First, note the link on the attached story: this is a *proposed* rule, not an accepted one.
Second, the attorney-client privilege is one of the most strongly-defended privacy rights. While it is true that attorney-client privilege does not protect prospective crimes, in order to break the privilege, the government must be able to convince a judge that there is a very strong likelihood of the commision of a crime in the near future. Being in jail, even for a heinous crime, is not grounds for a strong suspicion.
Bottom line: They may try this, but the first judge who sees it will throw it out.
Grail was a browser written years ago in python + tk. Its features included python applets, that would be downloaded and run in a restricted execution mode in the browser. Not often mentioned, but python may have been the first 'applet'-capable language.
From: Establishing a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in Clickstream Data
Subsection IIA:A. A Brief Overview of the Fourth Amendment's Expectation of Privacy and Reasonableness Requirements
http://www.mttlr.org/volsix/Skok_art.html#IIA
The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As an initial matter, a defendant raising a Fourth Amendment challenge to a government search or seizure must show that he or she is entitled to the Amendment's protections by establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy that was infringed upon by the government's actions. The legitimate expectation of privacy test traditionally entails a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the defendant had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable. In analyzing the second question, "'[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly "private" activity,' but instead 'whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment.'"
The existence of a legitimate expectation of privacy is subject to an important limitation: "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." The Supreme Court subsequently expanded upon this principle, first announced in Katz v. United States , by holding that a person lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in information which he or she voluntarily provides to a third party, even if that information is provided in confidence or for business purposes.
If a defendant establishes a legitimate expectation of privacy, the inquiry then becomes whether the government's intrusion upon that expectation was "reasonable." The first step in this analysis is to determine whether the intrusion was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed. Where this inquiry yields no result, courts must evaluate the search or seizure under traditional standards of reasonableness by weighing the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy against the degree to which the search or seizure is necessary for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.
One of the most interesting features I read about in Mac OS X was the way in which they distributed binaries. They have a "package" that appears as one binary object, but it acts (for the loader and linker, I presume) like a directory. Inside are stored versioned libraries.
Couldn't something like this be done to reduce the clutter? Have "gnome-libs.pkg" which is actually a tar or tgz file. When an application needed to use a library, it would involve an extra step -- extracting it from the tarfile -- but that would only be on first load (after that it would be cached in swap) and the cost to retrieve the file would be minimal.
On the other hand, the possible gains would be enormous. Packaging would become simple. For most applications, install/uninstall could simply be putting the binary in bin and the libpkg in/usr/lib.
I guess what I'm thinking of is like GNU stow, just taken further. Why not make those directories into tarfiles?
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
There are serious flaws with Cringely's argument.
Most people only value things (privileges, objects, whatever) in proportion to their perceived cost of acquiring the thing.
My Mom used to be a social worker and anti-drug counselor. Initially, she gave her services free to those who couldn't pay. Relatively quickly, however, she was forced to change that policy; people would not show up for appointments, or expect unrealistic results in unrealistic timeframes, or even treat her badly. They didn't appreciate what they were getting for free. As soon as my Mom started charging a nominal fee ($5 I think it was), those problems went away. People valued her service more when they felt like they had invested in it.
Similarly, if the subways were "free", i.e., completely tax-supported, there would probably be positive side-effects not unlike those that Cringely mentioned. However, there would probably be more negative side-effects. The majority of people would start to think of the subways as having no value, or even worse, an entitlement. Vandalism would probably go up, and the amount of abuse on the system would jump exponentially.
Napster has the same problem. If the music were free, a lot of people would start to consider it an entitlement -- in fact, many already do. I predict that the amount of "abuse" of the artists would increase; people would expect new songs without appreciating the creative work it took to produce them. And even if the market for CD writers and such was temporarily greater than the market for music, the effect of what Cringely is proposing would be the crippling of *both* markets as soon as the market for elelctronic delivery and storage (the Cd-writers, etc) was saturated.
There are problems with my argument, just as there are problems with Cringely's. For instance, the evidence that CD sales go up because of Napster would seem to contradict my point. But that is only because having the CD adds value to the music -- lyrics, cover art, a physical medium, etc. However, if digital distribution of the *entire album* - including cover art, lyrics, etc - became the norm, there would be no additional value in buying the pressed CD.
Replies and rebuttals are welcome. I'm not saying that what Cringely proposes is bad; in fact, on some levels I support it. But the costs incurred by the tragedy of the commons must be addressed as well.
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
There are already a number of projects seeking to remedy this situation. The most advanced, IMO, is Easy Software Products' EPM package manager software. Already stable (up to version 3.2) and able to build.debs,.rpms,.tgz, swinstall/depot for HP-UX, pkg for Solaris, and inst/tardist for Irix. If we were all to switch to something like this, the binary format wouldn't be a big deal at all.
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
I have to disagree. While Deep Blue couldn't map out _every_ possible outcome, he had enough time to map out a lot of them, and then apply whatever algorithms he had to determine which were best. His defiencies in deciding what was "best" were more than made up for by the breadth of his search.
Moreover, Deep Blue had time to overcome any mistakes he might have made.
On the other hand, this computer will need to integrate so many different data feeds in real time that producing a coherent model of a what's going on would be difficult enough. Being able to analyze that data and in *milliseconds* decide on a course of action...
Well, I'm doubtful. Plus the result of any mistake would likely be severe.
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
Whether or not you agree with it, the consensus amount most economists is that flat taxes *are* regressive. Here is why:
Say the tax rate is 10%. In *absolute terms* the percentage tax paid by the wealthy and the poor is the same -- 10%. But that doesn't factor in the differences in disposable income.
A rich person making $100,000 spends $50,000 on living expenses (housing, food, medical care, etc). Thus his tax rate as a *percentage of disposable income* is 10,000/50,000, or 20%.
On the other hand, a poor person making 10,000 a year spends 8,000 on living expenses (once again, food, health care, housing). Thus his tax rate as a percentage of disposable income is 1,000/2,000, or 50%.
Obviously, I just pulled these numbers out of the air, but they are sufficient to make the argument. Hence, the "progressive" tax is , in theory anyway, actually flat when thought of in terms of disposable income. However, the fighting question then becomes "How much of my income is disposable income?"... with all of the hair-splitting that entails.
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
I'm sorry, but theis is easily the most moronic comment that I've seen in a long time.
>>"...so if people use it, it must be because it is good."
Let's not confuse "good UI" from "monopoly stranglehold". Macs and Win95 perform essentially the same function, so the only real difference is the UI. Which has the better UI and which has the marketshare? Slashdot may or may not have a good UI, but it certainly enjoys a monopoly position. I'm sure I'm going to hear a bunch of whining about this claim. Tell me, which 3 "Geek news" sites have print ads in glossy mags? 1) Slashdot 2) Nobody 3) Nobody else
Your argument fails on mulitple counts.
First, you contend that continued use of/. is a matter of monopoly position *only*, not usability. Leaving aside for a moment the argument by authority (kindly provided by Mr. Nielsen) the fact is that this argument fails on its face. People will only pay the minimum amount to get the news they condsider necessary -- and that payment is not only money, it is also time and frustration, which are inherent usability issues. Hence, if people are coming to/., it is because it offers them the news they want at a price (in terms of usability) that they are willing to pay. Go read Mr. Nielsen's other columns if you think it is otherwise, but I'll give you a clue. It isn't. Usability is all a matter of tradeoffs -- and there is no tradeoff to using another site to get your news. Arguably, you even lose something by coming to/., because other sites (notably Linux Today) have more comprehensive coverage of the news, and include comment sections as well.
Even if I were to accept your argument that/. has a monopoly on something, what is it? Not the news. As pointed out, that is available from multiple sources. Ads in print mags? Maybe. But that is hardly relevant to/.'s usability. People come to/. because it offers a unique perspective on the news that is not available from other sites. In that sense, they do have a monopoly on the "slashdot feel." Once again though, this would only serve to bolster/.'s usability rating -- meaning that/.'s usability would be the cause of it's "monopoly position," and not the monopoly power itself.
You seek to bolster your argument with a reference to the Mac v. Windows UIs. This similarly doesn't fly -- While the Mac is in most circles renowned for its usability, I know several people who actually prefer the windows interface. Moreover, the usability of the windows interface is "good enough" for most people. If a slightly more clunky interface is paired with wider application availability, that is superior usability.
Finally, even if/. has a monopoly, so what? In this sort of market (news) there are no network effects, and no lock-in effects, so trying to leverage a monopoly position unfairly -- which you imply that they do through your comparison of/. to Microsoft -- is practically impossible. What can they say, "You aren't a real geek if you read Linux.com?" "Your balls will shrivel if you read Linuxworld?" "TBTF is for sissies?"
Get real. If you like/., stay. If not, go. But this sort of stupid argument is a waste of time.
Yes, they do. You just need to edit/etc/spt/sources.list to point to a debian install, and voila! apt-get all you want.
Also not noted in the article is that as soon as you log in as root (in X), it asks you to change the password. While not quite as secure as requiring the password during install, it's quite appropriate for a desktop system.
Here are some of the possible applicable patents that Netscape allegedly infinged upon:
Remote collaboration among host computer running host program and remote computers each running application program
The invention concerns using multiple computers to hold a conference. Under the invention, an application program can run on a single computer, yet remote participants can issue commands to the program. Remote participants can watch the program operate, because the invention replicates the display window of the running program onto the displays of the remote computers. Any participant can make annotations on the participant's own computer display. The invention copies the annotations to the displays of the other participants.
This looks like a general patent on client-server computing. Considering that this patent is dated April 2, 1997 (Granted July 13, 1999), Isn't there a lot of prior art?
Method and apparatus for providing shared data to a requesting client
A method and apparatus for providing object data stored in a database management system to a receiving client. The method comprises the steps of receiving a database query from the client on a first communication path, transforming the database query into database management system commands, transmitting the database management system commands to the database management system, receiving a response from the database management system, the response comprising an object locator identifying data responsive to the database query, compiling an answer set comprising the database management system response, transmitting the answer set to the client on the first communications path, receiving a data request from the client comprising the media object locator, establishing a transport session with the client on a second communication path, and transmitting data identified by the media object locator to the client on the second communication path.
This sounds like any site with a database powered back-end infringes.
Method and apparatus for extending a database management system to operate with diverse object servers
A method and apparatus for extending a database management system to operate with diverse object servers. The apparatus comprises a federated coordinator for accepting client commands and translating client commands into relational database commands and object server commands, a plurality of object servers coupled to the federated coordinator, each object server for storing and retrieving data objects identified by object data surrogates in response to the object server commands from the federated coordinator, and a relational database management system coupled to the federated coordinator for storing and retrieving object data surrogates and for transforming relational database commands into an answer set comprising an answer set data surrogate.
Not sure, but this sounds like load-balancing on the aforementioned database-driven web site.
Method and apparatus for extending existing database management system for new data types
A method and apparatus for extending a relational database management system performed by a computer to manage object data stored in an object server having a processor and a data storage device. The method comprises the steps of receiving a database command including a store command and object data from a client at a federated coordinator, generating a data surrogate unique to the object data, associating the data surrogate with the object data, and storing the data surrogate and the object data in the data storage device in the object server.
MIME types?
Annotation of computer video displays
A system in which multiple computers engage in a collaborative video conference. One computer generates a common image which is distributed to the other computers. The invention allows the users of the other computers to annotate (that is, mark up, bydrawings and text) the image at their respective computers. The invention replicates the annotations at the other computers. One type of annotation allowed is "highlighting," wherein a user drags a cursor across a display, and the invention leaves a colored trail behind the cursor, which is transparent, and does not obscure the underlying images.
Document Sharing? "Whiteboard" technology? Heck, it even sounds like VNC might violate this one.
Targeting advertising in a home retail banking delivery service
A practical system and method for the remote distribution of financial services (e.g., home banking and bill-paying) involves distributing portable terminals to a user base. The terminals include a multi-line display, keys "pointing to" lines on the display, and additional keys. Contact is established between the terminals and a central computer operated by a service provider, preferably over a dial-up telephone line and a packet data network. Information exchange between the central computer and the terminal solicits information from the terminal user related to requested financial services (e.g., for billpaying, the user provides payee selection and amount and his bank account PIN number). The central computer then transmits a message over a conventional ATM network debiting the user's bank account in real time, and may pay the specified payees the specified amount electronically or in other ways as appropriate. Payments and transfers may be scheduled in advance or on a periodic basis. Because the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks' computers. The terminal interface is extremely user-friendly and incorporates some features of standard ATM user interfaces so as to reduce new user anxiety.
If netscape has anny "virtual ATM" deals that they have set up with banks, then this might infringe. but wouldn't IE infringe also?
Just my own comment: These were all granted within the past three months. The certainly didn't waste much time. I wonder if AOL's new arrangement with Netscape encouraged this little venture.
A friend of mine is working on this very thing, called the OpenContent License. Their FAQ: 1. Why do we need the OPL?
Computer software can already be made free for public consumption and improvement by distribution under one of several Free Software licenses as mentioned above. If you're developing executable code with instructional potential, please consider licensing it as "Free Software" so that it can both be a part of the Bazaar development cycle and freely accessible to everyone. Other Content (Learning Objects) such as graphics, images, sound bytes, video clips, models, lecture notes, tutorials, HOW-TO's and anything else that can be "referenced during technology supported learning" can not be released under these licenses because they are written specifically for computer software. The OpenContent License has been created to provide instructional designers and content specialists the same benefits, protections and assurances programmers gain from Free Software licenses. The OPL (pronounced "opal") is always open for comment. This version draws inspiration (and some verbiage) from the GPL and Debian's Social Contract.
2. Where did you get the idea that people would be willing to give their work away? (I'll do my best to refrain from restating the question as "What kind of idiot would actually consider sharing? What kind of idiot would actually expect anyone else to share in return?") If you can honestly ask this question, it seems clear that you have never used the internet. What do people do on the internet more than look for information and find it? and find it available for free? Have you never looked anything up online? You may want to review the project's purpose. Although this idea may seem crazy to those entrenched in academia or higher education (or those who are just greedy), the idea of working hard and freely sharing the valuable results has been in practice for a long time, and is the essence of the Internet ethic (if you don't subscribe to these ideals, maybe you should go on somewhere else.) Richard M. Stallman played a key role early on in the Free Software movement by writing out and evangelizing the idea. He has included Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals in the GNU Manifesto. He answers questions like 'why should software be free?', 'why would anyone do all that work for free?', "won't programmers starve?', and others there. The transfer from the computer programming paradigm to that of education should be easy enough. For a better understanding of the principles underlying OpenContent's organization please read around the Free Software Foundation and Eric S. Raymond's OpenSource.org.
3. How do I get involved? 1. read the OPL 2. agree with its tenets or make suggestions 3. create Content 4. make it freely available under the OPL 5. spread the word
It was really good to see that a little background work was done before the posting of this story. After all, this is probably going to turn out to be a very unpopular move, and RedHat already bears the burden of being the "Microsoft of Linux." Not that I think that they deserve such a title, but it has been said.
All in all, though, this is a perfectly understandable move. Robert Young has frequently compared selling Linux to selling ketchup -- the differentiation comes with the brand name. Now that RedHat is becoming successful, that brand name is the biggest asset they've got. It is natural to protect it.
Probably some people will blow their top about this, but I really don't think that it is a big deal. My guess is that their distro will continue to be downloadable, albeit without the name, and that RedHat(c) compatible distros will become all the rage.
Any votes on names? I like different types of hats (Red Derby, Top Hat, etc).
I read your last column about Linux with interest. I noted, however, that there were several errors of fact that I felt I should draw your attention to.
You said: Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web, proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be available as a multivendor product.
Not quite. Yes, the top-of-the-line NT package does ship with those services. Moreover, there are probably more shrink-wrapped applications of this type for NT. You forget, however, that Unix (and Linux especially) were born on the network, instead of later integrated into it. Every Linux distribution of which I am aware ships with these services for free. Linux's handling of network streams is superior to almost every other operating system out there, with the possible exception of FreeBSD.
You said: Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services, users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
Once again, almost but not quite. It is true that integration of various services is higher in Microsoft systems. I am convinced, however, that this is a flaw, not a benefit. Bugs in one part of the system can -- and frequently do -- lead to bugs and security holes elsewhere in the system. A more modular arrangement allows for easier isolation of possible problems. Moreover, this modular design allows the operating system to be administered several different ways -- from a console, over a telnet or ssh session, or from another Unix box. NT's design makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to admin remotely. Specifically with regard to security, Linux inherited the time-tested Unix security model, a model that is implemented throughout the system. It is not by chance that the most secure operationg systems in the world are Unix-based. NT 3.51, on the other hand was only able to get a C2 rating in a locked case with no peripherals, no external drives, and no network connection -- not a very likely configuration for a domain controller. All subsequent versions of NT have not even garnered this minimum rating.
You said: Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain.
You bring up two different issues here, so I will deal with them separately. First, you note that Linux's support for SMP is still immature. This is true, especially considering the incredible SMP capabilities of Solaris, Irix, or some of the other Unices. When compared against NT, however, the picture is changed. For dual-processor systems, Linux beats NT in speed and stability. For quad processor systems, it's the other way around: NT beats Linux. From four to sixteen processors, they essentially tie. I personally would have to give the nod to NT on this issue, as strong quad-processor capability is considerably more complex than strong dual-processor capability. But the issue is close. Where I disagree with you is on your second point, scalability and clustering. If scalability is your need, my experience would suggest that Linux is far more scalable than NT. In my experience, NT is simply unable to respond gracefully to high loads, whereas Linux can. Linux is also far more scalable the other way, too; a 486 with 16 MB RAM can be productive under Linux. Not so with NT. While NT would probably boot under such a configuration, it would be so slow as to be useless. On the other hand, if clustering/high availability is your need, I would not go with NT or Linux. Many other Unices would be far better suited to this task. Linux clustering is, like SMP, still immature, and NT's clustering ability is limited to failover. If NT or Linux were your only two choices, though, I would go with Linux. The stability of Linux and the instability of NT would make that an easy choice. Moreover, even at this early state, Linux provides more clustering capability than NT.
You said: Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these systems.
This is your strongest point. It is much easier to administer an NT box than a Linux box. This, in my opinion, is the main stumbling block against more widespread adoption of Linux in the enterprise. I don't agree with your second point, however. Having versions of Unix available for low cost makes it much more likely that college students, hobbyists, and even IT professionals will install and play with Linux, thus improving their Unix skills. It is much easier to develop a cadre of capable Unix admins when simply trying out the operating system doesn't cost a thousand dollars.
Finally, you said: Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in features and capabilities. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of the Linux play. Hey, I'm all for a competitor to Windows, just give me more than what Microsoft has to offer-not less.
This is a low argument. It is true that Linux started out as a college student's project. But to say that it has "gone astray" is a form of the ad hominem argument, arguing against something because of its nature, rather than its merits. With regard to Linux vis a vis the other Unices, only time will tell. SGI's recent moves to bolster Linux, though, at least present a counterargument that Linux could possibly end up the best of all the Unices, cherry-picking the best features and incorporating them into one.
I am a systems adminstrator. I administer Macintosh, Win95, Win98, WinNT, Linux, HP-UX, and NetWare systems routinely. Of all the systems I deal with, Windows NT is among my least favorite. It frequently gives me the most problems and the lowest returns.
In short, I'm all for a competitor for Windows, too. I am not necessarily a Linux partisan, but knowing both sides of the equation, I had to set the record straight. If Linux replaces windows, you won't hear me crying.
I know that Mandrake has a reputation for being a beginner's distro, but I've found that their releases to be better than Red Hat's. It seems like they wait just long enough to catch all the gotchas in Red Hat, plus they set up a little nicer defaults.
I can't get out either. Does anyone know how to configure it? I already tried manually editing the prefs file. Didn't work.
Want to play games on Linux? well, try this.
on
Gaming on Linux
·
· Score: 3
I almost submitted this as a separate story, but it seems to be very appropriate here.
Do y'all remember, back when Sony announced that Playstation 2 development was going to be on Linux? There was rampant speculation about whether a Linux emulator for the Playstation was going to come out. Most people concluded: Well, probably not.
It is here! Cygnus has a complete software emulation of the Playstation 2 that they developed for Sony. Now, I don't know if they are going to release it, and you would probably need a quad Xeon to get good performance, but man, that is exciting.
Here's the quote from Forbes:
Nevertheless, there is a lot of speculation about Sony's ability to deliver enough games to make this videogame console a must-have electronics gizmo. But such doubts are mostly unfounded. Thanks to Cygnus Software, a Sunnyvale, Calif.-based startup, which developed a software simulation environment that allows game developers to create and test game titles prior to the availability of the next generation PlayStation.
The simulation software runs on a Linux-operating system and basically duplicates the hardware specifications of PlayStation2. Even though the hardware is unlikely to be delivered until later this year, it seems that many developers are busy cranking out games for PlayStation2. The delivery of this simulator will dramatically accelerate the delivery of titles in what is a hyper-competitive marketplace.
Sony asked Cygnus to develop the simulator software two years ago. What Cygnus has delivered is a software replica of PlayStation2. The virtual hardware platform represents a complete architectural simulation environment, including 128-bit CPU core, floating-point coprocessors and DMA channels. This provides a complete environment that allows a developer to create, test and debug gaming titles.
See the rest of the article here. I hope this give Linux a gaming boost.
Several people have pointed out that this survey could have been slashdotted. Well, it wasn't. Here is the intro to the survey results from Sunbelt:
Sunbelt March99 Survey Results over 1999 NT users
And now, the answers to the survey questions! Before anything else, thanks for your many thousands of survey answers. This is a hot topic for sure!!
First though, some background data. This survey was meant to get an idea how things are looked at BY the NT community, FOR the NT community. Well, that was somewhat naive I have to admit . The questions were created while looking at discussions between NT system administrators and were definitely written from that viewpoint. Some claim that they were biased. There may be some truth in that if you look at it from the Linux POV.
Sunbelt does not claim any kind of scientific validity. This survey is a snapshot and not a random sample at all. It is not objective but that was not the idea in the first place.
BUT, I guess if you step into a war you should expect some bullets flying around, and I did get some flak from people. Most of these people are both running NT and Linux and know them well. Personally I know NT but have not much experience with Linux. We have a few 'closet' Linux users in Sunbelt though, both in sales and Tech .
Anyway, what happened is that we sent the invitation to do the survey, and very quickly got thousands of responses back. We followed in real-time what the results were, every 500 responses or so. Extremely surprising numbers to start with. But even more strange after the first few hours. Numbers started suddenly to change and become slanted toward more Linux than before. Very odd from a statistical perspective I remember from my stats course in college.
Now, it so happens that the software we use to do the survey queries the browser that was used to fill out the survey. So we know what O/S it is running on, and the IP address it comes from. The Linux user community had gotten word about the survey and was getting into gear to show that Linux had support.
So anyway, we took the first 2000 survey results and did our analysis on those. These were from predominantly NT users with some people answering from a Linux machine. That will give some idea about the current state of Linux use and the results are revealing.
/snip/
And here is my own favorite set of statistics, about the supposed advantages/disadvantages of Linux:
How important are these perceived Linux Benefits?
Scale= Very Important / Important / Of Less Importance
Linux is free 775.00 / 523.00 / 542.00 Stability 1584.00 / 195.00 / 58.00 Not Microsoft 340.00 / 290.00 / 1178.00 Better performance 1356.00 / 381.00 / 89.00 Open Software 1148.00 / 459.00 / 225.00 Other 619.00 / 294.00 / 294.00
How important are these perceived Linux drawbacks?
(Same scale)
Lack of Applications 463.00 / 449.00 / 882.00 Not Mission Critical yet 314.00 / 333.00 / 1099.00 Lack of Third Party utilities 324.00 / 352.00 / 1084.00 Different distributions / GUI's 261.00 / 299.00 / 1197.00 Lack of standardization 386.00 / 315.00 / 1060.00 Open Software 257.00 / 281.00 / 1214.00 Lack of Tech Support 324.00 / 312.00 / 1119.00 Too 'Bleeding Edge' 129.00 / 256.00 / 1347.00 Steep Learning Curve 238.00 / 401.00 / 1116.00 Hardware incompatibilities 371.00 / 404.00 / 985.00 User unfriendly 270.00 / 385.00 / 1101.00
OK, I have used NT. In fact, using NT is what inspired me to learn about Linux. After reading this article, though, I come away with the clear impression that NT has a much better design for its operating system. Some things, in fact, that I would say are better in NT. But my experience dictates otherwise.
So, if someone could explain to me:
a) What are (seriously) the things that NT does better than Unix/Linux? (Besides BSOD) b)Are those things being developed? c) If NT is "better" in some ways, why does it suck so badly?
Slashdot Mirror
First, note the link on the attached story: this is a *proposed* rule, not an accepted one.
Second, the attorney-client privilege is one of the most strongly-defended privacy rights. While it is true that attorney-client privilege does not protect prospective crimes, in order to break the privilege, the government must be able to convince a judge that there is a very strong likelihood of the commision of a crime in the near future. Being in jail, even for a heinous crime, is not grounds for a strong suspicion.
Bottom line: They may try this, but the first judge who sees it will throw it out.
Grail was a browser written years ago in python + tk. Its features included python applets, that would be downloaded and run in a restricted execution mode in the browser. Not often mentioned, but python may have been the first 'applet'-capable language.
From: Establishing a Legitimate Expectation of Privacy in Clickstream Data
Subsection IIA:A. A Brief Overview of the Fourth Amendment's Expectation of Privacy and Reasonableness Requirements
http://www.mttlr.org/volsix/Skok_art.html#IIA
The Fourth Amendment provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
As an initial matter, a defendant raising a Fourth Amendment challenge to a government search or seizure must show that he or she is entitled to the Amendment's protections by establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy that was infringed upon by the government's actions. The legitimate expectation of privacy test traditionally entails a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the defendant had an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and (2) whether society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable. In analyzing the second question, "'[t]he test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly "private" activity,' but instead 'whether the government's intrusion infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Fourth Amendment.'"
The existence of a legitimate expectation of privacy is subject to an important limitation: "[w]hat a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." The Supreme Court subsequently expanded upon this principle, first announced in Katz v. United States , by holding that a person lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in information which he or she voluntarily provides to a third party, even if that information is provided in confidence or for business purposes.
If a defendant establishes a legitimate expectation of privacy, the inquiry then becomes whether the government's intrusion upon that expectation was "reasonable." The first step in this analysis is to determine whether the intrusion was regarded as an unlawful search and seizure when the Amendment was framed. Where this inquiry yields no result, courts must evaluate the search or seizure under traditional standards of reasonableness by weighing the degree to which it intrudes upon an individual's privacy against the degree to which the search or seizure is necessary for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.
Footnotes available in the original version.
Couldn't something like this be done to reduce the clutter? Have "gnome-libs.pkg" which is actually a tar or tgz file. When an application needed to use a library, it would involve an extra step -- extracting it from the tarfile -- but that would only be on first load (after that it would be cached in swap) and the cost to retrieve the file would be minimal.
On the other hand, the possible gains would be enormous. Packaging would become simple. For most applications, install/uninstall could simply be putting the binary in bin and the libpkg in
I guess what I'm thinking of is like GNU stow, just taken further. Why not make those directories into tarfiles?
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
Most people only value things (privileges, objects, whatever) in proportion to their perceived cost of acquiring the thing.
My Mom used to be a social worker and anti-drug counselor. Initially, she gave her services free to those who couldn't pay. Relatively quickly, however, she was forced to change that policy; people would not show up for appointments, or expect unrealistic results in unrealistic timeframes, or even treat her badly. They didn't appreciate what they were getting for free. As soon as my Mom started charging a nominal fee ($5 I think it was), those problems went away. People valued her service more when they felt like they had invested in it.
Similarly, if the subways were "free", i.e., completely tax-supported, there would probably be positive side-effects not unlike those that Cringely mentioned. However, there would probably be more negative side-effects. The majority of people would start to think of the subways as having no value, or even worse, an entitlement. Vandalism would probably go up, and the amount of abuse on the system would jump exponentially.
Napster has the same problem. If the music were free, a lot of people would start to consider it an entitlement -- in fact, many already do. I predict that the amount of "abuse" of the artists would increase; people would expect new songs without appreciating the creative work it took to produce them. And even if the market for CD writers and such was temporarily greater than the market for music, the effect of what Cringely is proposing would be the crippling of *both* markets as soon as the market for elelctronic delivery and storage (the Cd-writers, etc) was saturated.
There are problems with my argument, just as there are problems with Cringely's. For instance, the evidence that CD sales go up because of Napster would seem to contradict my point. But that is only because having the CD adds value to the music -- lyrics, cover art, a physical medium, etc. However, if digital distribution of the *entire album* - including cover art, lyrics, etc - became the norm, there would be no additional value in buying the pressed CD.
Replies and rebuttals are welcome. I'm not saying that what Cringely proposes is bad; in fact, on some levels I support it. But the costs incurred by the tragedy of the commons must be addressed as well.
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
http://www.easysw.com/epm/index.html
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
Moreover, Deep Blue had time to overcome any mistakes he might have made.
On the other hand, this computer will need to integrate so many different data feeds in real time that producing a coherent model of a what's going on would be difficult enough. Being able to analyze that data and in *milliseconds* decide on a course of action
Well, I'm doubtful. Plus the result of any mistake would likely be severe.
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
Say the tax rate is 10%. In *absolute terms* the percentage tax paid by the wealthy and the poor is the same -- 10%. But that doesn't factor in the differences in disposable income.
A rich person making $100,000 spends $50,000 on living expenses (housing, food, medical care, etc). Thus his tax rate as a *percentage of disposable income* is 10,000/50,000, or 20%.
On the other hand, a poor person making 10,000 a year spends 8,000 on living expenses (once again, food, health care, housing). Thus his tax rate as a percentage of disposable income is 1,000/2,000, or 50%.
Obviously, I just pulled these numbers out of the air, but they are sufficient to make the argument. Hence, the "progressive" tax is , in theory anyway, actually flat when thought of in terms of disposable income. However, the fighting question then becomes "How much of my income is disposable income?"
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
Want to make $$$$ really quick? It's easy:
1. Hold down the Shift key.
I'm sorry, but theis is easily the most moronic comment that I've seen in a long time.
>>"...so if people use it, it must be because it is good."
Let's not confuse "good UI" from "monopoly stranglehold". Macs and Win95 perform essentially the same function, so the only real difference is the UI. Which has the better UI and which has the marketshare? Slashdot may or may not have a good UI, but it certainly enjoys a monopoly position. I'm sure I'm going to hear a bunch of whining about this claim. Tell me, which 3 "Geek news" sites have print ads in glossy mags? 1) Slashdot 2) Nobody 3) Nobody else
Your argument fails on mulitple counts.
First, you contend that continued use of /. is a matter of monopoly position *only*, not usability. Leaving aside for a moment the argument by authority (kindly provided by Mr. Nielsen) the fact is that this argument fails on its face. People will only pay the minimum amount to get the news they condsider necessary -- and that payment is not only money, it is also time and frustration, which are inherent usability issues. Hence, if people are coming to /., it is because it offers them the news they want at a price (in terms of usability) that they are willing to pay. Go read Mr. Nielsen's other columns if you think it is otherwise, but I'll give you a clue. It isn't. Usability is all a matter of tradeoffs -- and there is no tradeoff to using another site to get your news. Arguably, you even lose something by coming to /., because other sites (notably Linux Today) have more comprehensive coverage of the news, and include comment sections as well.
Even if I were to accept your argument that /. has a monopoly on something, what is it? Not the news. As pointed out, that is available from multiple sources. Ads in print mags? Maybe. But that is hardly relevant to /.'s usability. People come to /. because it offers a unique perspective on the news that is not available from other sites. In that sense, they do have a monopoly on the "slashdot feel." Once again though, this would only serve to bolster /.'s usability rating -- meaning that /.'s usability would be the cause of it's "monopoly position," and not the monopoly power itself.
You seek to bolster your argument with a reference to the Mac v. Windows UIs. This similarly doesn't fly -- While the Mac is in most circles renowned for its usability, I know several people who actually prefer the windows interface. Moreover, the usability of the windows interface is "good enough" for most people. If a slightly more clunky interface is paired with wider application availability, that is superior usability.
Finally, even if /. has a monopoly, so what? In this sort of market (news) there are no network effects, and no lock-in effects, so trying to leverage a monopoly position unfairly -- which you imply that they do through your comparison of /. to Microsoft -- is practically impossible. What can they say, "You aren't a real geek if you read Linux.com?" "Your balls will shrivel if you read Linuxworld?" "TBTF is for sissies?"
Get real. If you like /., stay. If not, go. But this sort of stupid argument is a waste of time.
Yes, they do. You just need to edit /etc/spt/sources.list to point to a debian install, and voila! apt-get all you want.
Also not noted in the article is that as soon as you log in as root (in X), it asks you to change the password. While not quite as secure as requiring the password during install, it's quite appropriate for a desktop system.
Yep, I use it. But then again, I'm a Heinlein fan ...
Remote collaboration among host computer running host program and remote computers each running application program
The invention concerns using multiple computers to hold a conference. Under the invention, an application program can run on a single computer, yet remote participants can issue commands to the program. Remote participants can watch the program operate, because the invention replicates the display window of the running program onto the displays of the remote computers. Any participant can make annotations on the participant's own computer display. The invention copies the annotations to the displays of the other participants.
This looks like a general patent on client-server computing. Considering that this patent is dated April 2, 1997 (Granted July 13, 1999), Isn't there a lot of prior art?
Method and apparatus for providing shared data to a requesting client
A method and apparatus for providing object data stored in a database management system to a receiving client. The method comprises the steps of receiving a database query from the client on a first communication path, transforming the database query into database management system commands, transmitting the database management system commands to the database management system, receiving a response from the database management system, the response comprising an object locator identifying data responsive to the database query, compiling an answer set comprising the database management system response, transmitting the answer set to the client on the first communications path, receiving a data request from the client comprising the media object locator, establishing a transport session with the client on a second communication path, and transmitting data identified by the media object locator to the client on the second communication path.
This sounds like any site with a database powered back-end infringes.
Method and apparatus for extending a database management system to operate with diverse object servers
A method and apparatus for extending a database management system to operate with diverse object servers. The apparatus comprises a federated coordinator for accepting client commands and translating client commands into relational database commands and object server commands, a plurality of object servers coupled to the federated coordinator, each object server for storing and retrieving data objects identified by object data surrogates in response to the object server commands from the federated coordinator, and a relational database management system coupled to the federated coordinator for storing and retrieving object data surrogates and for transforming relational database commands into an answer set comprising an answer set data surrogate.
Not sure, but this sounds like load-balancing on the aforementioned database-driven web site.
Method and apparatus for extending existing database management system for new data types
A method and apparatus for extending a relational database management system performed by a computer to manage object data stored in an object server having a processor and a data storage device. The method comprises the steps of receiving a database command including a store command and object data from a client at a federated coordinator, generating a data surrogate unique to the object data, associating the data surrogate with the object data, and storing the data surrogate and the object data in the data storage device in the object server.
MIME types?
Annotation of computer video displays
A system in which multiple computers engage in a collaborative video conference. One computer generates a common image which is distributed to the other computers. The invention allows the users of the other computers to annotate (that is, mark up, bydrawings and text) the image at their respective computers. The invention replicates the annotations at the other computers. One type of annotation allowed is "highlighting," wherein a user drags a cursor across a display, and the invention leaves a colored trail behind the cursor, which is transparent, and does not obscure the underlying images.
Document Sharing? "Whiteboard" technology? Heck, it even sounds like VNC might violate this one.
Targeting advertising in a home retail banking delivery service
A practical system and method for the remote distribution of financial services (e.g., home banking and bill-paying) involves distributing portable terminals to a user base. The terminals include a multi-line display, keys "pointing to" lines on the display, and additional keys. Contact is established between the terminals and a central computer operated by a service provider, preferably over a dial-up telephone line and a packet data network. Information exchange between the central computer and the terminal solicits information from the terminal user related to requested financial services (e.g., for billpaying, the user provides payee selection and amount and his bank account PIN number). The central computer then transmits a message over a conventional ATM network debiting the user's bank account in real time, and may pay the specified payees the specified amount electronically or in other ways as appropriate. Payments and transfers may be scheduled in advance or on a periodic basis. Because the central computer interacts with the user's bank as a standard POS or ATM network node, no significant software changes are required at the banks' computers. The terminal interface is extremely user-friendly and incorporates some features of standard ATM user interfaces so as to reduce new user anxiety.
If netscape has anny "virtual ATM" deals that they have set up with banks, then this might infringe. but wouldn't IE infringe also?
Just my own comment: These were all granted within the past three months. The certainly didn't waste much time. I wonder if AOL's new arrangement with Netscape encouraged this little venture.
A friend of mine is working on this very thing, called the OpenContent License. Their FAQ:
1. Why do we need the OPL?
Computer software can already be made free for public consumption and improvement by distribution under one of several Free Software licenses as mentioned above. If you're developing executable code with instructional potential, please consider licensing it as "Free Software" so that it can both be a part of the Bazaar development cycle and freely accessible to everyone. Other Content (Learning Objects) such as graphics, images, sound bytes, video clips, models, lecture notes, tutorials, HOW-TO's and anything else that can be "referenced during technology supported learning" can not be released under these licenses because they are written specifically for computer software. The OpenContent License has been created to provide instructional designers and content specialists the same benefits, protections and assurances programmers gain from Free Software licenses. The OPL (pronounced "opal") is always open for comment. This version draws inspiration (and some verbiage) from the GPL and Debian's Social Contract.
2. Where did you get the idea that people would be willing to give their work away?
(I'll do my best to refrain from restating the question as "What kind of idiot would actually consider sharing? What kind of idiot would actually expect anyone else to share in return?") If you can honestly ask this question, it seems clear that you have never used the internet. What do people do on the internet more than look for information and find it? and find it available for free? Have you never looked anything up online? You may want to review the project's purpose. Although this idea may seem crazy to those entrenched in academia or higher education (or those who are just greedy), the idea of working hard and freely sharing the valuable results has been in practice for a long time, and is the essence of the Internet ethic (if you don't subscribe to these ideals, maybe you should go on somewhere else.) Richard M. Stallman played a key role early on in the Free Software movement by writing out and evangelizing the idea. He has included Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals in the GNU Manifesto. He answers questions like 'why should software be free?', 'why would anyone do all that work for free?', "won't programmers starve?', and others there. The transfer from the computer programming paradigm to that of education should be easy enough. For a better understanding of the principles underlying OpenContent's organization please read around the Free Software Foundation and Eric S. Raymond's OpenSource.org.
3. How do I get involved?
1. read the OPL
2. agree with its tenets or make suggestions
3. create Content
4. make it freely available under the OPL
5. spread the word
It was really good to see that a little background work was done before the posting of this story. After all, this is probably going to turn out to be a very unpopular move, and RedHat already bears the burden of being the "Microsoft of Linux." Not that I think that they deserve such a title, but it has been said.
All in all, though, this is a perfectly understandable move. Robert Young has frequently compared selling Linux to selling ketchup -- the differentiation comes with the brand name. Now that RedHat is becoming successful, that brand name is the biggest asset they've got. It is natural to protect it.
Probably some people will blow their top about this, but I really don't think that it is a big deal. My guess is that their distro will continue to be downloadable, albeit without the name, and that RedHat(c) compatible distros will become all the rage.
Any votes on names? I like different types of hats (Red Derby, Top Hat, etc).
The article is a little short on facts. Here are a few more details:
ABSTRACT:
Unconditionally Secure Bit Commitment
Adrian Kent
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, University of Cambridge, Silver Street, Cambridge CB3 9EW, United Kingdom
(Received 13 July 1998)
We describe a new classical bit commitment protocol based on cryptographic constraints imposed by special relativity. The protocol is unconditionally secure against classical or quantum attacks. It evades the no-go results of Mayers, Lo, and Chau by requiring from Alice a sequence of communications, including a postrevelation verification, each of which is guaranteed to be independent of its predecessor. ©1999 The American Physical Society
Here are copies of his article in pdf and in gzipped PS.
I
I just sent this letter to the author:
I read your last column about Linux with interest. I noted, however, that there were several errors of fact
that I felt I should draw your attention to.
You said:
Windows NT Server Enterprise Edition ships with a full complement of Internet services, including Web,
proxy, index, messaging, database, transaction and firewall services. With Linux, these services will soon be
available as a multivendor product.
Not quite. Yes, the top-of-the-line NT package does ship with those services. Moreover, there are
probably more shrink-wrapped applications of this type for NT. You forget, however, that Unix (and Linux
especially) were born on the network, instead of later integrated into it. Every Linux distribution of which I
am aware ships with these services for free. Linux's handling of network streams is superior to almost
every other operating system out there, with the possible exception of FreeBSD.
You said:
Whereas Microsoft's products are designed to work with one another and the operating system's services,
users may spend a significant amount of time trying to integrate these components under Linux. The most
critical of these integrations will be security and access control.
Once again, almost but not quite. It is true that integration of various services is higher in Microsoft
systems. I am convinced, however, that this is a flaw, not a benefit. Bugs in one part of the system can --
and frequently do -- lead to bugs and security holes elsewhere in the system. A more modular arrangement
allows for easier isolation of possible problems. Moreover, this modular design allows the operating system
to be administered several different ways -- from a console, over a telnet or ssh session, or from another
Unix box. NT's design makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to admin remotely.
Specifically with regard to security, Linux inherited the time-tested Unix security model, a model that is
implemented throughout the system. It is not by chance that the most secure operationg systems in the
world are Unix-based. NT 3.51, on the other hand was only able to get a C2 rating in a locked case with
no peripherals, no external drives, and no network connection -- not a very likely configuration for a domain
controller. All subsequent versions of NT have not even garnered this minimum rating.
You said:
Linux is just beginning to be retrofitted for symmetric multiprocessing. Without robust SMP, Linux servers
can support only small companies and single applications. If you're managing multiple servers for increased
scalability, you're better off using multiple NT servers all participating within the same domain.
You bring up two different issues here, so I will deal with them separately. First, you note that Linux's
support for SMP is still immature. This is true, especially considering the incredible SMP capabilities of
Solaris, Irix, or some of the other Unices. When compared against NT, however, the picture is changed.
For dual-processor systems, Linux beats NT in speed and stability. For quad processor systems, it's the
other way around: NT beats Linux. From four to sixteen processors, they essentially tie. I personally would
have to give the nod to NT on this issue, as strong quad-processor capability is considerably more complex
than strong dual-processor capability. But the issue is close.
Where I disagree with you is on your second point, scalability and clustering. If scalability is your need,
my experience would suggest that Linux is far more scalable than NT. In my experience, NT is simply
unable to respond gracefully to high loads, whereas Linux can. Linux is also far more scalable the other
way, too; a 486 with 16 MB RAM can be productive under Linux. Not so with NT. While NT would
probably boot under such a configuration, it would be so slow as to be useless.
On the other hand, if clustering/high availability is your need, I would not go with NT or Linux. Many
other Unices would be far better suited to this task. Linux clustering is, like SMP, still immature, and NT's
clustering ability is limited to failover. If NT or Linux were your only two choices, though, I would go with
Linux. The stability of Linux and the instability of NT would make that an easy choice. Moreover, even at
this early state, Linux provides more clustering capability than NT.
You said:
Also, remember that Linux is still Unix. One of the reasons for Windows' growth has been the complexity of
configuring and maintaining Unix operating systems. Simply because a low-cost version of Unix is now
available, it does not automatically generate more people capable of managing and configuring these
systems.
This is your strongest point. It is much easier to administer an NT box than a Linux box. This, in my
opinion, is the main stumbling block against more widespread adoption of Linux in the enterprise. I don't
agree with your second point, however. Having versions of Unix available for low cost makes it much more
likely that college students, hobbyists, and even IT professionals will install and play with Linux, thus
improving their Unix skills. It is much easier to develop a cadre of capable Unix admins when simply trying
out the operating system doesn't cost a thousand dollars.
Finally, you said:
Linux is a college student's project gone astray. The version that will be supported by Sun Microsystems
and IBM on its hardware will fall far short of each of these company's own Unix operating systems in
features and capabilities. If you're responsible for operating system selection in your company, be wary of
the Linux play. Hey, I'm all for a competitor to Windows, just give me more than what Microsoft has to
offer-not less.
This is a low argument. It is true that Linux started out as a college student's project. But to say that it
has "gone astray" is a form of the ad hominem argument, arguing against something because of its nature,
rather than its merits. With regard to Linux vis a vis the other Unices, only time will tell. SGI's recent moves
to bolster Linux, though, at least present a counterargument that Linux could possibly end up the best of all
the Unices, cherry-picking the best features and incorporating them into one.
I am a systems adminstrator. I administer Macintosh, Win95, Win98, WinNT, Linux, HP-UX, and
NetWare systems routinely. Of all the systems I deal with, Windows NT is among my least favorite. It
frequently gives me the most problems and the lowest returns.
In short, I'm all for a competitor for Windows, too. I am not necessarily a Linux partisan, but knowing both sides of the
equation, I had to set the record straight. If Linux replaces windows, you won't hear me crying.
I hereby nominate Rob as the president of the Slashdot Investor's group. I'm in with my money. Any other takers?
-VanL
I know that Mandrake has a reputation for being a beginner's distro, but I've found that their releases to be better than Red Hat's. It seems like they wait just long enough to catch all the gotchas in Red Hat, plus they set up a little nicer defaults.
I can't get out either. Does anyone know how to configure it? I already tried manually editing the prefs file. Didn't work.
I almost submitted this as a separate story, but it seems to be very appropriate here.
Do y'all remember, back when Sony announced that Playstation 2 development was going to be on Linux? There was rampant speculation about whether a Linux emulator for the Playstation was going to come out. Most people concluded: Well, probably not.
It is here! Cygnus has a complete software emulation of the Playstation 2 that they developed for Sony. Now, I don't know if they are going to release it, and you would probably need a quad Xeon to get good performance, but man, that is exciting.
Here's the quote from Forbes:
Nevertheless, there is a lot of speculation about Sony's ability to
deliver enough games to make this videogame console a
must-have electronics gizmo. But such doubts are mostly
unfounded. Thanks to Cygnus Software, a Sunnyvale,
Calif.-based startup, which developed a software simulation
environment that allows game developers to create and test game
titles prior to the availability of the next generation PlayStation.
The simulation software runs on a Linux-operating system and
basically duplicates the hardware specifications of PlayStation2.
Even though the hardware is unlikely to be delivered until later this
year, it seems that many developers are busy cranking out games
for PlayStation2. The delivery of this simulator will dramatically
accelerate the delivery of titles in what is a hyper-competitive
marketplace.
Sony asked Cygnus to develop the simulator software two years
ago. What Cygnus has delivered is a software replica of
PlayStation2. The virtual hardware platform represents a complete
architectural simulation environment, including 128-bit CPU core,
floating-point coprocessors and DMA channels. This provides a
complete environment that allows a developer to create, test and
debug gaming titles.
See the rest of the article here. I hope this give Linux a gaming boost.
For the actual results page, click here.
Several people have pointed out that this survey could have been slashdotted.
Well, it wasn't. Here is the intro to the survey results from Sunbelt:
Sunbelt March99 Survey Results
over 1999 NT users
And now, the answers to the survey questions! Before anything else,
thanks for your many thousands of survey answers. This is a hot
topic for sure!!
First though, some background data. This survey was meant to
get an idea how things are looked at BY the NT community, FOR
the NT community. Well, that was somewhat naive I have to admit
. The questions were created while looking at discussions
between NT system administrators and were definitely written
from that viewpoint. Some claim that they were biased. There may
be some truth in that if you look at it from the Linux POV.
Sunbelt does not claim any kind of scientific validity. This
survey is a snapshot and not a random sample at all. It is not
objective but that was not the idea in the first place.
BUT, I guess if you step into a war you should expect some bullets
flying around, and I did get some flak from people. Most of these
people are both running NT and Linux and know them well. Personally
I know NT but have not much experience with Linux. We have a few
'closet' Linux users in Sunbelt though, both in sales and Tech .
Anyway, what happened is that we sent the invitation to do the
survey, and very quickly got thousands of responses back. We
followed in real-time what the results were, every 500 responses
or so. Extremely surprising numbers to start with. But even more
strange after the first few hours. Numbers started suddenly to
change and become slanted toward more Linux than before. Very odd
from a statistical perspective I remember from my stats course
in college.
Now, it so happens that the software we use to do the survey
queries the browser that was used to fill out the survey. So
we know what O/S it is running on, and the IP address it comes
from. The Linux user community had gotten word about the survey
and was getting into gear to show that Linux had support.
So anyway, we took the first 2000 survey results and did our
analysis on those. These were from predominantly NT users with
some people answering from a Linux machine. That will give some
idea about the current state of Linux use and the results are
revealing.
/snip/
And here is my own favorite set of statistics, about the supposed
advantages/disadvantages of Linux:
How important are these perceived Linux Benefits?
Scale= Very Important / Important / Of Less Importance
Linux is free
775.00 / 523.00 / 542.00
Stability
1584.00 / 195.00 / 58.00
Not Microsoft
340.00 / 290.00 / 1178.00
Better performance
1356.00 / 381.00 / 89.00
Open Software
1148.00 / 459.00 / 225.00
Other
619.00 / 294.00 / 294.00
How important are these perceived Linux drawbacks?
(Same scale)
Lack of Applications
463.00 / 449.00 / 882.00
Not Mission Critical yet
314.00 / 333.00 / 1099.00
Lack of Third Party utilities
324.00 / 352.00 / 1084.00
Different distributions / GUI's
261.00 / 299.00 / 1197.00
Lack of standardization
386.00 / 315.00 / 1060.00
Open Software
257.00 / 281.00 / 1214.00
Lack of Tech Support
324.00 / 312.00 / 1119.00
Too 'Bleeding Edge'
129.00 / 256.00 / 1347.00
Steep Learning Curve
238.00 / 401.00 / 1116.00
Hardware incompatibilities
371.00 / 404.00 / 985.00
User unfriendly
270.00 / 385.00 / 1101.00
OK, I have used NT. In fact, using NT is what inspired me to learn about Linux. After reading this article, though, I come away with the clear impression that NT has a much better design for its operating system. Some things, in fact, that I would say are better in NT. But my experience dictates otherwise.
So, if someone could explain to me:
a) What are (seriously) the things that NT does better than Unix/Linux? (Besides BSOD)
b)Are those things being developed?
c) If NT is "better" in some ways, why does it suck so badly?