have them running as well, and if they don't they better get moving!
Re:Sounds like a pretty good idea to me...
on
Microsoft in 2008
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
See, the thing is, everyone's idea of "working" is different.
Yes, we almost all use a web browser, and email application, but we don't all use a lot of the other things that constitute work.
Some people need a real office suite of applications, spreadsheets, document creation, work flow, and presenter tools. Others need good video or photo editing... Some even need an OS to play games (I know a guy who's a paid video game tester).
For each of us, "it working ok" is different, and so what's underneath really does count.
There's a reason why certain OS's seem to be more suited to certain things, and those reasons influence what people think of the OS.
Besides, why is "ok" good enough. We don't expect our cars to run "ok" (especially if they're just a year old or so) we expect them to run very well, or extremely well, or something along those lines.
I also think that users are changing. In 1996, one out of every 5 to 10 users barely knew where the CD-ROM tray was, but now, users are more savvy, and every minute someone is born who is 3 or 4 years will be on their computer for the first time.
Things are changing, and the majority of users, while not being "techies", are not completely computer moronic either.
Well, I will admit that you can't use it with everything, but hey, Apple's iTunes can be used on the majority of hardware and the majority of OS' (ie. Windows)
Now, you may not like the idea that to listen to a song downloaded with iTunes in a portable format, that you have to use an iPod... Oh wait, you don't. You can burn it to a CD and play it pretty much anywhere.
I downloaded tons of iTunes songs long before I owned an iPod... Mostly because I have a CD player in every car, and 3 floating around the house in different places.
You can't get much more "standard" or vendor agnostic than that.
It seems to me that anytime is a good time to switch.
I know people worry about any computer getting too old too soon, but I've got to admit, I just played with a 1.42Ghz G4 and it's quite fast. I would think it would last me at a minimum of 3-4 years.
After that, of course the G6 might be out, and I might be ready to finally buy a G5!
Don't worry about getting a G4... They are plenty fast. If you go for an iMac or PowerMac in the G5 realm, you get even more bang.
Just do what I did if you have fears, find the nearest apple retailer and just sit in front of their computer for an hour or so.
That's what I did, I shut it down, restarted it, opened lots of programs at once and just pretty much put it through the paces.
Try one out and see how it works for you... That's the best test there is.
I agree that it looks fishy, however they say that theirs is based on "real world", and the other is based on an algorithm and real world... Who knows?
Let's not forget the whole premise of Linux and "Open-Source" is "free".
A lot of people, especially the software vendors that we want software from, are not in the business of "free".
It's nice to have the idea of free software, but as a viable business model, it just doesn't work.
Sure, I know some people will run linux and still buy software, but how many?
I'd be willing to wager that "most" linux users downloaded the software from a website, and did not buy it... As a matter of fact, I've only bought one copy of linux in the past 9 years and that was redhat 6.2 many moons ago.
Still, I would love to see it happen. Office 2005 for linux would be excellent..
I finally found a website, that while somewhat "mac-centric", does appear to be pretty fair and even when relating to CPU speeds across multiple platforms.
Check here:
Perhaps this will give you some sort of indication of where exactly it fits on the scale of performance compared to your standard x86 cpus.
Since either way it's faster than the P3 I currently have, I'll probably get one. I do like it's style, and I liked the Xserve G5 I demo'ed for work... Maybe I too can become a Mac Zeolot!
Slashdot Mirror
Fujitsu runs Solaris 9 and 10. I've used them both on Primepower servers. As a matter of fact, in Solaris 10, There was no "Fujitsu" distribution... it was just Solaris. Also, the new APL Line (Replacing the Sun 15-25K line) is a joint venture between Sun and Fujitsu and uses the best parts of both of their high end platforms and is sold by BOTH companies.
Hasn't hurt Linux lately has it? Everyone looks at that kernel and it seems to do ok in the security department.
Well, I've been using Fedora 5 for a couple of weeks now myself, and this is what I have to say about it:
I've found that for the most part I hate all X related desktops, and I've tried a few... enlightenment, gnome, kde, afterstep... I hate them all.
The gnome 2.14 with fedora 5 is fabulous... It's got enough eye-candy to make it pleasant, with a minimal feel that is just usable.
The memory footprint of the standard fedora 5 seems to be smaller than fedora 4, and things seem snappier.
The Hardware compatibility seems to be better... My thumb drive used to show up as 2 different mount points even though it only had one partition, where in fedora 5, it does not.
Security is better... thumb drives and cds do not automount if you're logged in as root at the console, but if you're a normal user, then they mount perfectly.
If you use fedora 5 and have experience with fedora 4, you will definitely be glad you moved up.
I've used them all... I reformat my computer and put a new OS on it constantly... Right now, Fedora 5 is going to stay... at least for the time being... it hasn't upset me too much yet, and that's better than most linux distros.
It doesn't really matter, but I can say it won't be Sparc linux...
The V20z is an AMD Opteron server.
It will either run Solaris x86 or Linux (the non-sparc version).
I had no idea... I know the newest HMC that was installed here is running OS/2 and it was only installed about a month ago.
Of course, our MVS folks could have "requested" that... Ya' never know.
What will happen to some mainframes and tape libraries?
OS/2 is still the predominant OS for managing MVS systems (even the new Z series) as well as tape libraries.
Will they be migrating all current environments into Linux as part of this? Or will they just leave those alone?
I wonder...
I believe that intro was only on the Live After Death Live CD... not the Powerslave studio album.
Still a great tune either way.
I really thought Batman Forever was pretty good. I should probably say something more, but really, I thought the film was pretty decent on it's own right.
Do they really lack understanding of security?
I'm really of two minds on this issue.
First, we have security...
Security is extremely important, and it's absolutely necessary, and I would say we all agree that every "reasonable effort" should be taken to make applications, operating systems, and IT infrastructures as secure as possible.
The flip side to that is usability... or rather the service being provided.
We can not lose functionality for security... If you want ultimate security, let's just turn off networks and go back to hard wires, or no wires at all. (Of course we know that will not happen)
At what point does usability and function lose over security or vice versa?
I think that there's a middle ground of course, but where is it?
I'm undecided myself.
Not exactly.
I worked for AT&T's Bell Labs at that time, and we actually did buy the web browsers... Why you ask?
For support... The OpenSource community is great and I use it regularly, but at "that" time... Opensource wasn't the biggest movement going, and if stuff was broken, you needed to be able to fix it QUICK.
So what do you do? You pay for it... That model is still in use today actually, and it works well.
Let's not forget Oracle is up there as well... Why would Oracle care?
Oh wait... maybe people are using MySQL on linux instead of Oracle to get the job done... Who'd have thought!
Actually, HP was trying to put a lot of Tru64 code into HP-UX.
Last I heard, that wasn't going to well for them.
I carry around this mini mouse for my laptop... It's so small it really takes no space, plus, it's optical, so it works correctly on any surface.
t _code=389395&search_type=search&search_words=mouse &prodtemp=t1&cm_re=Result*R1C1*T
http://www.brookstone.com/shop/product.asp?produc
You know, I've used lots of versions of Linux in my day... Versions of Debian, Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE... I really can't say any one is better than the other.
It really comes down to what you've played with and are used to. Debian has apt-get, and with an additional package so can pretty much any of the others.
If you don't want to pay for support, then Red Hat may be the best for you because more people use the "Fedora Core" in the US than any other version I'd guess, but SuSE has a big following as well... so that can be considered a toss up.
I think the best bet is for you to mess with more than one and pick the one that you like the best.
It's all a personal preference thing.
Actually, I believe Solaris 8 included the "Solaris Software Companion".
It was lots of open source stuff... including Gnome and KDE, long before the Java Desktop System.
Sun Freeware was just the latest and greatest... plus a few other things that may not have been included on the Solaris CD.
One issue is that with the current CPU designs in the x86 arena, you can't get much more out of clock speeds.
I read somewhere, and I really don't remember where, (It may have been a presentation somewhere by a CPU vendor) that the difference in perfromance of a 2.6Ghz P4 and a 3.2 Ghz P4 in real world is actually like 1 percent.
There comes a point where the clocking can't equate to a performance increase with enough punch for it to even matter.
I think it goes along with the Mhz or now Ghz Myth we know to be true.
Clock Speed does not equate to performance in all instances.
That's why most of the other CPU vendors out there are looking into dual core designs.
Now, I agree that most code that person uses on the desktop is not there, and most likely won't be there for a bit, but it will have to come eventually as the requirements of users change.
If Oracle or whoever and code their databases for SMP, then why can't OS vendors or game manufacturers?
I don't really think they are going to have much choice in the matter unless some company can come up with a way to actually get Ghz to scale in a linear fashion, which at this point in time, they have not.
Well, I don't know if that bubble is really bursting.
Here's why I say that... Keep in mind that I'm not a huge fan of all microsoft's products, but do realize when they do something "good".
I agree that there have been tons of viruses that utilize MS exchange. However, as far as calendaring and email is concerned, business environments would be hard pressed to find a solution that is set up as easy as the MS exchange one. Exchange is an easy to use product and isn't all that bad (minus some of the security issues).
The small shops won't have the expertise to utilize linux, as the desktop environment is still not solidified to the point of EVERYTHING always working together at least with some semblance ease. If something doesn't work natively in windows, chances are, the manufacturer of a product has made a windows driver that will work with it.
The larger environments won't be willing to risk an infrastructure change of that size.
Large shops have tools in place to monitor software and files on users computers as well as be able to upgrade the software on those computers through network tools and other items.
Yes, Linux has these tools, but your Windows Administrator in a certain environment doesn't have the time to learn "yumm" (Is it 2 M's or one) when he's dealing with the issues he already has to deal with. There is, unfortunately a learning curve associated with the migration away from Windows.
I work in what I would consider a relatively decent sized environment and I have responsible for some relatively big servers and services, but even I can't run Linux on my laptop. I've done it, and it works fine (for me, but I've used Linux for awhile) BUT, I am technically not responsible for the on-going support and service of my laptop and as such, the guys that are responsible, refuse to let me run linux on my machine because they don't have the experience with supporting it.
If they let me do it, then they have to let everyone do it, and that can end up being a support nightmare for them. Will they probably have less issues, sure... technically, as the software issues will lessen.
The question is... Will they make up for in user problems? Someone not being able to mount that floppy in linux, or that CD-ROM not mounting correctly or whatever... whether it's really Linux's fault or not.
It's just a stretch to think that people will leave MS because they cost money. Businesses expect them to cost money and they are willing to pay for what they consider "piece of mind".
I would have thought Dual core chips would have already been available by Intel already.
People complain a lot about Sun Microsystems, but the Dual Core in Sun's SPARC IV has been out since last April or May I believe.
Doesn't AMD already have dual core cpu's shipping as well? IBM is working on a dual core G5 as well aren't they?
Heck, is this even news?
Shouldn't we be talking about 4 core cpus that are already working in development labs around the world. Sun and IBM both have those... I would bet money that AMD and Intel both have them running as well, and if they don't they better get moving!
WinX it's not, but Linux is pretty much already there.t op_original.png
http://www.xandros.com/images/screenshots/v3/desk
See, the thing is, everyone's idea of "working" is different.
Yes, we almost all use a web browser, and email application, but we don't all use a lot of the other things that constitute work.
Some people need a real office suite of applications, spreadsheets, document creation, work flow, and presenter tools. Others need good video or photo editing... Some even need an OS to play games (I know a guy who's a paid video game tester).
For each of us, "it working ok" is different, and so what's underneath really does count.
There's a reason why certain OS's seem to be more suited to certain things, and those reasons influence what people think of the OS.
Besides, why is "ok" good enough. We don't expect our cars to run "ok" (especially if they're just a year old or so) we expect them to run very well, or extremely well, or something along those lines.
I also think that users are changing. In 1996, one out of every 5 to 10 users barely knew where the CD-ROM tray was, but now, users are more savvy, and every minute someone is born who is 3 or 4 years will be on their computer for the first time.
Things are changing, and the majority of users, while not being "techies", are not completely computer moronic either.
Well, I will admit that you can't use it with everything, but hey, Apple's iTunes can be used on the majority of hardware and the majority of OS' (ie. Windows)
Now, you may not like the idea that to listen to a song downloaded with iTunes in a portable format, that you have to use an iPod... Oh wait, you don't. You can burn it to a CD and play it pretty much anywhere.
I downloaded tons of iTunes songs long before I owned an iPod... Mostly because I have a CD player in every car, and 3 floating around the house in different places.
You can't get much more "standard" or vendor agnostic than that.
Don't hate... Learn to appreciate.
It seems to me that anytime is a good time to switch.
I know people worry about any computer getting too old too soon, but I've got to admit, I just played with a 1.42Ghz G4 and it's quite fast. I would think it would last me at a minimum of 3-4 years.
After that, of course the G6 might be out, and I might be ready to finally buy a G5!
Don't worry about getting a G4... They are plenty fast. If you go for an iMac or PowerMac in the G5 realm, you get even more bang.
Just do what I did if you have fears, find the nearest apple retailer and just sit in front of their computer for an hour or so.
That's what I did, I shut it down, restarted it, opened lots of programs at once and just pretty much put it through the paces.
Try one out and see how it works for you... That's the best test there is.
I agree that it looks fishy, however they say that theirs is based on "real world", and the other is based on an algorithm and real world... Who knows?
Let's not forget the whole premise of Linux and "Open-Source" is "free".
A lot of people, especially the software vendors that we want software from, are not in the business of "free". It's nice to have the idea of free software, but as a viable business model, it just doesn't work.
Sure, I know some people will run linux and still buy software, but how many?
I'd be willing to wager that "most" linux users downloaded the software from a website, and did not buy it... As a matter of fact, I've only bought one copy of linux in the past 9 years and that was redhat 6.2 many moons ago.
Still, I would love to see it happen. Office 2005 for linux would be excellent..
I have asked the same question numerous times...
I finally found a website, that while somewhat "mac-centric", does appear to be pretty fair and even when relating to CPU speeds across multiple platforms. Check here:
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html
Another site shows them like this:
http://www.michaelscomputers.com/cpuscores.htm
Perhaps this will give you some sort of indication of where exactly it fits on the scale of performance compared to your standard x86 cpus.
Since either way it's faster than the P3 I currently have, I'll probably get one.
I do like it's style, and I liked the Xserve G5 I demo'ed for work... Maybe I too can become a Mac Zeolot!