Alaska's temperature has risen 9 degrees in the past century. Why the hell are they installing super computers there? Maybe they should put their heat transfer unit inside a glacier.
(I know it's inisignificant amount of heat increase, but still... May be a start of a trend?)
Are you telling me there are Powerpc owners out there capable of installing linux, capable of using it, that dont have a 3 button mouse? Either they are brainwashed by Jobsian hype or they are a mythical creature not yet encountered in the wild.
Really... First thing I'd do with a mac is get a real mouse for it -- damn shame I have to.
I used to work at SUN, and we had alot of contact with sandia and microchemical locks. What you say is true. The safety of our nuclear warheads is very high.
It seems that knowing the results before the "independant consultant" performs the survey is... strange.
I think that qualifies as FUD, dont you? Come on folks, lets put on our thinking caps. $30 billion.. THEY DONT NEED OUR HELP. I agree bashing can be mindless and immature, but so can anti-bashing -- it shows where you mind is stuck. So instead of coming to slashdot defending microsoft (Really, it reflects poorly on your priorities), why not start a letter writing campaign to Redmond to get them to spend some of their money on advertising? You can do a whole hell of alot of thirty billion dollars. So I ask you to think about it: What exactly do they need you for?
I dont know if you've noticed, big guy, but slashdot appears to have more microsoft defenders than linux zealots now.
And besides, microsoft doesn't need your help. They have over $30 billion in the bank. So lets cut this poor microsoft crap, cause they're doing just fine with or without our help or "bashing".
You're complaining that you have to upgrade the kernel to run XFS?
Uhm, excuse me, but what the fuck?
At least linux gives you the option of running with XFS, because last I checked that feature wasn't available in freebsd land. Next you'll be complaining that you can't have the NSA's enhanced security features without rebooting your 200 day uptimed computers. Sorry FreeBSDers, there are some things more important than uptime.
yeah, but that's basicly no mention at all. What investor (seems like it's geared towards) wouldn't know about a relationship between SGI and linux? Come on, put some more meat on them bones, article writer.
I'm really surprised that linux wasn't mentioned a single time in this article, despite that fact that the competitive landscape of hollwywood rendering farms was "analyzed". Seems very fishy, considering that SGI is putting alot of man hours into making linux more enterprise ready, and leveraging it into commodity servers.
.... Or am I reading SGI wrong? What is SGI's relationship to linux, and why doesn't this article mention linux once? Just wondering.
I remember the microsoft FUD from recent history that went something like "Linux on the desktop is dead". I think the microsofters were right, but they also forgot about something else: The desktop itself is dying or dead. The new mantra for gui and OS programmers/designers should be "The desktop is dead" - move on or die with it.
Microsoft can't really beleive that the desktop is going to continue to be a source of increasing revenue can they? Not with their behavior with regards to the gaming console market, hand helds, java replacements, etc. They themselves seem to be operating under that principle.
Yes it would be a rewrite from the ground up for the port to "unix" but not inbetween unixes. Writing software that is cross platform across unix from the ground up is relatively straight-forward.
if programs break across distributions then they are poorly coded.
If microsoft's office software is poorly coded as it is ported to unix, then you may have a point. They have $35 billion dollars for christ's sake. They can afford to code the fucking thing properly.
How the fuck does this gay shit get modded up? That is the dumbest comment I think I've ever read. 5's should be reserved for intelligent thought, not "I agree with you, so I'll give you a five". Jesus christ slashdot is going downhill. I think we need a panel of RMS approved moderators to control for this kind of bullshit. Yes, I am deadly serious.
But the problem is that you can't just "port to UNIX" You have to port to each and every one of them, and some even run on different archs (like sparc, x86, etc). Each UNIX is different, and with programs as complex as Word that aren't designed to be portable(like apache), a simple recompile won't help you.
You're missing something key. If you program to the linux api's, it will run on all the other unixes. Linux is unifying unix such that most of the unixes now have some sort of linux compatability layer, which in some cases can run unmodified linux binaries (assuming proper architecture), but more generally means the set of linux API's for the kernel, and support of unique glibc calls and other libraries.
Microsoft had a monopoly beginning with DOS. They made windows fully expecting more monopoly on the pc platform. Who cares if it crashes. There is no choice. See the beauty of their business model?
Of course things are slightly different now. The PC market is shrinking (on a quarter-to-quarter basis). MS is screwed...
Reminiscing.... I remember when win95 came out and the word on the street was how it stole MacOS look and feel. I can remember using it for the first time and thinking, wow this is neat, I like the desktop icons, I like how the explorer lets me navigate my hard drive.. Quickly however it became constraining. I learned linux through slackware and became hooked. Ever since, Microsoft hasn't given me a reason to switch over.
Lets face it. Supporting an OS that came out in 1995 has got to be a pain in the royal ass. Can you imagine supporting Slackware 3.2? Jesus Christ what nightmare. It's fun to lay the burden of win95 at MS's feet, what, with $35 billion in the bank, but it makes no sense to have it as policy. So they are quietly getting rid of support. If there's no uproar then that means success. At least from my perspective I dont give a fuck.
The interesting thing is considering what the current win95 users will change to. Any thoughts?
Hahah dude you are fucked in the head or something. I never suggested "helping out the team" or "throwing in your support". I'm just suggesting not to be such a brat about something you're getting for free and for which there exists solutions to your problem. Maybe you like to walk through life with blinders on. I dont know.
You sound like a total unix newbie to me. That's ok. We were all newbies once. You can make it. I beleive in you!
Honestly you shouldn't be too worried. The shit _hasn't_ hit the fan, and 2.4.16 is ROCK solid. _Yes_, 2.4 took a long time to stabilize. It's there now, after the Van Riel vm was tossed aside. So lets cut the crap and call a spade a spade: 1) Linus is not a stable release maintainer. If linus puts out a kernel it needs to be tested. Linus does not put out release candidates. Only a fool would use a product that has been released without prior testing. 2) 2.4 took so long to stabilize because of the mistaken beleif that a BSD style VM was best for linux. 2.4 doesn't have the infrastructure to handle it (reverse memory mapping, etc). 3) 2.4.16 is a fucking great kernel. Except for a few possible bugs (the source tree is 149MB uncompressed!) I know of no problems whatsoever. 4) 2.5.x is already starting off with a bang. the new block/io layer should kick major ass, along with all the other enhancements planned. 5) Quit your whining. The sky isn't falling, alan cox isn't retiring to the hills to become a hermit, and linus torvalds knows what the fuck he's doing.
Yeah that is pretty trollish. It's ambiguous whether you were implying I fall back on ESR dogma. I will just state that I dont follow any dogma, open source or not. I am just refuting the silly assertions in your posts. Like over-the-top take on linux stability and reliability that bordered on pure FUD.
The orginizational "problem" have you taken a glimpse of really only has to do with the travesty of the Van Riel VM. What a mess that was. If linus had chosen Andrea in 2.3.53 (when andrea and rik were competing) then we wouldn't be anywhere close to the mess we're in now. Shit happens, and linux survives. 2.4.16 is top notch. 2.5 is underway with a very impressive to-do list. I'm expecting great things from this kernel in the future, and so far your harping on a developmental accident hasn't changed my mind in the slightest.
Stability and robustness is measured in the field, not with a bug count on an arbitrary kernel release.
Redhat's kernel is as arbitrary as Linus'.
You own linux as much as Linus does. That means GPL protections for non copyright holders. Linus only has a very small percentage of the kernel copyrighted to himself. So if you felt like forking the kernel you could and no one would be mad at you, except some slashdot trolls. The kernel has been forked countless times for many many reasons, including forking a development branch (2.5 is a fork off 2.4), forking for real-time, forking for embedded developments, forking for MkLinux (linux sitting on top of a microkernel), etc.
So please stop the charade and doom-and-gloom bashing of the linux kernel. It just plainly nonsensical.
Ahh your method of using linux (that you assume is the most widely deployed) is utter bunk. It totally _bypasses_ the excellent community support in the community by using _untested_ recently released software.
The proper way to use linux, to deploy it, is to make sure that community support verifies the stability of kernel. Redhat's kernel is usually very well tested and will not crash under high loads. 2.4.16 will not crash under high loads. If you use an arbitrary kernel release from Linus then you bypass the one of the critical features of linux -- Community support.
Slashdot Mirror
Alaska's temperature has risen 9 degrees in the past century. Why the hell are they installing super computers there? Maybe they should put their heat transfer unit inside a glacier.
(I know it's inisignificant amount of heat increase, but still... May be a start of a trend?)
Are you some poor mofo from bangladesh? Jesus christ, that 47MB of uncrompressed space is just too damned much!!
Wait.
I know.
I'll erase that Chumbawumba album I got and then hated.
# du -s Chumbawamba\ -\ Tubthumper/
61589 Chumbawamba - Tubthumper
Are you telling me there are Powerpc owners out there capable of installing linux, capable of using it, that dont have a 3 button mouse? Either they are brainwashed by Jobsian hype or they are a mythical creature not yet encountered in the wild.
Really... First thing I'd do with a mac is get a real mouse for it -- damn shame I have to.
I used to work at SUN, and we had alot of contact with sandia and microchemical locks. What you say is true. The safety of our nuclear warheads is very high.
That's even more true now that Ogg Vorbis RC3 is of higher quality than wma and mp3 and mpc, and others, at 128kbit *and* 64kbit.
Yes folks, RC3 is vastly improved over RC2. Give it a try!!
It seems that knowing the results before the "independant consultant" performs the survey is ... strange.
I think that qualifies as FUD, dont you? Come on folks, lets put on our thinking caps. $30 billion.. THEY DONT NEED OUR HELP. I agree bashing can be mindless and immature, but so can anti-bashing -- it shows where you mind is stuck. So instead of coming to slashdot defending microsoft (Really, it reflects poorly on your priorities), why not start a letter writing campaign to Redmond to get them to spend some of their money on advertising? You can do a whole hell of alot of thirty billion dollars. So I ask you to think about it: What exactly do they need you for?
I dont know if you've noticed, big guy, but slashdot appears to have more microsoft defenders than linux zealots now.
And besides, microsoft doesn't need your help. They have over $30 billion in the bank. So lets cut this poor microsoft crap, cause they're doing just fine with or without our help or "bashing".
You're complaining that you have to upgrade the kernel to run XFS?
Uhm, excuse me, but what the fuck?
At least linux gives you the option of running with XFS, because last I checked that feature wasn't available in freebsd land. Next you'll be complaining that you can't have the NSA's enhanced security features without rebooting your 200 day uptimed computers. Sorry FreeBSDers, there are some things more important than uptime.
Then why is microsoft trying to destroy the linux community? And if not that, why do they care so much about linux? As a foist against the DOJ?
yeah, but that's basicly no mention at all. What investor (seems like it's geared towards) wouldn't know about a relationship between SGI and linux? Come on, put some more meat on them bones, article writer.
I'm really surprised that linux wasn't mentioned a single time in this article, despite that fact that the competitive landscape of hollwywood rendering farms was "analyzed". Seems very fishy, considering that SGI is putting alot of man hours into making linux more enterprise ready, and leveraging it into commodity servers.
.... Or am I reading SGI wrong? What is SGI's relationship to linux, and why doesn't this article mention linux once? Just wondering.
66 million dollars is about the same as a FEW HOURS worth of interest on microsoft's cash assets. How's that for perspective?
I remember the microsoft FUD from recent history that went something like "Linux on the desktop is dead". I think the microsofters were right, but they also forgot about something else: The desktop itself is dying or dead. The new mantra for gui and OS programmers/designers should be "The desktop is dead" - move on or die with it.
Microsoft can't really beleive that the desktop is going to continue to be a source of increasing revenue can they? Not with their behavior with regards to the gaming console market, hand helds, java replacements, etc. They themselves seem to be operating under that principle.
Yes it would be a rewrite from the ground up for the port to "unix" but not inbetween unixes. Writing software that is cross platform across unix from the ground up is relatively straight-forward.
if programs break across distributions then they are poorly coded.
If microsoft's office software is poorly coded as it is ported to unix, then you may have a point. They have $35 billion dollars for christ's sake. They can afford to code the fucking thing properly.
How the fuck does this gay shit get modded up? That is the dumbest comment I think I've ever read. 5's should be reserved for intelligent thought, not "I agree with you, so I'll give you a five". Jesus christ slashdot is going downhill. I think we need a panel of RMS approved moderators to control for this kind of bullshit. Yes, I am deadly serious.
But the problem is that you can't just "port to UNIX" You have to port to each and every one of them, and some even run on different archs (like sparc, x86, etc). Each UNIX is different, and with programs as complex as Word that aren't designed to be portable(like apache), a simple recompile won't help you.
You're missing something key. If you program to the linux api's, it will run on all the other unixes. Linux is unifying unix such that most of the unixes now have some sort of linux compatability layer, which in some cases can run unmodified linux binaries (assuming proper architecture), but more generally means the set of linux API's for the kernel, and support of unique glibc calls and other libraries.
Microsoft had a monopoly beginning with DOS. They made windows fully expecting more monopoly on the pc platform. Who cares if it crashes. There is no choice. See the beauty of their business model?
Of course things are slightly different now. The PC market is shrinking (on a quarter-to-quarter basis). MS is screwed...
Reminiscing.... I remember when win95 came out and the word on the street was how it stole MacOS look and feel. I can remember using it for the first time and thinking, wow this is neat, I like the desktop icons, I like how the explorer lets me navigate my hard drive.. Quickly however it became constraining. I learned linux through slackware and became hooked. Ever since, Microsoft hasn't given me a reason to switch over.
Happily using linux as my desktop for 5 years.
Lets face it. Supporting an OS that came out in 1995 has got to be a pain in the royal ass. Can you imagine supporting Slackware 3.2? Jesus Christ what nightmare. It's fun to lay the burden of win95 at MS's feet, what, with $35 billion in the bank, but it makes no sense to have it as policy. So they are quietly getting rid of support. If there's no uproar then that means success. At least from my perspective I dont give a fuck.
The interesting thing is considering what the current win95 users will change to. Any thoughts?
Hahah dude you are fucked in the head or something. I never suggested "helping out the team" or "throwing in your support". I'm just suggesting not to be such a brat about something you're getting for free and for which there exists solutions to your problem. Maybe you like to walk through life with blinders on. I dont know.
You sound like a total unix newbie to me. That's ok. We were all newbies once. You can make it. I beleive in you!
I dont think I ever mentioned your moral character.
Get a grip buddy. Slashdot shouldn't be for the faint of heart.
You sound pretty paranoid.
Honestly you shouldn't be too worried. The shit _hasn't_ hit the fan, and 2.4.16 is ROCK solid. _Yes_, 2.4 took a long time to stabilize. It's there now, after the Van Riel vm was tossed aside. So lets cut the crap and call a spade a spade: 1) Linus is not a stable release maintainer. If linus puts out a kernel it needs to be tested. Linus does not put out release candidates. Only a fool would use a product that has been released without prior testing. 2) 2.4 took so long to stabilize because of the mistaken beleif that a BSD style VM was best for linux. 2.4 doesn't have the infrastructure to handle it (reverse memory mapping, etc). 3) 2.4.16 is a fucking great kernel. Except for a few possible bugs (the source tree is 149MB uncompressed!) I know of no problems whatsoever. 4) 2.5.x is already starting off with a bang. the new block/io layer should kick major ass, along with all the other enhancements planned. 5) Quit your whining. The sky isn't falling, alan cox isn't retiring to the hills to become a hermit, and linus torvalds knows what the fuck he's doing.
Yeah that is pretty trollish. It's ambiguous whether you were implying I fall back on ESR dogma. I will just state that I dont follow any dogma, open source or not. I am just refuting the silly assertions in your posts. Like over-the-top take on linux stability and reliability that bordered on pure FUD.
The orginizational "problem" have you taken a glimpse of really only has to do with the travesty of the Van Riel VM. What a mess that was. If linus had chosen Andrea in 2.3.53 (when andrea and rik were competing) then we wouldn't be anywhere close to the mess we're in now. Shit happens, and linux survives. 2.4.16 is top notch. 2.5 is underway with a very impressive to-do list. I'm expecting great things from this kernel in the future, and so far your harping on a developmental accident hasn't changed my mind in the slightest.
You seem pretty clueless to me.
Stability and robustness is measured in the field, not with a bug count on an arbitrary kernel release.
Redhat's kernel is as arbitrary as Linus'.
You own linux as much as Linus does. That means GPL protections for non copyright holders. Linus only has a very small percentage of the kernel copyrighted to himself. So if you felt like forking the kernel you could and no one would be mad at you, except some slashdot trolls. The kernel has been forked countless times for many many reasons, including forking a development branch (2.5 is a fork off 2.4), forking for real-time, forking for embedded developments, forking for MkLinux (linux sitting on top of a microkernel), etc.
So please stop the charade and doom-and-gloom bashing of the linux kernel. It just plainly nonsensical.
Ahh your method of using linux (that you assume is the most widely deployed) is utter bunk. It totally _bypasses_ the excellent community support in the community by using _untested_ recently released software.
The proper way to use linux, to deploy it, is to make sure that community support verifies the stability of kernel. Redhat's kernel is usually very well tested and will not crash under high loads. 2.4.16 will not crash under high loads. If you use an arbitrary kernel release from Linus then you bypass the one of the critical features of linux -- Community support.