You missed my point... I fail to see how the ability to run Linux programs will be a selling point of W2K. Remember W2K is NT, not consumer Windows. Name a program that runs on Linux, and I'll bet that you can find a native Windows port already, so why bother with emulation?
Linux compatibility may appeal to PHBs, but I don't think it will to many others.
Well, one reason is that many web page designers specify specific TT fonts in their pages, and under Linux Netscape, these show up as small, blocky, almost unreadable fonts.
You mean show the world that porting between different 'nixes isn't that hard? There's no way that MS will do that. They'll rewrite the thing, and complain about how hard it is to develop for Linux.
MS ran an article that was supposedly written by a IE for Unix team member, where they claimed to get hung up on trivial things like "Unix allows you to change your Window focus policy, we didn't know how to handle that!" I wish I had the URL, that document was pretty funny!
For that alone they should be banned from ever doing UNIX development work again.
In essence they are, part of the deal between MS and SCO was that MS would stay out of the Unix market
Of course there are loopholes, NT has been targeted at the Unix market, and I believe that it even carries the Unix98 branding when used with Interix's product.
One of the big attractions of Linux is that it is NOT Microsoft. I don't thing many people would really want Linux compatibility in NT.
Consider that because of the Open Source, how many Linux apps are there that aren't already available for NT? All of the GNU tools are, also perl, and countless other apps and utilities. The advantage with Linux is that they all come with the OS, in the NT world you have to buy or download them.
A year or two ago, it seemed as though that the PHBs all over the place couldn't wait to dump their Unix systems in favor of NT. But I believe that reality has set in. I see many more cases of Unix and even Linux being chosen over NT. I see fewer people who truly believe in NT.
As for the numbers, yes NT is selling a lot, but what is it being used for? Many companies are now using NT, even NT server on the desktop. File & Print, Mail, things like that.
The really interesting thing is that NT systems tend to be deployed for single tasks, where Unix systems tend to do more. It's not uncommon to see 5-10 NT systems peform the task of one Unix system.
I've had IE and Netscape running simultaneously on Solaris with no trouble.
The funny thing about Solaris IE though is that it won't install on Solaris 7 (2.7), at least not the version of IE that I had. It says that I need to use a version of Solaris 2.5 or greater!
Also it's the only piece of Unix software that I ever ran across that asked me if I wanted to make it the default browser, typical M$crap
I moved to the Boston area about two years ago. One day a coworker and I headed over to the MIT area for lunch. He pointed out a tall building on the campus with a dome on top (not the R2-D2 dome) and told me that one day, students managed to put a car up there, they did it piece-by-piece.
1) Why is it such a bad thing if MS sold a decent OS?
I think it's just the way MS tends to operate, there drive is not to sell cool technology, but rather to dominate whatever market they enter and not compete in that market, but destroy the competition, so that people have little choice but to go with the MS offering. That's why we avoid anything MS, we like to have a choice.
Why is it that Linux users seem absolutely convinced they would adopt the Microsoft version if Microsoft released a proprietary fork of it?
I would chalk that up to irrational fear. I'm sure most Linux users would avoid the MS offering. But the same FUD was used against KDE, that MS was certain to buy out Troll Tech, and would own Linux if people started using KDE
People go around saying things like 'GPL means you can't link with non-GPL stuff' Now IANAL but I don't think it does, and the confusion is not good.
You can only link GPL with non-GPL stuff, if the non-GPL stuff can be legally re-licensed under the GPL.
There appears to be a GPL3 in the works and I would expect that it will address some of the issues that RMS complains about. So maybe it will restrict plug-ins. Is this good? Do I want RMS to be deciding how my project is controlled? (Maybe I'll be forced to call it GNU/Project!:) I'm not sure I want to be involved with a project that simultaneously criticizes the BSD self advertisement clause, and engages in obvious self advertising with the GNU/Linux debate.
These are good points, and part of the reason why I won't use the GPL for my own projects. I am leaning towards using the artistic license.
It seems that you only get a single, $5 coupon whether you send them spam or not. They use the anti-spam thing as a lure to get you to sign up for their "solicited email" scheme.
Of course, if you can defeat them if you have access to a system on the internet, where you can create bogus email accounts, use them to apply for your CD-now coupon, then delete the accounts after it arrives.
It's hard for me to believe that NT is faster than anything from my experiences with it. Few sites that I run across that end in.asp are in any hurry to dish out the content I request.
Anyway. Instead of simply blasting benchmark results that don't match what we expect, we should work to fix the problems in Linux, Apache, Samba or whatever is causing our bottlenecks. The fact that we can do that is one area of significant advantage that we have over NT.
Not true, I'm involved in setting up a web system for a large US bank in NYC.
They are doing session management, personalization, dynamic documents and most of the other features you mention, and it is running on a cluster of Solaris (Enterprise 450s) systems.
The archetecture allows the session management information to be shared between the cluster members in real-time.
The worst is the ad with Col. Sanders, the Taco Bell Chihuaua, and the Pizza Hut girl driving down the freeway to save the Queen from Star Wars, that's the most shameless Star Wars tie-in I've seen, and it's more likely to make me puke than it is to make me eat in those places.
Re:Consider: GPL KILLER, a license to infect GPL c
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Are you suggesting a license with every instance of "GPL" deleted, and "GPL Killer" inserted, so that you have a new license that's identical to the GPL?
You wouldn't be allowed to use it with GPL code since it would then be incompatable with the GPL.
That's one problem with GPL, it's incompatible with equivalent free software licenses.
Re:But.. GPL IS communistic
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Not to nitpick but capitalism works more like this:
It's mine, but if you invest in it, it'll grow, and you will get a bigger one for yourself, or you can buy the rights to it for a greater sum of money.
What you stated was more the concept of private property.
Also, I believe that pure Marxist Communism is supposed to exist on its own, without the government, although the government was supposed to provide the catalyst to get to pure communism.
But still, I agree with you that the GPL is Communistic in nature
Re:Old article, and not a good one at that
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 2
GPL is communistic in the realm of information itself. It's true that the FSF doesn't advocate Communism everywhere.
Marx was against private property, Stallman is against private Intellectual property.
Marx believed in the principle of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", Stallman believes that software should work that way, that coders should code and share with everybody.
Re: Foggy thinking, and an ad hominem attack
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 1
Surely that's no worse than Microsoft taking BSD code and putting it in their product. How can you complain about the GPL when an expressed aim of the BSD license is to make it available for the use of those who might keep derivatives closed?
I think you missed the context of that quote, I was responding to someone who suggested if you don't like the license then don't use the code, I'm pointing out that GPL advocates don't necessarily live by that.
I am a GPL advocate, and I wouldn't say something like that. That's an ad hominem attack, plain and simple. I assumed that you were originally talking about the BSD license. For the reason given in response to the first quote, BSDers have nothing to complain about if someone decides to re-release under the GPL.
Although you seem reasonable, I'm sure you'll admit that many GPL advocates are quite militant about their license, just look at any QT or APSL discussion, even this discussion, there seems to be a large number of pro-GPL people who won't even consider alternative viewpoints, they simply dismiss any criticism as FUD or flame-baiting, those are the people I am refering to there.
I'm sorry, The GPL and FSF are "differently politically persuaded"
I don't see hate in the article, but you seem to think like the politically correct people where "hate" seems to be defined as any viewpoint that doesn't agree with your own.
What kind of world is it where you can't point out the obvious similarities between the writings of Stallman and Marx without being accused of name calling?
Worse you restate the article, where does the author suggest banning the GPL, for instance? He is merely suggesting that the BSD is superior. The FSF does the exact same thing on their web site.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed my point... I fail to see how the ability to run Linux programs will be a selling point of W2K. Remember W2K is NT, not consumer Windows. Name a program that runs on Linux, and I'll bet that you can find a native Windows port already, so why bother with emulation?
Linux compatibility may appeal to PHBs, but I don't think it will to many others.
Well, one reason is that many web page designers specify specific TT fonts in their pages, and under Linux Netscape, these show up as small, blocky, almost unreadable fonts.
You can install a truetype font server under Linux and use your Veranda font under Netscape now.
You mean show the world that porting between different 'nixes isn't that hard? There's no way that MS will do that. They'll rewrite the thing, and complain about how hard it is to develop for Linux.
MS ran an article that was supposedly written by a IE for Unix team member, where they claimed to get hung up on trivial things like "Unix allows you to change your Window focus policy, we didn't know how to handle that!" I wish I had the URL, that document was pretty funny!
In essence they are, part of the deal between MS and SCO was that MS would stay out of the Unix market
Of course there are loopholes, NT has been targeted at the Unix market, and I believe that it even carries the Unix98 branding when used with Interix's product.
One of the big attractions of Linux is that it is NOT Microsoft. I don't thing many people would really want Linux compatibility in NT.
Consider that because of the Open Source, how many Linux apps are there that aren't already available for NT? All of the GNU tools are, also perl, and countless other apps and utilities. The advantage with Linux is that they all come with the OS, in the NT world you have to buy or download them.
A year or two ago, it seemed as though that the PHBs all over the place couldn't wait to dump their Unix systems in favor of NT. But I believe that reality has set in. I see many more cases of Unix and even Linux being chosen over NT. I see fewer people who truly believe in NT.
As for the numbers, yes NT is selling a lot, but what is it being used for? Many companies are now using NT, even NT server on the desktop. File & Print, Mail, things like that.
The really interesting thing is that NT systems tend to be deployed for single tasks, where Unix systems tend to do more. It's not uncommon to see 5-10 NT systems peform the task of one Unix system.
I've had IE and Netscape running simultaneously on Solaris with no trouble.
The funny thing about Solaris IE though is that it won't install on Solaris 7 (2.7), at least not the version of IE that I had. It says that I need to use a version of Solaris 2.5 or greater!
Also it's the only piece of Unix software that I ever ran across that asked me if I wanted to make it the default browser, typical M$crap
I moved to the Boston area about two years ago. One day a coworker and I headed over to the MIT area for lunch. He pointed out a tall building on the campus with a dome on top (not the R2-D2 dome) and told me that one day, students managed to put a car up there, they did it piece-by-piece.
Is this true?
I don't think the article said the box has a 5 year uptime, just that it's had Linux installed for 5 years.
I think it's just the way MS tends to operate, there drive is not to sell cool technology, but rather to dominate whatever market they enter and not compete in that market, but destroy the competition, so that people have little choice but to go with the MS offering. That's why we avoid anything MS, we like to have a choice.
Why is it that Linux users seem absolutely convinced they would adopt the Microsoft version if Microsoft released a proprietary fork of it?I would chalk that up to irrational fear. I'm sure most Linux users would avoid the MS offering. But the same FUD was used against KDE, that MS was certain to buy out Troll Tech, and would own Linux if people started using KDE
When did the perl project get killed? What about the Xfree86 project?
Simply put, there are other viable alternatives to *GPL and *BSD around.
You can only link GPL with non-GPL stuff, if the non-GPL stuff can be legally re-licensed under the GPL.
There appears to be a GPL3 in the works and I would expect that it will address some of the
issues that RMS complains about. So maybe it will restrict plug-ins. Is this good? Do I want RMS
to be deciding how my project is controlled? (Maybe I'll be forced to call it GNU/Project!
I'm not sure I want to be involved with a project that simultaneously criticizes the BSD self
advertisement clause, and engages in obvious self advertising with the GNU/Linux debate.
These are good points, and part of the reason why I won't use the GPL for my own projects. I am leaning towards using the artistic license.
It seems that you only get a single, $5 coupon whether you send them spam or not. They use the anti-spam thing as a lure to get you to sign up for their "solicited email" scheme.
Of course, if you can defeat them if you have access to a system on the internet, where you can create bogus email accounts, use them to apply for your CD-now coupon, then delete the accounts after it arrives.
That site looks like a site that sends you junk email, sure they let you pick the categories of junk email, but it's still junk.
A marketing tool to send legitimate spam to people who may want it.
No thanks!
Use a replication system, I believe all of the major DBs have them available.
It's hard for me to believe that NT is faster than anything from my experiences with it. Few sites that I run across that end in .asp are in any hurry to dish out the content I request.
Anyway. Instead of simply blasting benchmark results that don't match what we expect, we should work to fix the problems in Linux, Apache, Samba or whatever is causing our bottlenecks. The fact that we can do that is one area of significant advantage that we have over NT.
Not true, I'm involved in setting up a web system for a large US bank in NYC.
They are doing session management, personalization, dynamic documents and most of the other features you mention, and it is running on a cluster of Solaris (Enterprise 450s) systems.
The archetecture allows the session management information to be shared between the cluster members in real-time.
The worst is the ad with Col. Sanders, the Taco Bell Chihuaua, and the Pizza Hut girl driving down the freeway to save the Queen from Star Wars, that's the most shameless Star Wars tie-in I've seen, and it's more likely to make me puke than it is to make me eat in those places.
Are you suggesting a license with every instance of "GPL" deleted, and "GPL Killer" inserted, so that you have a new license that's identical to the GPL?
You wouldn't be allowed to use it with GPL code since it would then be incompatable with the GPL.
That's one problem with GPL, it's incompatible with equivalent free software licenses.
Not to nitpick but capitalism works more like this:
It's mine, but if you invest in it, it'll grow, and you will get a bigger one for yourself, or you can buy the rights to it for a greater sum of money.
What you stated was more the concept of private property.
Also, I believe that pure Marxist Communism is supposed to exist on its own, without the government, although the government was supposed to provide the catalyst to get to pure communism.
But still, I agree with you that the GPL is Communistic in nature
GPL is communistic in the realm of information itself. It's true that the FSF doesn't advocate Communism everywhere.
Marx was against private property, Stallman is against private Intellectual property.
Marx believed in the principle of "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", Stallman believes that software should work that way, that coders should code and share with everybody.
I think you missed the context of that quote, I was responding to someone who suggested if you don't like the license then don't use the code, I'm pointing out that GPL advocates don't necessarily live by that.
I am a GPL advocate, and I wouldn't say something like that. That's an ad hominem attack, plain and simple. I assumed that you were originally talking about the BSD license. For the reason given in response to the first quote, BSDers have nothing to complain about if someone decides to re-release under the GPL.
Although you seem reasonable, I'm sure you'll admit that many GPL advocates are quite militant about their license, just look at any QT or APSL discussion, even this discussion, there seems to be a large number of pro-GPL people who won't even consider alternative viewpoints, they simply dismiss any criticism as FUD or flame-baiting, those are the people I am refering to there.
I'm sorry,
The GPL and FSF are "differently politically persuaded"
I don't see hate in the article, but you seem to think like the politically correct people where "hate" seems to be defined as any viewpoint that doesn't agree with your own.
What kind of world is it where you can't point out the obvious similarities between the writings of Stallman and Marx without being accused of name calling?
Worse you restate the article, where does the author suggest banning the GPL, for instance? He is merely suggesting that the BSD is superior. The FSF does the exact same thing on their web site.
Like the GPL people are so good at respecting non-GPL copyright holders... Troll Tech, APSL, BSD et al.