Do you really think the publications like ZD don't "get it" though? I'm not so sure. When you watch a program like TechTV, you get the distinct impression that these guys really like Linux - precisely because it's more of a hard-core hobbyist's operating system.
I don't really think most people dispute the fact that Linux development will continue, with or without Linux-related businesses. It certainly will.
The problem is, without money, you have problems acheiving certain goals. Linux will forever be a tinkerer's/hobbyist's OS unless someone backs some of the development work with funding, and puts it out front. 99.9% of the population doesn't regularly check Freshmeat or Sourceforge when they want to research new software packages available to do a job. They call their sales rep. or go shopping at a retail store, to see what's "on the shelf".
Failure of Linux companies means failure to catch the eyes and ears of all of these computer users. There are very good reasons people invest millions of dollars in things like advertising and marketing.
An old friend of mine worked for UPS for a couple years, and he had similar stories of package destruction. He said they'd commonly build up a wall of boxes as they came in, to conserve space in the warehouse. When it was time to load the trucks, someone would come by yelling "tear 'em down!" and they'd knock the whole wall down.
If you had a fragile box that happened to be at the top of one of their walls, good luck.
He also said there were definitely issues with theft of packages - although he agreed that UPS did have pretty good policies in place to try and prevent it. He said the boxes that were labeled prominently as to their contents were at the highest risk. (That's why many companies like CDW ship boxes packed inside a plain-looking outer box. It's more tempting for someone to steal an item shipped in a pretty box with color photos of the product on the front.)
Re: I think you need to look at more PS2 titles...
on
XBox Released
·
· Score: 2
For starters, how about "Twisted Metal Black"?
To this game's credit, you really can drive your car around anywhere on the "playing field". When you're stopped from driving any further, it's because there's a real barrier there, such as a chain-link fence or a building. None of that "Star Wars" game concept of "pan a little bit to the left or to the right, but we'll stop you here because we didn't want to develop more scenery past this point".
Also, you seem to completely discount all of the sports titles for PS2, which are probably among the most played games on consoles, period. Many a console (of all types) has been purchased mainly so people can compete in a round of NHL Hockey or Football.
Really, I think the overall complaint that "everything seems like you're watching scenery scroll towards you" can be argued equally for PC games. How many Doom/Quake/UT remakes do we need on the PC anyway?
When you compromise by only providing a joystick type controller and not a full-blown keyboard, you automatically limit the genres of games suitable for the system. I think the PS2 and all other consoles serve their intended purpose very well. Considering a low-res TV set is the primary display device, you can't cram lots of text on the screen anyway. What other types of games do you have in mind to put on one?
Oh, absolutely... and I think this illustrates part of the larger problem. Everyone is pointing the finger at the other party as the problem, because they're all in it for the money.
It's hard for me to look at a musician with a straight face when they rant against the RIAA in one breath, and then turn around and denounce MP3 file sharing networks in the next.
If the musician was truly creating music as art, his/her primary goal would be getting as many people as possible to become fans and listen to/enjoy his/her work. That means it's counterproductive to attack Napster.
Instead, musicians want to see music as property, and want to stomp out every organization that does anything with said "property" without their express permission.
As long as a musician clings to the idea that his/her music directly equates with X number of $'s owed him/her, he/she has a pretty hard time convincing me that he/she is any different than the businesspeople at the RIAA.
I absolutely agree, although I think it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that the RIAA got where it is only because artists were willing to sign up with them, under the RIAA's terms.
Sure, they're sneaky and greedy - but they didn't point a gun to the musician's head and say "hand over that song of yours or die, pal!"
People like that sax player on the corner, playing for the pure joy of it, are the exception. Most musicians have a certain amount of greed, just like the people at the RIAA do. For every musician I run into who honestly doesn't care if he/she makes a buck, I find 3 who have aspirations of "hitting the big time" and raking in mega-bucks.
I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of the people who signed on to the major record labels did so because they knew it was a ticket to much larger earnings. Sure, they don't like many of the RIAA's terms - but they could have always said "No! Won't work with you!" They didn't....
This is no different than Microsoft, folks. We collectively created the monster by *willingly* signing their agreements and purchasing their products. As most Linux fans also know, the only solution is to explore new alternatives, even though they may be the "path less traveled" and seem more risky.
We're currently running Oracle 8i under Windows NT on a couple of DEC Alphaservers (4100's with quad processors).
With MS's abysmal support for NT on the Alpha these days, we've considered moving the Oracle database to another OS. I don't think we want to trash the DEC Alphaservers yet though - since they're still respectable machines. Linux for Alpha is definitely an interesting option for us - but I'm wondering if anyone has had experiences with Oracle for Linux on the DEC Alpha? How does it compare, performance-wise, to running Oracle on the Alpha version of NT?
Last time I checked, Oracle wasn't really giving a high level of support to Oracle for Linux unless you used it on Intel hardware?
I, too, agree with the above posts - except the statement that "Your typical user doesn't want choice" bothers me a little bit. I think what you're really trying to say is that the typical user doesn't like confusion; AKA. too many illogical ways to perform the same command in a particular application or operating system.
I believe the typical user *does* prefer choices. Otherwise, you wouldn't see Microsoft selling those "Plus!" packs seperately for all of their Windows '9x products. People will pay extra to be able to add more custom sounds, backgrounds, animated mouse pointers, etc. They like having more choice/flexibility to customize the GUI. Mainframe and minicomputers never had appeal to the "typical user" because they were dull, dry and boring. It took the advent of the "personal computer" to spark interest in the average person, even if some of those same people use to use minicomputers/mainframes daily in the workplace. The whole name "personal computer" implies ability to personalize/customize/make unique.
I just find it slightly amusing that so many Linux users bitch and moan endlessly when they discover that "Sorry, but on your laptop's video chipset, X is only supported in 640x480 standard VGA."...Yet some of these same people want to see X run on all manner of portable/pocket-size devices with screens that can't do more than half that resolution!
No, actually, I'm willing to bet the "CrossOver" plug-in won't do extremely well at $20 a pop.
Quite frankly, I'll well past the point of being willing to pay anything extra to be able to view a specific video file format. If people doing advertising want me to see their sales-pitch for a new movie (what a "teaser" is, after all), they should provide it in multiple formats - not just proprietary Apple format.
I appreciate the work that was put into trying to get Quicktime movies to play on Linux - but if they expect payment for it, I just can't cost-justify it. If others can, great. I hope it does well for them.
Hmm.... well, even if there is conflicting information out there - how can you slam Slashdot for just linking to a benchmark made by a very reputable publication?
Furthermore, I'd be much more inclined to believe Maximum PC if they benchmark tested load times of non-Microsoft apps. It's pretty easy for MS to make their own applications appear to start up faster than they really do by pre-loading shared code into memory during the OS bootup process.
(For example, note that Office '97 and 2K both default to placing an "Office Startup" shortcut in your startup program group. That makes sure a big chunk of MS Office is loaded into memory as soon as you log in, before you ever actually click to run any Office apps. That's an awfully nice way to gain an unfair advantage over competing products that don't try to suck down your system resources by pre-loading themselves before use.)
Do you really believe that Sun servers are noticeably more reliable than Intel-based servers from top manufacturers like Dell or Compaq?
I'd argue that they aren't. I can buy a refurbished Dell Poweredge server for under $9000 that includes a 3 year on-site warranty, and has plenty of hard drive space, CPU power and RAM to compete head-to-head with most servers I see people using from Sun with Solaris on them.
One problem I see with Sun hardware is that it's so pricy, people tend to hang onto it for a longer time before replacing it. That's not very sensible, because it leaves them behind sites on Intel platforms doing aregular 2-3 year upgrade cycle. (The Intel admins probably spend the same or less for 2 complete systems than was spent for one Sun server.)
If you have new systems every 2 or 3 years, you don't really need to be concerned if it's built well enough to run reliably for 7 or 8 years, now do you?
I think part of the reason this "Win vs. Linux" cost of ownership battle rages on and on is because we're comparing apples to oranges.
Individual user workstations are rarely "mission critical". If they crash once in a while, productivity doesn't really diminish. (Sure, they have to spend a minute or two rebooting and logging back in, and sometimes they might lose the file they were last working on - but that's the extent of it.)
Servers, on the other hand, obviously pose much bigger productivity issues if they go down. Every user connected to one is cut off from what they were doing until it reboots.
Linux shines on servers for this reason. It's markedly more reliable than the average Windows-based server. If nothing else, it saves you from doing a lot of reboots when you reconfigure things. (Make a change to Apache or Samba configuration? Just stop and restart the daemon; not the whole machine.) Win2K and XP are better than ever about imitating that functionality, but they still ask you to "restart the machine for the changes to take effect" far too often to be convenient on a server.
On a workstation though, the rules change. The biggest factors become ease-of-use and training. Most employees come with a chunk of Windows knowledge in advance. Sure, some have no clue, but even temp. agencies requires experience with using the mouse, getting around Win '9x, and using MS Office apps. When you have hundreds or thousands of employees, it starts to look really good to use a lesser-quality operating system if it means most of your workers can already get around in it with no additional training.
This is something that only time will change (and then, only if people stick with Linux and keep making efforts to improve it over the years).
I think you just hit on a very important, and often overlooked issue!
Earlier in the growth of the PC, it was easily possible to develop a number of applications and mass-market them, because you were filling very common needs that hadn't been addressed yet.
This is what brought about the idea of shrink-wrapped, retail-boxed software on store shelves.
Before the personal computer became a staple item, people using computers had pretty specific and unique needs, so they'd pay programmers to develop custom apps for them.
I think we're now entering the age where things are coming full-circle. The world has more than enough pre-packaged solutions. Businesses are growing frustrated at buying canned solutions to complex needs, and finding out they don't really fit. The software making the big $'s right now is the heavily-customizable stuff that is sold along with training and consultants on-site to tailor it for each business. (EG. ERP software like J.D. Edwards OneWorld, PeopleSoft, etc.)
Since a lot of the common stuff isn't ported to Linux yet, it does leave some room for people to re-develop all the common stuff (word processors, desktop publishers, spreadsheets, commnunications software) as native Linux apps. Still, I think these people are many of the ones complaining that "My Linux software isn't making any money!" Nope, it sure won't either - as long as all you're doing is re-inventing wheels. You're either on the cutting edge or the trailing edge. The customizable, tailored software as a service is where the $'s are at now. Show companies how an integrated, complete Linux solution can benefit them and you'll do well. Try to sell them more pre-boxed software, just because "it's a Linux edition!" and you won't.
Let me get this straight... You're holding up GNAT's GNATBox firewall as a prime example of why no GPL software can ever become a commercial success?
I think there are plenty of reasons why that particular product might not be successful that have *zero* to do with it being hamstrung by GPL code!
For starters, I tried out the GNATBox demo for a while, and thought it was one of the most user un-friendly firewall packages I've used. Quite frankly, anyone in the market for a product of this type would be a fool not to consider Smoothwall instead. It's far superior, plain and simple. Nice web-based interface, much more functionality (ability to update addresses via dyndns.org, web proxy caching via squid built in, easy update patch management system built in, etc. etc.). Not to mention, the author of Smoothwall gives his product away for free. (Ok, he asks that you donate to his charity of choice if you use it. So what? Wouldn't you rather do that than pay $495 or whatever to buy GNATBox?)
I think the real issue is this: If you try to sell a commercial product that's already been done better by people willing to give theirs away for free, you have a problem with your business plan.
Thank god there are a few people like you who still take some pride in their work!
I know CompUSA doesn't exactly pay well for their techs - but it's all relative. My wife really wanted to get an entry-level job in the computer industry, and CompUSA seemed perfect for her. I've taught her how to build and upgrade PCs and she's familiar with all the common Windows applications (plus even a bit of Linux experience). They pretty much blew her off and didn't even give her an interview. It sounded like the people in charge refused to believe a female could make a good PC tech.
After all that, I had to deal with them on a Toshiba notebook warranty repair. I tell you what... my wife sure could have done a better job than any of those clowns did. I had to bring it back 4 times in a row. It wasn't even powering itself on, and they'd give it back saying it was fixed. It would either still be DOA, or work once and then never again, each time I got it back. (Ever hear of testing after a repair??)
Finally, they told me "Our policy has changed. We don't accept Toshiba portables for repair anymore. You need to call Toshiba direct." This is complete B.S. because Toshiba themselves told me "No, CompUSA is our authorized repair depot." when I called them to check.
Anyway, I still sent it in to Toshiba direct and they had it fixed in 24 hours turn-around time. Worked great ever since.
I work in a corporate environment, not a school situation - but we have similar experiences with Dell support. We always buy the 3 year extended warranty because we want the 24 hour parts replacement when something breaks. The on-site service portion is usless though. I wish they'd let us buy parts replacement without on-site and save some money, but it seems to be bundled together in an "all or nothing" package.
When I've let the on-site people show up, it typically takes 1-2 days longer than if I just have Dell ship me the part. They always get things mixed up or claim Dell didn't give them the part, while Dell says they did. Then it takes them a day or two to straighten it all out and show up at our door.
Worse yet, some of the service techs they send out obviously have little experience. I often have them comment "Wow, I've never seen Windows NT running before. How do you like that?" and "Umm, I'm not quite sure why this hard drive isn't detecting...." It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Uh, I'd argue that you're wrong. Wasting a PS2 on a firewall/gateway is senseless.
I, too, use Smoothwall (great product, BTW!), but the real value comes in because you can recycle an older PC with it. The major strength of a PS2 is the multimedia capabilities, and a firewall uses exactly 0% of that.
You can easily buy an old 486 or Pentium 90Mhz for $50 or less, so why spend $300 on a PS2 for the job?
Even if you got the PS2 for free, I can still think of 2 reasons it's not a good tool for the job. #1, they have issues with cooling. People who leave their PS2 on constantly end up needing repairs. #2, you can't add 2 network cards to it. How will you get Smoothwall's DMZ support to work?
Lots of people sign these petitions not because they want to personally spend money on the resulting product, but only because they'd like to see it done on principle.
Something similar happened with OS/2 a while ago. People petitioned for a new version of the OS/2 Warp client to be released. Someone did, but for hundreds of dollars. Almost nobody ended up buying. (Why would you, really - when nobody is developing for it anymore? If you still need to use OS/2 apps, they'll work just fine on your existing OS/2 Warp release.)
These petition drives give a decent indicator of how many people think it would be cool for an idea/product to be produced, but not nearly as good an indicator of how many of them will really buy it....
Bleah... I hate to say it, but I suspect the real reason they included a game like "The Sims" has much more to do with the lower demands on the video adapter than anything else.
One of the biggest headaches with Linux and X is getting the accelerated 3D support working properly with games. Sure, Quake usually works pretty well - but look how many 3D shooters there are, and how few tried doing a Linux port. Even Unreal Tournament for Linux is very picky... I often had it working fine with my 3DFX Voodoo 3 board, only to have it break when I upgraded an RPM of one thing or another.
Games that don't require lots of fast, 3D scrolling are automatically more Linux-friendly -- and The Sims is probably the biggest selling example of one of these types of games in recent history. So there you have it....
In my own experiences, I've found Mandrake (and 8.1, no exception) to be more of a workstation power-user release, whereas RedHat works better for a server.
Both offer similar features, but Mandrake generally includes much more optional stuff you can install selectively and includes new items first, at the expense of some stability.
On my dual-boot Win2K and Linux PC at home, I run Mandrake 8.1. I liked the fact that they had the latest KDE and lots of Linux games pre-loaded for me. On the other hand, I also run a web server which has always been easiest to deal with under RedHat Linux. There always seems to be more documentation out there on web sites for setting up things in RedHat, and you can get a little bit more help from commercial vendors when you stick with RedHat.
Ultimately, people should use whichever Linux distro they're most comfortable with. When it's all said and done, anything that runs on one Linux flavor will run on the other flavors, given enough tweaking and configuring.
Didn't Sid Meier end up doing the re-write of Majik the Gathering, after someone else attempted to code it and ran into loads of logic problems that ruined the gameplay?
It's been a while, but I seem to recall he personally had a part in the development of that title. Either at the start when it got screwed up and delayed, or later on - to fix it for release.
Yeah, but despite Oracle for NT being a terrible implementation, my workplace still uses it (on a DEC Alphaserver running NT 4) because Oracle won't support their products as "tier 1 support" if they're running on a non-Intel processor and Linux.
What's with that policy? "Oh, sure - we'll take your Oracle installation seriously if you have it loaded on a generic PII or PIII server - but on an Alphaserver? Nope, sorry... must not really be important to your business."
Personally, I don't see the reason to stick with Photoshop at all if you're a Windows user who just wants to use some plug-ins, touch-up some photos, design things for web pages, and so forth.
For about 1/4th. the price, you can buy Paint Shop Pro 7 and do anything you'll probably ever need - sometimes more easily than in Photoshop.
(EG. Have you ever tried to load in 2 different JPG photos and merge them so they're the left side/right side of one JPG photo? Comes in real handy for things like eBay photos, where you get charged for photos beyond the 1st. free one you post with an advertisement. Anyway, in Photoshop, it's a pretty complex process. I sure couldn't figure it out intuitively. In Paint Shop Pro, you just drag the photos into a new window, and voila!)
We use Sprint for our leased lines connecting 5 different corporate locations together, for our long distance voice communications, and for our Internet T1. Over the last year, I've literally logged pages and pages of trouble tickets, both proactive and initiated by us, for problems on their circuits. Despite paying for a 99.9% guaranteed uptime, we've had circuits down for close to 24 hours at a time.
Often, the problem gets forwarded to the local telco, who comes out to the site, swaps out the "smartjack", and declares it "all fixed" - only to have the line start going up and down a few minutes after they leave.
The telco typically points the finger at Sprint, and their people point it back at the telco's lines and/or hardware - until eventually someone fixes it. (Then, you never really get a complete or straight answer about what the problem was.)
I really don't know if other communications companies do a better job or not. We had MCI in the past and they gave us similar headaches. That's why we mass-switched everything to Sprint. But then, MCI and Sprint announced the merger and things went downhill again.
Since this is how they treat a corporate customer with a service-level agreement, I don't expect anything decent out of them at all at the consumer level.
In fact, when I used Sprint for my L.D. service, I had all sorts of billing mistakes. They'd bill me for calls I never made and I had to argue repeatedly to get credits for them.
I respect anyone's right to develop whatever they desire. Therefore, perhaps the best answer to "Why SkyOS?" is "Why not, SkyOS?"
That said, it's also a little disappointing sometimes to watch an author pour many, many hours into a project that you can bet won't survive. Hey, I could be wrong - but I think SkyOS may be one of these. If BeOS couldn't really pull it off, why would I believe SkyOS could? Often times, history is the best teacher....
Right now, I think there's room for a new OS. I just feel that it needs to be radically different to catch people's attention. I'm not talking just "eye candy" - but that's a part of the package. It has to solve problems in a new way... offer something you didn't really have before.
BeOS had a few innovative concepts in it. It had appeal to programmers with the modular use of objects and ease of implementation that other OS's lacked. It offered very quick boot time, which isn't commonly found in a full-featured OS. It also had a very "clean" look, which is a big plus to some.
SkyOS seems like it borrows heavily from the Win '9x/NT desktop style, with nods to the typical X environment/desktop look and feel. Now they're putting in mucho effort to make it run Linux apps, which can be run fine in Linux already.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you really think the publications like ZD don't "get it" though? I'm not so sure. When you watch a program like TechTV, you get the distinct impression that these guys really like Linux - precisely because it's more of a hard-core hobbyist's operating system.
I don't really think most people dispute the fact that Linux development will continue, with or without Linux-related businesses. It certainly will.
The problem is, without money, you have problems acheiving certain goals. Linux will forever be a tinkerer's/hobbyist's OS unless someone backs some of the development work with funding, and puts it out front. 99.9% of the population doesn't regularly check Freshmeat or Sourceforge when they want to research new software packages available to do a job. They call their sales rep. or go shopping at a retail store, to see what's "on the shelf".
Failure of Linux companies means failure to catch the eyes and ears of all of these computer users. There are very good reasons people invest millions of dollars in things like advertising and marketing.
An old friend of mine worked for UPS for a couple years, and he had similar stories of package destruction. He said they'd commonly build up a wall of boxes as they came in, to conserve space in the warehouse. When it was time to load the trucks, someone would come by yelling "tear 'em down!" and they'd knock the whole wall down.
If you had a fragile box that happened to be at the top of one of their walls, good luck.
He also said there were definitely issues with theft of packages - although he agreed that UPS did have pretty good policies in place to try and prevent it. He said the boxes that were labeled prominently as to their contents were at the highest risk. (That's why many companies like CDW ship boxes packed inside a plain-looking outer box. It's more tempting for someone to steal an item shipped in a pretty box with color photos of the product on the front.)
For starters, how about "Twisted Metal Black"?
To this game's credit, you really can drive your car around anywhere on the "playing field". When you're stopped from driving any further, it's because there's a real barrier there, such as a chain-link fence or a building. None of that "Star Wars" game concept of "pan a little bit to the left or to the right, but we'll stop you here because we didn't want to develop more scenery past this point".
Also, you seem to completely discount all of the sports titles for PS2, which are probably among the most played games on consoles, period. Many a console (of all types) has been purchased mainly so people can compete in a round of NHL Hockey or Football.
Really, I think the overall complaint that "everything seems like you're watching scenery scroll towards you" can be argued equally for PC games. How many Doom/Quake/UT remakes do we need on the PC anyway?
When you compromise by only providing a joystick type controller and not a full-blown keyboard, you automatically limit the genres of games suitable for the system. I think the PS2 and all other consoles serve their intended purpose very well. Considering a low-res TV set is the primary display device, you can't cram lots of text on the screen anyway. What other types of games do you have in mind to put on one?
Oh, absolutely... and I think this illustrates part of the larger problem. Everyone is pointing the finger at the other party as the problem, because they're all in it for the money.
It's hard for me to look at a musician with a straight face when they rant against the RIAA in one breath, and then turn around and denounce MP3 file sharing networks in the next.
If the musician was truly creating music as art, his/her primary goal would be getting as many people as possible to become fans and listen to/enjoy his/her work. That means it's counterproductive to attack Napster.
Instead, musicians want to see music as property, and want to stomp out every organization that does anything with said "property" without their express permission.
As long as a musician clings to the idea that his/her music directly equates with X number of $'s owed him/her, he/she has a pretty hard time convincing me that he/she is any different than the businesspeople at the RIAA.
I absolutely agree, although I think it's also important not to lose sight of the fact that the RIAA got where it is only because artists were willing to sign up with them, under the RIAA's terms.
Sure, they're sneaky and greedy - but they didn't point a gun to the musician's head and say "hand over that song of yours or die, pal!"
People like that sax player on the corner, playing for the pure joy of it, are the exception. Most musicians have a certain amount of greed, just like the people at the RIAA do. For every musician I run into who honestly doesn't care if he/she makes a buck, I find 3 who have aspirations of "hitting the big time" and raking in mega-bucks.
I'm willing to bet that at least 75% of the people who signed on to the major record labels did so because they knew it was a ticket to much larger earnings. Sure, they don't like many of the RIAA's terms - but they could have always said "No! Won't work with you!" They didn't....
This is no different than Microsoft, folks. We collectively created the monster by *willingly* signing their agreements and purchasing their products. As most Linux fans also know, the only solution is to explore new alternatives, even though they may be the "path less traveled" and seem more risky.
We're currently running Oracle 8i under Windows NT on a couple of DEC Alphaservers (4100's with quad processors).
With MS's abysmal support for NT on the Alpha these days, we've considered moving the Oracle database to another OS. I don't think we want to trash the DEC Alphaservers yet though - since they're still respectable machines. Linux for Alpha is definitely an interesting option for us - but I'm wondering if anyone has had experiences with Oracle for Linux on the DEC Alpha? How does it compare, performance-wise, to running Oracle on the Alpha version of NT?
Last time I checked, Oracle wasn't really giving a high level of support to Oracle for Linux unless you used it on Intel hardware?
I, too, agree with the above posts - except the statement that "Your typical user doesn't want choice" bothers me a little bit. I think what you're really trying to say is that the typical user doesn't like confusion; AKA. too many illogical ways to perform the same command in a particular application or operating system.
I believe the typical user *does* prefer choices. Otherwise, you wouldn't see Microsoft selling those "Plus!" packs seperately for all of their Windows '9x products. People will pay extra to be able to add more custom sounds, backgrounds, animated mouse pointers, etc. They like having more choice/flexibility to customize the GUI. Mainframe and minicomputers never had appeal to the "typical user" because they were dull, dry and boring. It took the advent of the "personal computer" to spark interest in the average person, even if some of those same people use to use minicomputers/mainframes daily in the workplace. The whole name "personal computer" implies ability to personalize/customize/make unique.
I just find it slightly amusing that so many Linux users bitch and moan endlessly when they discover that "Sorry, but on your laptop's video chipset, X is only supported in 640x480 standard VGA." ...Yet some of these same people want to see X run on all manner of portable/pocket-size devices with screens that can't do more than half that resolution!
No, actually, I'm willing to bet the "CrossOver" plug-in won't do extremely well at $20 a pop.
Quite frankly, I'll well past the point of being willing to pay anything extra to be able to view a specific video file format. If people doing advertising want me to see their sales-pitch for a new movie (what a "teaser" is, after all), they should provide it in multiple formats - not just proprietary Apple format.
I appreciate the work that was put into trying to get Quicktime movies to play on Linux - but if they expect payment for it, I just can't cost-justify it. If others can, great. I hope it does well for them.
Hmm.... well, even if there is conflicting information out there - how can you slam Slashdot for just linking to a benchmark made by a very reputable publication?
Furthermore, I'd be much more inclined to believe Maximum PC if they benchmark tested load times of non-Microsoft apps. It's pretty easy for MS to make their own applications appear to start up faster than they really do by pre-loading shared code into memory during the OS bootup process.
(For example, note that Office '97 and 2K both default to placing an "Office Startup" shortcut in your startup program group. That makes sure a big chunk of MS Office is loaded into memory as soon as you log in, before you ever actually click to run any Office apps. That's an awfully nice way to gain an unfair advantage over competing products that don't try to suck down your system resources by pre-loading themselves before use.)
Do you really believe that Sun servers are noticeably more reliable than Intel-based servers from top manufacturers like Dell or Compaq?
I'd argue that they aren't. I can buy a refurbished Dell Poweredge server for under $9000 that includes a 3 year on-site warranty, and has plenty of hard drive space, CPU power and RAM to compete head-to-head with most servers I see people using from Sun with Solaris on them.
One problem I see with Sun hardware is that it's so pricy, people tend to hang onto it for a longer time before replacing it. That's not very sensible, because it leaves them behind sites on Intel platforms doing aregular 2-3 year upgrade cycle. (The Intel admins probably spend the same or less for 2 complete systems than was spent for one Sun server.)
If you have new systems every 2 or 3 years, you don't really need to be concerned if it's built well enough to run reliably for 7 or 8 years, now do you?
I think part of the reason this "Win vs. Linux" cost of ownership battle rages on and on is because we're comparing apples to oranges.
Individual user workstations are rarely "mission critical". If they crash once in a while, productivity doesn't really diminish. (Sure, they have to spend a minute or two rebooting and logging back in, and sometimes they might lose the file they were last working on - but that's the extent of it.)
Servers, on the other hand, obviously pose much bigger productivity issues if they go down. Every user connected to one is cut off from what they were doing until it reboots.
Linux shines on servers for this reason. It's markedly more reliable than the average Windows-based server. If nothing else, it saves you from doing a lot of reboots when you reconfigure things. (Make a change to Apache or Samba configuration? Just stop and restart the daemon; not the whole machine.) Win2K and XP are better than ever about imitating that functionality, but they still ask you to "restart the machine for the changes to take effect" far too often to be convenient on a server.
On a workstation though, the rules change. The biggest factors become ease-of-use and training. Most employees come with a chunk of Windows knowledge in advance. Sure, some have no clue, but even temp. agencies requires experience with using the mouse, getting around Win '9x, and using MS Office apps. When you have hundreds or thousands of employees, it starts to look really good to use a lesser-quality operating system if it means most of your workers can already get around in it with no additional training.
This is something that only time will change (and then, only if people stick with Linux and keep making efforts to improve it over the years).
I think you just hit on a very important, and often overlooked issue!
Earlier in the growth of the PC, it was easily possible to develop a number of applications and mass-market them, because you were filling very common needs that hadn't been addressed yet.
This is what brought about the idea of shrink-wrapped, retail-boxed software on store shelves.
Before the personal computer became a staple item, people using computers had pretty specific and unique needs, so they'd pay programmers to develop custom apps for them.
I think we're now entering the age where things are coming full-circle. The world has more than enough pre-packaged solutions. Businesses are growing frustrated at buying canned solutions to complex needs, and finding out they don't really fit. The software making the big $'s right now is the heavily-customizable stuff that is sold along with training and consultants on-site to tailor it for each business. (EG. ERP software like J.D. Edwards OneWorld, PeopleSoft, etc.)
Since a lot of the common stuff isn't ported to Linux yet, it does leave some room for people to re-develop all the common stuff (word processors, desktop publishers, spreadsheets, commnunications software) as native Linux apps. Still, I think these people are many of the ones complaining that "My Linux software isn't making any money!" Nope, it sure won't either - as long as all you're doing is re-inventing wheels. You're either on the cutting edge or the trailing edge. The customizable, tailored software as a service is where the $'s are at now. Show companies how an integrated, complete Linux solution can benefit them and you'll do well. Try to sell them more pre-boxed software, just because "it's a Linux edition!" and you won't.
Let me get this straight... You're holding up GNAT's GNATBox firewall as a prime example of why no GPL software can ever become a commercial success?
I think there are plenty of reasons why that particular product might not be successful that have *zero* to do with it being hamstrung by GPL code!
For starters, I tried out the GNATBox demo for a while, and thought it was one of the most user un-friendly firewall packages I've used. Quite frankly, anyone in the market for a product of this type would be a fool not to consider Smoothwall instead. It's far superior, plain and simple. Nice web-based interface, much more functionality (ability to update addresses via dyndns.org, web proxy caching via squid built in, easy update patch management system built in, etc. etc.). Not to mention, the author of Smoothwall gives his product away for free. (Ok, he asks that you donate to his charity of choice if you use it. So what? Wouldn't you rather do that than pay $495 or whatever to buy GNATBox?)
I think the real issue is this: If you try to sell a commercial product that's already been done better by people willing to give theirs away for free, you have a problem with your business plan.
Thank god there are a few people like you who still take some pride in their work!
I know CompUSA doesn't exactly pay well for their techs - but it's all relative. My wife really wanted to get an entry-level job in the computer industry, and CompUSA seemed perfect for her. I've taught her how to build and upgrade PCs and she's familiar with all the common Windows applications (plus even a bit of Linux experience). They pretty much blew her off and didn't even give her an interview. It sounded like the people in charge refused to believe a female could make a good PC tech.
After all that, I had to deal with them on a Toshiba notebook warranty repair. I tell you what... my wife sure could have done a better job than any of those clowns did. I had to bring it back 4 times in a row. It wasn't even powering itself on, and they'd give it back saying it was fixed. It would either still be DOA, or work once and then never again, each time I got it back. (Ever hear of testing after a repair??)
Finally, they told me "Our policy has changed. We don't accept Toshiba portables for repair anymore. You need to call Toshiba direct." This is complete B.S. because Toshiba themselves told me "No, CompUSA is our authorized repair depot." when I called them to check.
Anyway, I still sent it in to Toshiba direct and they had it fixed in 24 hours turn-around time. Worked great ever since.
I work in a corporate environment, not a school situation - but we have similar experiences with Dell support. We always buy the 3 year extended warranty because we want the 24 hour parts replacement when something breaks. The on-site service portion is usless though. I wish they'd let us buy parts replacement without on-site and save some money, but it seems to be bundled together in an "all or nothing" package.
When I've let the on-site people show up, it typically takes 1-2 days longer than if I just have Dell ship me the part. They always get things mixed up or claim Dell didn't give them the part, while Dell says they did. Then it takes them a day or two to straighten it all out and show up at our door.
Worse yet, some of the service techs they send out obviously have little experience. I often have them comment "Wow, I've never seen Windows NT running before. How do you like that?" and "Umm, I'm not quite sure why this hard drive isn't detecting...." It doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
Uh, I'd argue that you're wrong. Wasting a PS2 on a firewall/gateway is senseless.
I, too, use Smoothwall (great product, BTW!), but the real value comes in because you can recycle an older PC with it. The major strength of a PS2 is the multimedia capabilities, and a firewall uses exactly 0% of that.
You can easily buy an old 486 or Pentium 90Mhz for $50 or less, so why spend $300 on a PS2 for the job?
Even if you got the PS2 for free, I can still think of 2 reasons it's not a good tool for the job. #1, they have issues with cooling. People who leave their PS2 on constantly end up needing repairs. #2, you can't add 2 network cards to it. How will you get Smoothwall's DMZ support to work?
Lots of people sign these petitions not because they want to personally spend money on the resulting product, but only because they'd like to see it done on principle.
Something similar happened with OS/2 a while ago. People petitioned for a new version of the OS/2 Warp client to be released. Someone did, but for hundreds of dollars. Almost nobody ended up buying. (Why would you, really - when nobody is developing for it anymore? If you still need to use OS/2 apps, they'll work just fine on your existing OS/2 Warp release.)
These petition drives give a decent indicator of how many people think it would be cool for an idea/product to be produced, but not nearly as good an indicator of how many of them will really buy it....
Bleah... I hate to say it, but I suspect the real reason they included a game like "The Sims" has much more to do with the lower demands on the video adapter than anything else.
One of the biggest headaches with Linux and X is getting the accelerated 3D support working properly with games. Sure, Quake usually works pretty well - but look how many 3D shooters there are, and how few tried doing a Linux port. Even Unreal Tournament for Linux is very picky... I often had it working fine with my 3DFX Voodoo 3 board, only to have it break when I upgraded an RPM of one thing or another.
Games that don't require lots of fast, 3D scrolling are automatically more Linux-friendly -- and The Sims is probably the biggest selling example of one of these types of games in recent history. So there you have it....
In my own experiences, I've found Mandrake (and 8.1, no exception) to be more of a workstation power-user release, whereas RedHat works better for a server.
Both offer similar features, but Mandrake generally includes much more optional stuff you can install selectively and includes new items first, at the expense of some stability.
On my dual-boot Win2K and Linux PC at home, I run Mandrake 8.1. I liked the fact that they had the latest KDE and lots of Linux games pre-loaded for me. On the other hand, I also run a web server which has always been easiest to deal with under RedHat Linux. There always seems to be more documentation out there on web sites for setting up things in RedHat, and you can get a little bit more help from commercial vendors when you stick with RedHat.
Ultimately, people should use whichever Linux distro they're most comfortable with. When it's all said and done, anything that runs on one Linux flavor will run on the other flavors, given enough tweaking and configuring.
Didn't Sid Meier end up doing the re-write of Majik the Gathering, after someone else attempted to code it and ran into loads of logic problems that ruined the gameplay?
It's been a while, but I seem to recall he personally had a part in the development of that title. Either at the start when it got screwed up and delayed, or later on - to fix it for release.
Yeah, but despite Oracle for NT being a terrible implementation, my workplace still uses it (on a DEC Alphaserver running NT 4) because Oracle won't support their products as "tier 1 support" if they're running on a non-Intel processor and Linux.
What's with that policy? "Oh, sure - we'll take your Oracle installation seriously if you have it loaded on a generic PII or PIII server - but on an Alphaserver? Nope, sorry... must not really be important to your business."
Personally, I don't see the reason to stick with Photoshop at all if you're a Windows user who just wants to use some plug-ins, touch-up some photos, design things for web pages, and so forth.
For about 1/4th. the price, you can buy Paint Shop Pro 7 and do anything you'll probably ever need - sometimes more easily than in Photoshop.
(EG. Have you ever tried to load in 2 different JPG photos and merge them so they're the left side/right side of one JPG photo? Comes in real handy for things like eBay photos, where you get charged for photos beyond the 1st. free one you post with an advertisement. Anyway, in Photoshop, it's a pretty complex process. I sure couldn't figure it out intuitively. In Paint Shop Pro, you just drag the photos into a new window, and voila!)
We use Sprint for our leased lines connecting 5 different corporate locations together, for our long distance voice communications, and for our Internet T1. Over the last year, I've literally logged pages and pages of trouble tickets, both proactive and initiated by us, for problems on their circuits. Despite paying for a 99.9% guaranteed uptime, we've had circuits down for close to 24 hours at a time.
Often, the problem gets forwarded to the local telco, who comes out to the site, swaps out the "smartjack", and declares it "all fixed" - only to have the line start going up and down a few minutes after they leave.
The telco typically points the finger at Sprint, and their people point it back at the telco's lines and/or hardware - until eventually someone fixes it. (Then, you never really get a complete or straight answer about what the problem was.)
I really don't know if other communications companies do a better job or not. We had MCI in the past and they gave us similar headaches. That's why we mass-switched everything to Sprint. But then, MCI and Sprint announced the merger and things went downhill again.
Since this is how they treat a corporate customer with a service-level agreement, I don't expect anything decent out of them at all at the consumer level.
In fact, when I used Sprint for my L.D. service, I had all sorts of billing mistakes. They'd bill me for calls I never made and I had to argue repeatedly to get credits for them.
I respect anyone's right to develop whatever they desire. Therefore, perhaps the best answer to "Why SkyOS?" is "Why not, SkyOS?"
That said, it's also a little disappointing sometimes to watch an author pour many, many hours into a project that you can bet won't survive. Hey, I could be wrong - but I think SkyOS may be one of these. If BeOS couldn't really pull it off, why would I believe SkyOS could? Often times, history is the best teacher....
Right now, I think there's room for a new OS. I just feel that it needs to be radically different to catch people's attention. I'm not talking just "eye candy" - but that's a part of the package. It has to solve problems in a new way... offer something you didn't really have before.
BeOS had a few innovative concepts in it. It had appeal to programmers with the modular use of objects and ease of implementation that other OS's lacked. It offered very quick boot time, which isn't commonly found in a full-featured OS. It also had a very "clean" look, which is a big plus to some.
SkyOS seems like it borrows heavily from the Win '9x/NT desktop style, with nods to the typical X environment/desktop look and feel. Now they're putting in mucho effort to make it run Linux apps, which can be run fine in Linux already.
Where's the value?