"If your mythbox "just works" and isn't exposed to the outside world, JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. People like you make bad admins, regardless of OS or distro."
Well, yeah, of course.
Unless, like quite a lot sane sysadmins overthere you know you can be confident on the time *others* have already expended so you can avoid bugs *before* they happen to touch you without the worryness of breaking havoc at each "minor" upgrade, so avoiding the bad taste of having to explain to your manager why you didn't upgrade some critical package because it wasn't broken on your system... yet.
Do you know why many sysadmins hesitate about aplying Ms Windows fixes? Because they tend to break things with insane frecuency. And you know what comes with such a policy, don't you? Why then do you want to bring those things to Linux?
""Upgrading" from Fedora 3 to 4, for example, requires you to nuke (read: delete permanetly) anything not on/home"
On the other hand, upgrading from Debian Potato to Woody to Sarge to Etch (and that's a lot of years) can be done with just some *minutes* of downtime on a live system, so go figure.
"so how is Gentoo any different from any other Linux distribution or even UNIX out there?"
You see, in *some* other distributions you are not expected to have a whole testbed and a compile farm for a single-function server exposed to the Internet to work for ages.
"By far, I have seen no other distro that automagicaly within the standard package system uses revision control for configs. And then, it gets the trivial updates done for me, and puts me into vimdiff anytime any decision is required."
You haven't seen to many distributions then. Debian does it. And (surprise) you won't ever will have to "vimdiff" any configuration file unless jumping from version to version. As long as you stay with, say, Sarge, no diffs at all upon upgrading will be needed -guaranteed. And that makes years I can spend doing really productive things like deploying new services instead of babysitting servers.
"The trick is to build your own packages on one host. Set that one up as a centralised distribution server. Then everything just pulls from it."
And somehow magically that will avoid that upgrading say, from postfix 1.x to postfix 2.x (or subversion 1.2 to 1.4, or whatever) overnight would break your mail system, uh?
"Should you really have to build software for a production server environment?"
Why not?
"Real production environments, at least at the enterprise level, are built around stable, well tested binary packages that just work"
On real production environments, at least at the enterprise level, more time than not, key software packages are tailor-made to the very specific needs of such enterprise. It has only been the "software-on-a-box" mentality the one that wanted the "what is good for Shell Oil is good for Airbus too" approach. I see no problem at all about having to compile/patch/fine tuning some key packages on a "real production-enterprise level environment". It's only that's not the problem with Gentoo at all (there's no difference about testing, deploying, rolling back... procedures about a package compiled in-house and one compiled by a third party, not really).
The problem is not having backported security patches and backported security patches only. I can afford both because knowledge and physical avaliability not only a build box but a build farm if really needed, and I can afford backtesting, integration, rechecking... if/when really needed, but it is a terrible pain in the ass to do it and fortunately there are other less consuming ways, so why bother? On about a decade using Linux I've been pissed off about twice, maybe three times on a Red Hat security upgrade, and never by a Debian one (of course that doesn't mean those don't go through a testing procedure).
Gentoo, lacking security -and security only, backported patches, is just too much babysitting; I really have better things to spend my scarce time on than to recheck that nothing will break on an otherwise "trivial" upgrade.
"While I think that Gentoo is a tremendous technical achievement, it's design places it firmly in the hobbyist and developer workstation realm"
Well, not exactly true. Gentoo can have a place even on a "enterprise environment" wherever a fully "tailor-made" system makes sense: a calculus cluster or an embebbed device, for instance; it's only you should be quite knowledgeable about what the strenghs and the illnesses of such a choice are and see if they make sense on your environment.
"apt-get won't let you purchase, download, and install a US-legal DVD player"
Why not? Where did you concocted such a naive idea? I'll tell you a secret: apt-get will happily help you to download and install your purchased prorietary DVD player.
"As it said in TFA, it's not an entirely new package management protocol. It relies on distro-specific repositories (Debian/Ubuntu come to mind first with apt-get [and as a small aside, from the screenshots, Ubuntu *might* be the first 3rd party distro to get CNR]) and makes the entire thing seamless for the non-tech-savvy end-user."
So, as always when talking about Linspire (not to say that's necessarily a bad thing), it's only marketing.
Except from the "polls" and popular opinions (which you can bet there will be censored at least regarding proprietary software) which hardly can support a new bussiness (bet that if it's really a nice thing to have you will have the same on say, packages.debian.org in a minute), it just doesn't do anything new. As I already said, Oracle or SAP can develop a Debian repository right now so installing their software on Debian is a matter of apt-get install whatever, and they just don't want it; why are they going to change their mind now? (yes, they *still* will have to produce a debian repository, check for dependencies and what not if they want Oracle to be downloadable from CNR on a Debian platform -and the likes goes about any other distribution: they will have to comply with whatever policies, dependencies, etc. that distribution happens to have in place).
"That you can get commercial software via CNR, while I doubt apt-get will ever have this capability"
Apt-get has this ability *today*, and it has had almost from day one. What do you think apt-get is? Nothing stops say, Oracle to offer you a Debian repository that you just add to your/etc/sources.list and makes sure any activation/license checking/whatever is in place prior to download the software via a proxy. Apart from whatever activation/license checking/whatever is in place (which remains true for every software installation system when talking about propietary software) then properly installing Oracle could be as easy as `apt-get install oracle`.
Signed drivers will take care of *cheap* drivers (the one able to pay Microsoft's wages will have signed drivers, no matter if good or bad). That means they will take care of small innovative drivers from small innovative companies. Of course, big software companies are delighted with the foresighted 'statu quo'.
"90% of the problems in the IT industry are caused specifically because of bad implementations, lack of minimal internal structure, lack of people with expertise, among other problems..:-)"
All of them directly coming from copyright and patents. Look at the big "software companies" like Microsoft, SAP, Oracle... You call them "software companies", but they indeed are "IP companies"; they don't sell (or rent, or whatever) software; they deal with intellectual property. And as every other company, IP companies excel at their main expertise realm and suck everywhere else. That's why you have such a deep, complex and flourishing (for them) IP legal system in the USA but such bad implemented, lacking internal structure software. It really couldn't be otherwise.
"Seriously, 10 years ago, when someone knew a *nix system, they knew it very well."
10 years ago the IP industry was not as developed as nowadays; currently it works much better.
"I know _large_ datacenters trusted to people with 2 year *academic* experience.. That HAS to be a shitty-ass experience."
Which do you think it's the better scenario: One where a real tech expert can point out why exactly your software is utter crap or one where you deal with some beancounters and unknowledgeable PHBs easily convinced by means of brigth colored glossy pamflets and some golf courses? No wonder software is where it is: IP companies know they don't deal with software but with IP; and they do know their trade!
"As superior as Linux is server side, it has a way to go on the end-user 's desktop. I mean, it can be a painstaking task just to get certain hardware to work correctly"
How can be such an stupid meme so longstanding? On a corporate environment it is not the end-user the one trying to get certain hardware to work correctly, it is the IT staff. And they know how to choose that other certain hardware that do work correctly.
"where I live, a Linux tech is a high dollar commodity."
Just till you consider the amount of work being made by such a "Linux tech" against your average "windows drone" and you find your "Linux tech" is as cheap as it can be.
"but until Linux can compete with it's ease of use, it won't grow the way it needs to."
I work on a Linux IT shop where marketing/sales are the only ones with Windows boxes and I could go hours talking about "windows easiness" compared to "linux dificulty". On the other hand, I'd really want to know where Linux "needs" to go and why Linux "needs" to go there. And I bet Mr. Linux would want to know about it too.
"And the essential problem in trying to falsify it is that it's so bad it's not even wrong."
Well, while this is funny, I find the Slashdot' news is "funny" too: "scientists have come up with a definitive test that could prove or disprove string theory". Last I checked, Mr Popper was a bit of a stubborn about how an experiment can disprove a theory, but it never can prove it!
Who modded the previous one +1 interesting? It's a troll per definition! It starts saying something that seems to make sense ("Now-a-days that doesn't seem to work anymore, because it isn't the WM that are heavy weight") but then it goes for the controversy ("GTK is especially bad now") and raises false consecuencies ("If I am going to have to buy a hefty machine, I might as well get a Mac").
Of course he gives no reason why "GTK is especially bad now" against say, Qt and falsely asumes that my old PIII I bought second hand in a hurry (I was moving so I bought a use-and-trash computer for about 200; it's only it works good enough and I haven't taken the time to buy a new one, reinstall, etc.) is going to cost nearly that of a new Mac, or that really such a new top of line equipment is needed to run KDE or (so I assume last Gnome).
"I've been trying very hard to implement a Linux/XFCE environment onto our older PCs to 'upgrade' them from Windows 2000 - due to their memory/cpu power XFCE is the only usable desktop environment."
I don't believe it. If it runs Windows 2000 it runs KDE. I'm telling this from a PIII 860MHz with 256MB RAM that runs KDE 3.5.5 full bells&whistles (from Debian Etch) just smoothly. And I've run it decently on a K6-II too.
"but if it really did come down to proving, one could still make a strong enough case that the latter document was forged."
And what would be that good for? Of course you can know that the fake PS is forged, the problem is that unless the forged PS came signed you cannot tell who forged it so you can't point your finger against anybody.
"Upgrading windows takes the same amount of time as upgrading a linux install."
Yes. And that's (among other things) why so many people are still running Windows 2000 or even Windows NT.
"Do you have any reason whatsoever to run an old version of Fedora"
Not a single one (but currently I don't have any reason to run any version of Fedora, be it old or new either).
But I do have reasons to run old versions of Linux (some other distributions). Main one being "if it runs don't touch it". No matter how easy or cheap is to upgrade it's always more expensive and difficult than to stay the same. But there are others too: legacy software that won't run on modern versions of the OS; legacy hardware that won't run on modern versions of the OS; multipart solutions that will need to be carefull reingineered if you change just a single brick on it.
"Nowadays they'll say how you aren't really running RHEL if you don't have RHN"
Well, if you go and read their EULA you will see quite a bit more. You will see, for instance, that by having one single RHN licensed system you agree to allow RH audit all your boxes and you agree to have RHN licenses for all your RH-based computers.
To the IT department. Many companies have internal SLAs from IT towards other departments. Anyway SLAs are for a reason which is still quite valid within the company: don't disrupt bussiness.
"I'd like to see a survey of companies who will admit to having run the exact same server for five years"
I'd say you would be surprised with the answer. They are high numbers.
"If your planning is decent, an OS upgrade should not be a make or break event."
Still, planning costs money, and executing plans costs even more money.
"Just as the best way to maintain a car is to know hoe many miles each part is certified for, then replace it BEFORE it breaks"
The stupid car analogy. Just for the record, software parts don't grow old nor break apart for excesive usage. As long as your needs don't (localy) change the software just continues humming fine.
"the best way to maintain a server is scheduled upgrades "
I'd say "planned" better than "scheduled" but still, planning for stability costs less than planing beforehand for unneeded change ratios. If my company changes their objectives or needs so I have to rebuild our IT structures from the ground up, so be it: that's my company decision, it's not Red Hat's or SuSE's or Microsoft's one. And I can schedule (ie) five years turnover on Ubuntu, three on Red Hat or six months on Fedora, just to be in the exactly the same position. Not taking this fact into account it's not lazy, but it *is* stupid and incompetent.
"IMHO, dropping support for a system that is only 3 years old is a mistake."
IMHO, the mistake is using a distribution that won't guarantee its long-time stability or upgrading procedures for any production-grade purpouse.
"Everyone who hasn't upgraded to the latest versions of Fedora will loose support."
As if they wouldn't have to know that would happen when they firstly started to use Fedora.
"Ubuntu provides 5 years of support with most of their major releases"
Ubuntu provides 5 years support on *one* of their major releases and since only more or less one year has passed for that one only distribution it is still to be seen if they will be able to stay after their promises.
"so would it be so hard for Redhat to follow?"
Humm... Red Hat already has a long lived product line, and being older that Ubuntu they eventually can claim that they have already demonstrated they can do it, while that's not the case with Ubuntu.
I'd like to see the support window for future releases of Fedora to be extended."
That would be an interesting move:
RH CTO: Hey! why don't we expend a lot of money supporting a free (as in free bear) product that is in direct competition with our number one money maker product line so Ice Wewe is happier? RH CFO: Jesus Christ! how is it possible we didn't think of it earlier? Of course yes!
"Many don't like it, but Redhat is in business to pay the rent and put food on the table [...] f you can't resolve yourself to this you are being naive"
Obviously yes.
The problem is that the people leading The Fedora Project will try to convince you otherwise, that Fedora aims to be an "all purpouse usable" distribution instead of the "red hat cooker" 100% entangled to whatever Red Hat see fits. I find their position quite deceptive.
"Pfft. I'm sure having you there to conveniently answer any tech support questions has no bearing on the matter."
No, I don't think so. They are currently using Linux because they were unable to manage their (previously being) Microsoft Windows computers. I didn't push Linux through their throats, so to say, but being the case that I *had* to be the "free tech guy" anyway I went for the solution that gave me the less of a hassle. The fact is they are using their Linux-loaded computers as desktops and they don't find this to be a problem. So either Windows is not ready for the desktop (since they were unable to manage it) or Linux is ready for the desktop too (since they are using it as such). The fact me being their "free tech guy" makes no difference at all.
"I've done my share of interface research, and I have to say that as a whole the Linux platform is pathetic."
I won't challenge your assertion, I'll only say my sixty-plus year old, arthritis suffering, 300 miles away living, non-previously exposed to computers (almost: she tried to use Windows NT 4 for a short while) mum somehow manages to use such a pathetic interface.
""Windows is a best a memory hog of a contendor at this stage"?"
Now I'll challenge you. I challenge you to show us where did I say this.
"At less than one percent, it's hard to call Linux even a "contender" in the desktop arena"
And I'll challenge you to show where did I tell a word about Linux "market share". All I said is that I can talk about what I know and that I know for a fact my old mum can use Linux as her computer desktop operative system. Nothing more, but nothing less too.
"You know, I actually use and *like* Linux for my purposes, but I think people like you are holding it back."
Whatever. Still I'd tell you better read what I *say* instead of what you happen to *think* I say.
"It must be hard to be objective when all you've used recently is Linux"
It is not hard at all. It would be hard to *compare* to anything I haven't used, but I don't do that. When I say (for instance) that my mother manages to use an IM application on Linux to talk to her doughter living 2000 miles away (which happens to use Microsoft's Messenger, by the way), that's a fact and I'm being absolutly objective about that. Is she needing a "free tech guy" to acomplish that? Surely she does. But the fact is that she would need one even if she were using Windows (since that's why she is using Linux currently: because she were unable to manage Windows by herself).
"When people ask me if it's "desktop ready", I don't blindly tell them "yes""
Just exactly the same I do. At least, they should define to me what "desktop ready" means first. If, for instance, that means "it can be used by a sixty-plus year old woman with no computer knowledge", then I must say "certainly it is desktop ready" since I know about at least a case like the one you point out.
"They're asking for my opinion, and if I don't think that it's reasonably close to the ease of use of either Windows or Macintosh in all aspects without somebody there to coach them (like you)"
I'll give you my opinion to you, even if you are not asking me for it: I think you overestimate the easiness of use of Windows by quite a big amount.
"Not everybody is lucky enough to have a boyfriend or son who is both well-versed in the way of Linux AND has the time and patience to help."
But, but... you seem not to understand that if my girlfriend or my mother are using Linux is strictly *because* I don't have the time and patience to caressing something like Windows! They have Linux because I can connect to their boxes through ssh when and only when their OS sends me an e-mail telling there are some pending upgrades, because I (almost) can forget about Internet worms or viruses attached to their e-mail, because I retain absolute control on their systems so they can't shoot themselves on the foot, because they can *use* their computers the way they want and need with *minimal* hassle to *me* in terms of my own time and patience!
"Come on... Arguing that Linux is better because you can just download any hobbyist programming package is completely meaningless to the typical user"
Since the "typical user" seems to be downloading crapware from here and there on Windows, I'd say it seems appropiate to me.
"You're a programming hobbyist but can't figure out CD-burning software for Windows?"
I've been using Linux exclusively for such a long time that I *really* don't know a word about "popular" apps in the Windows field. I know I could learn about it if so inclined, but so do I know I'd could learn as easy about what apps to use in Linux if coming from the Windows land too, and I know because I've done it. Anyway, was you the one that said that talking about programs you can download from here or there was not an issue.
"How much shit do you keep open? I don't know how many applications the average user keeps open, but judging from your comment, probably a lot less than you. I really wonder how useful virtual desktops are for the typical user"
Maybe *because* there're not virtual desktops on Windows (by default at least, hence per your arguments, such an option just doesn't exist for "average joe"). I don't tend to say what "the average user" wants or uses because I never met Mr The Average User; but I can tell about "real users" I directly know of: the two things that catched the eye from the laptop I gifted my girlfriend were the graphical login screen I installed (and she can change it if she gets bored about it! Simply amazing) and the virtual desktops (hey! There are SIX of them, you poor Microsoft average user with your poor single desktop, and she can have DIFFERENT background images on each one! Flabbergashting!).
So, all in all, I tend to be quite amazed when so many people comes here telling they really know what "average user" wants and needs, since they seem to be so clever. I really don't know what "average user" wants or needs, and when I find a *real* user, he or she tends to surprise me with what she really likes and finds useful.
As for me, I know having six desktops and having them directly opening the apps I use on the proper desktop and position as soon as I log in is quite useful (right now that means: Kontact on the mail tab on desktop#1; konqueror with a tab for slashdot, one for freshmeat and one for the corporate intranet home page on desktop#2; a series of documents I'm working on these days on desktop#3; Konsole with a root and a user virtual console on desktop#4; desktops#5 is free and desktop six is where Karm lives). And yes, they all are opened at the same time because I can afford it; I know that with only one desktop I wouldn't have so many apps opened, and I know my work would be less efficient minimizing this and maximizing that and closing this app I won't use for half an hour so it doesn't get in the middle. And all of it (and the whole KDE desktop environment, some mysql databases, and a mail server, and a web server, and a webmail so I can have a look at my email when not at home, and so we go up to 117 process all them run happily on a Pentium III 866 Coppermine with 256MB of RAM I bought second hand about two years ago in a hurry. Of course I can afford buying a top line desktop and from time to time I plan for it; it's only my current box works more than good enough to go through all the hassle).
"I'd say that most of what is available for Linux is complete crapware"
You know, opinions are like asses: everybody has one. I for me can say that I'm using Linux since last nineties and I find such crapware good enough for me, and I find myself in such a humble mood not to try to say the others what to use or what Linux needs to success or what average users want or need. On the other hand I can talk about *facts* either from me or from people I directly know about.
"it definitely poses a problem for the desktop readiness of Linux" "Remember, this is about *desktop readiness*"
Again, I can say I don't know what the average user thinks about Linux' readiness for the desktop; heck! I can't even say what my parents or my girlfriend think about Linux' readiness for the desktop. But I can say they are exclusively using it in such a role for the last five years without a claim.
Slashdot Mirror
"If your mythbox "just works" and isn't exposed to the outside world, JUST LEAVE IT ALONE. People like you make bad admins, regardless of OS or distro."
Well, yeah, of course.
Unless, like quite a lot sane sysadmins overthere you know you can be confident on the time *others* have already expended so you can avoid bugs *before* they happen to touch you without the worryness of breaking havoc at each "minor" upgrade, so avoiding the bad taste of having to explain to your manager why you didn't upgrade some critical package because it wasn't broken on your system... yet.
Do you know why many sysadmins hesitate about aplying Ms Windows fixes? Because they tend to break things with insane frecuency. And you know what comes with such a policy, don't you? Why then do you want to bring those things to Linux?
""Upgrading" from Fedora 3 to 4, for example, requires you to nuke (read: delete permanetly) anything not on /home"
On the other hand, upgrading from Debian Potato to Woody to Sarge to Etch (and that's a lot of years) can be done with just some *minutes* of downtime on a live system, so go figure.
"so how is Gentoo any different from any other Linux distribution or even UNIX out there?"
You see, in *some* other distributions you are not expected to have a whole testbed and a compile farm for a single-function server exposed to the Internet to work for ages.
"By far, I have seen no other distro that automagicaly within the standard package system uses revision control for configs. And then, it gets the trivial updates done for me, and puts me into vimdiff anytime any decision is required."
You haven't seen to many distributions then. Debian does it. And (surprise) you won't ever will have to "vimdiff" any configuration file unless jumping from version to version. As long as you stay with, say, Sarge, no diffs at all upon upgrading will be needed -guaranteed. And that makes years I can spend doing really productive things like deploying new services instead of babysitting servers.
"The trick is to build your own packages on one host. Set that one up as a centralised distribution server. Then everything just pulls from it."
And somehow magically that will avoid that upgrading say, from postfix 1.x to postfix 2.x (or subversion 1.2 to 1.4, or whatever) overnight would break your mail system, uh?
"Should you really have to build software for a production server environment?"
Why not?
"Real production environments, at least at the enterprise level, are built around stable, well tested binary packages that just work"
On real production environments, at least at the enterprise level, more time than not, key software packages are tailor-made to the very specific needs of such enterprise. It has only been the "software-on-a-box" mentality the one that wanted the "what is good for Shell Oil is good for Airbus too" approach. I see no problem at all about having to compile/patch/fine tuning some key packages on a "real production-enterprise level environment". It's only that's not the problem with Gentoo at all (there's no difference about testing, deploying, rolling back... procedures about a package compiled in-house and one compiled by a third party, not really).
The problem is not having backported security patches and backported security patches only. I can afford both because knowledge and physical avaliability not only a build box but a build farm if really needed, and I can afford backtesting, integration, rechecking... if/when really needed, but it is a terrible pain in the ass to do it and fortunately there are other less consuming ways, so why bother? On about a decade using Linux I've been pissed off about twice, maybe three times on a Red Hat security upgrade, and never by a Debian one (of course that doesn't mean those don't go through a testing procedure).
Gentoo, lacking security -and security only, backported patches, is just too much babysitting; I really have better things to spend my scarce time on than to recheck that nothing will break on an otherwise "trivial" upgrade.
"While I think that Gentoo is a tremendous technical achievement, it's design places it firmly in the hobbyist and developer workstation realm"
Well, not exactly true. Gentoo can have a place even on a "enterprise environment" wherever a fully "tailor-made" system makes sense: a calculus cluster or an embebbed device, for instance; it's only you should be quite knowledgeable about what the strenghs and the illnesses of such a choice are and see if they make sense on your environment.
"apt-get won't let you purchase, download, and install a US-legal DVD player"
Why not? Where did you concocted such a naive idea? I'll tell you a secret: apt-get will happily help you to download and install your purchased prorietary DVD player.
"As it said in TFA, it's not an entirely new package management protocol. It relies on distro-specific repositories (Debian/Ubuntu come to mind first with apt-get [and as a small aside, from the screenshots, Ubuntu *might* be the first 3rd party distro to get CNR]) and makes the entire thing seamless for the non-tech-savvy end-user."
So, as always when talking about Linspire (not to say that's necessarily a bad thing), it's only marketing.
Except from the "polls" and popular opinions (which you can bet there will be censored at least regarding proprietary software) which hardly can support a new bussiness (bet that if it's really a nice thing to have you will have the same on say, packages.debian.org in a minute), it just doesn't do anything new. As I already said, Oracle or SAP can develop a Debian repository right now so installing their software on Debian is a matter of apt-get install whatever, and they just don't want it; why are they going to change their mind now? (yes, they *still* will have to produce a debian repository, check for dependencies and what not if they want Oracle to be downloadable from CNR on a Debian platform -and the likes goes about any other distribution: they will have to comply with whatever policies, dependencies, etc. that distribution happens to have in place).
"That you can get commercial software via CNR, while I doubt apt-get will ever have this capability"
/etc/sources.list and makes sure any activation/license checking/whatever is in place prior to download the software via a proxy. Apart from whatever activation/license checking/whatever is in place (which remains true for every software installation system when talking about propietary software) then properly installing Oracle could be as easy as `apt-get install oracle`.
Apt-get has this ability *today*, and it has had almost from day one. What do you think apt-get is? Nothing stops say, Oracle to offer you a Debian repository that you just add to your
"namely make software installation easier."
Target they miserably miss. The only they get is making software installation *fancier* (if at all).
"Signed drivers will take care of bad drivers."
How in hell?
Signed drivers will take care of *cheap* drivers (the one able to pay Microsoft's wages will have signed drivers, no matter if good or bad). That means they will take care of small innovative drivers from small innovative companies. Of course, big software companies are delighted with the foresighted 'statu quo'.
"90% of the problems in the IT industry are caused specifically because of bad implementations, lack of minimal internal structure, lack of people with expertise, among other problems.. :-)"
All of them directly coming from copyright and patents. Look at the big "software companies" like Microsoft, SAP, Oracle... You call them "software companies", but they indeed are "IP companies"; they don't sell (or rent, or whatever) software; they deal with intellectual property. And as every other company, IP companies excel at their main expertise realm and suck everywhere else. That's why you have such a deep, complex and flourishing (for them) IP legal system in the USA but such bad implemented, lacking internal structure software. It really couldn't be otherwise.
"Seriously, 10 years ago, when someone knew a *nix system, they knew it very well."
10 years ago the IP industry was not as developed as nowadays; currently it works much better.
"I know _large_ datacenters trusted to people with 2 year *academic* experience.. That HAS to be a shitty-ass experience."
Which do you think it's the better scenario: One where a real tech expert can point out why exactly your software is utter crap or one where you deal with some beancounters and unknowledgeable PHBs easily convinced by means of brigth colored glossy pamflets and some golf courses? No wonder software is where it is: IP companies know they don't deal with software but with IP; and they do know their trade!
"As superior as Linux is server side, it has a way to go on the end-user 's desktop. I mean, it can be a painstaking task just to get certain hardware to work correctly"
How can be such an stupid meme so longstanding? On a corporate environment it is not the end-user the one trying to get certain hardware to work correctly, it is the IT staff. And they know how to choose that other certain hardware that do work correctly.
"where I live, a Linux tech is a high dollar commodity."
Just till you consider the amount of work being made by such a "Linux tech" against your average "windows drone" and you find your "Linux tech" is as cheap as it can be.
"but until Linux can compete with it's ease of use, it won't grow the way it needs to."
I work on a Linux IT shop where marketing/sales are the only ones with Windows boxes and I could go hours talking about "windows easiness" compared to "linux dificulty". On the other hand, I'd really want to know where Linux "needs" to go and why Linux "needs" to go there. And I bet Mr. Linux would want to know about it too.
"And the essential problem in trying to falsify it is that it's so bad it's not even wrong."
Well, while this is funny, I find the Slashdot' news is "funny" too: "scientists have come up with a definitive test that could prove or disprove string theory". Last I checked, Mr Popper was a bit of a stubborn about how an experiment can disprove a theory, but it never can prove it!
Who modded the previous one +1 interesting? It's a troll per definition! It starts saying something that seems to make sense ("Now-a-days that doesn't seem to work anymore, because it isn't the WM that are heavy weight") but then it goes for the controversy ("GTK is especially bad now") and raises false consecuencies ("If I am going to have to buy a hefty machine, I might as well get a Mac").
Of course he gives no reason why "GTK is especially bad now" against say, Qt and falsely asumes that my old PIII I bought second hand in a hurry (I was moving so I bought a use-and-trash computer for about 200; it's only it works good enough and I haven't taken the time to buy a new one, reinstall, etc.) is going to cost nearly that of a new Mac, or that really such a new top of line equipment is needed to run KDE or (so I assume last Gnome).
+1 Interesting? -1 troll I say!
"I've been trying very hard to implement a Linux/XFCE environment onto our older PCs to 'upgrade' them from Windows 2000 - due to their memory/cpu power XFCE is the only usable desktop environment."
I don't believe it. If it runs Windows 2000 it runs KDE. I'm telling this from a PIII 860MHz with 256MB RAM that runs KDE 3.5.5 full bells&whistles (from Debian Etch) just smoothly. And I've run it decently on a K6-II too.
"but if it really did come down to proving, one could still make a strong enough case that the latter document was forged."
And what would be that good for? Of course you can know that the fake PS is forged, the problem is that unless the forged PS came signed you cannot tell who forged it so you can't point your finger against anybody.
"Upgrading windows takes the same amount of time as upgrading a linux install."
Yes. And that's (among other things) why so many people are still running Windows 2000 or even Windows NT.
"Do you have any reason whatsoever to run an old version of Fedora"
Not a single one (but currently I don't have any reason to run any version of Fedora, be it old or new either).
But I do have reasons to run old versions of Linux (some other distributions). Main one being "if it runs don't touch it". No matter how easy or cheap is to upgrade it's always more expensive and difficult than to stay the same. But there are others too: legacy software that won't run on modern versions of the OS; legacy hardware that won't run on modern versions of the OS; multipart solutions that will need to be carefull reingineered if you change just a single brick on it.
Any case, I surely know better.
"A boss is far more likely to act in his/her own best interests than in your best interests"
Everybody is far more likely to act in his/her own best interests than in your best interests.
"Nowadays they'll say how you aren't really running RHEL if you don't have RHN"
Well, if you go and read their EULA you will see quite a bit more. You will see, for instance, that by having one single RHN licensed system you agree to allow RH audit all your boxes and you agree to have RHN licenses for all your RH-based computers.
"Upgrading is free."
Only if your time values nothing.
"I am running Fedora Core 6 right now and I don't see why you'd want to run an older release"
That only means you don't know better, not that there are no reasons.
"SLAs are an external matter."
To the IT department. Many companies have internal SLAs from IT towards other departments. Anyway SLAs are for a reason which is still quite valid within the company: don't disrupt bussiness.
"I'd like to see a survey of companies who will admit to having run the exact same server for five years"
I'd say you would be surprised with the answer. They are high numbers.
"If your planning is decent, an OS upgrade should not be a make or break event."
Still, planning costs money, and executing plans costs even more money.
"Just as the best way to maintain a car is to know hoe many miles each part is certified for, then replace it BEFORE it breaks"
The stupid car analogy. Just for the record, software parts don't grow old nor break apart for excesive usage. As long as your needs don't (localy) change the software just continues humming fine.
"the best way to maintain a server is scheduled upgrades "
I'd say "planned" better than "scheduled" but still, planning for stability costs less than planing beforehand for unneeded change ratios. If my company changes their objectives or needs so I have to rebuild our IT structures from the ground up, so be it: that's my company decision, it's not Red Hat's or SuSE's or Microsoft's one. And I can schedule (ie) five years turnover on Ubuntu, three on Red Hat or six months on Fedora, just to be in the exactly the same position. Not taking this fact into account it's not lazy, but it *is* stupid and incompetent.
"IMHO, dropping support for a system that is only 3 years old is a mistake."
IMHO, the mistake is using a distribution that won't guarantee its long-time stability or upgrading procedures for any production-grade purpouse.
"Everyone who hasn't upgraded to the latest versions of Fedora will loose support."
As if they wouldn't have to know that would happen when they firstly started to use Fedora.
"Ubuntu provides 5 years of support with most of their major releases"
Ubuntu provides 5 years support on *one* of their major releases and since only more or less one year has passed for that one only distribution it is still to be seen if they will be able to stay after their promises.
"so would it be so hard for Redhat to follow?"
Humm... Red Hat already has a long lived product line, and being older that Ubuntu they eventually can claim that they have already demonstrated they can do it, while that's not the case with Ubuntu.
I'd like to see the support window for future releases of Fedora to be extended."
That would be an interesting move:
RH CTO: Hey! why don't we expend a lot of money supporting a free (as in free bear) product that is in direct competition with our number one money maker product line so Ice Wewe is happier?
RH CFO: Jesus Christ! how is it possible we didn't think of it earlier? Of course yes!
"Many don't like it, but Redhat is in business to pay the rent and put food on the table [...] f you can't resolve yourself to this you are being naive"
Obviously yes.
The problem is that the people leading The Fedora Project will try to convince you otherwise, that Fedora aims to be an "all purpouse usable" distribution instead of the "red hat cooker" 100% entangled to whatever Red Hat see fits. I find their position quite deceptive.
"Pfft. I'm sure having you there to conveniently answer any tech support questions has no bearing on the matter."
No, I don't think so. They are currently using Linux because they were unable to manage their (previously being) Microsoft Windows computers. I didn't push Linux through their throats, so to say, but being the case that I *had* to be the "free tech guy" anyway I went for the solution that gave me the less of a hassle. The fact is they are using their Linux-loaded computers as desktops and they don't find this to be a problem. So either Windows is not ready for the desktop (since they were unable to manage it) or Linux is ready for the desktop too (since they are using it as such). The fact me being their "free tech guy" makes no difference at all.
"I've done my share of interface research, and I have to say that as a whole the Linux platform is pathetic."
I won't challenge your assertion, I'll only say my sixty-plus year old, arthritis suffering, 300 miles away living, non-previously exposed to computers (almost: she tried to use Windows NT 4 for a short while) mum somehow manages to use such a pathetic interface.
""Windows is a best a memory hog of a contendor at this stage"?"
Now I'll challenge you. I challenge you to show us where did I say this.
"At less than one percent, it's hard to call Linux even a "contender" in the desktop arena"
And I'll challenge you to show where did I tell a word about Linux "market share". All I said is that I can talk about what I know and that I know for a fact my old mum can use Linux as her computer desktop operative system. Nothing more, but nothing less too.
"You know, I actually use and *like* Linux for my purposes, but I think people like you are holding it back."
Whatever. Still I'd tell you better read what I *say* instead of what you happen to *think* I say.
"It must be hard to be objective when all you've used recently is Linux"
It is not hard at all. It would be hard to *compare* to anything I haven't used, but I don't do that. When I say (for instance) that my mother manages to use an IM application on Linux to talk to her doughter living 2000 miles away (which happens to use Microsoft's Messenger, by the way), that's a fact and I'm being absolutly objective about that. Is she needing a "free tech guy" to acomplish that? Surely she does. But the fact is that she would need one even if she were using Windows (since that's why she is using Linux currently: because she were unable to manage Windows by herself).
"When people ask me if it's "desktop ready", I don't blindly tell them "yes""
Just exactly the same I do.
At least, they should define to me what "desktop ready" means first. If, for instance, that means "it can be used by a sixty-plus year old woman with no computer knowledge", then I must say "certainly it is desktop ready" since I know about at least a case like the one you point out.
"They're asking for my opinion, and if I don't think that it's reasonably close to the ease of use of either Windows or Macintosh in all aspects without somebody there to coach them (like you)"
I'll give you my opinion to you, even if you are not asking me for it: I think you overestimate the easiness of use of Windows by quite a big amount.
"Not everybody is lucky enough to have a boyfriend or son who is both well-versed in the way of Linux AND has the time and patience to help."
But, but... you seem not to understand that if my girlfriend or my mother are using Linux is strictly *because* I don't have the time and patience to caressing something like Windows! They have Linux because I can connect to their boxes through ssh when and only when their OS sends me an e-mail telling there are some pending upgrades, because I (almost) can forget about Internet worms or viruses attached to their e-mail, because I retain absolute control on their systems so they can't shoot themselves on the foot, because they can *use* their computers the way they want and need with *minimal* hassle to *me* in terms of my own time and patience!
"Come on... Arguing that Linux is better because you can just download any hobbyist programming package is completely meaningless to the typical user"
Since the "typical user" seems to be downloading crapware from here and there on Windows, I'd say it seems appropiate to me.
"You're a programming hobbyist but can't figure out CD-burning software for Windows?"
I've been using Linux exclusively for such a long time that I *really* don't know a word about "popular" apps in the Windows field. I know I could learn about it if so inclined, but so do I know I'd could learn as easy about what apps to use in Linux if coming from the Windows land too, and I know because I've done it. Anyway, was you the one that said that talking about programs you can download from here or there was not an issue.
"How much shit do you keep open? I don't know how many applications the average user keeps open, but judging from your comment, probably a lot less than you. I really wonder how useful virtual desktops are for the typical user"
Maybe *because* there're not virtual desktops on Windows (by default at least, hence per your arguments, such an option just doesn't exist for "average joe"). I don't tend to say what "the average user" wants or uses because I never met Mr The Average User; but I can tell about "real users" I directly know of: the two things that catched the eye from the laptop I gifted my girlfriend were the graphical login screen I installed (and she can change it if she gets bored about it! Simply amazing) and the virtual desktops (hey! There are SIX of them, you poor Microsoft average user with your poor single desktop, and she can have DIFFERENT background images on each one! Flabbergashting!).
So, all in all, I tend to be quite amazed when so many people comes here telling they really know what "average user" wants and needs, since they seem to be so clever. I really don't know what "average user" wants or needs, and when I find a *real* user, he or she tends to surprise me with what she really likes and finds useful.
As for me, I know having six desktops and having them directly opening the apps I use on the proper desktop and position as soon as I log in is quite useful (right now that means: Kontact on the mail tab on desktop#1; konqueror with a tab for slashdot, one for freshmeat and one for the corporate intranet home page on desktop#2; a series of documents I'm working on these days on desktop#3; Konsole with a root and a user virtual console on desktop#4; desktops#5 is free and desktop six is where Karm lives). And yes, they all are opened at the same time because I can afford it; I know that with only one desktop I wouldn't have so many apps opened, and I know my work would be less efficient minimizing this and maximizing that and closing this app I won't use for half an hour so it doesn't get in the middle. And all of it (and the whole KDE desktop environment, some mysql databases, and a mail server, and a web server, and a webmail so I can have a look at my email when not at home, and so we go up to 117 process all them run happily on a Pentium III 866 Coppermine with 256MB of RAM I bought second hand about two years ago in a hurry. Of course I can afford buying a top line desktop and from time to time I plan for it; it's only my current box works more than good enough to go through all the hassle).
"I'd say that most of what is available for Linux is complete crapware"
You know, opinions are like asses: everybody has one. I for me can say that I'm using Linux since last nineties and I find such crapware good enough for me, and I find myself in such a humble mood not to try to say the others what to use or what Linux needs to success or what average users want or need. On the other hand I can talk about *facts* either from me or from people I directly know about.
"it definitely poses a problem for the desktop readiness of Linux"
"Remember, this is about *desktop readiness*"
Again, I can say I don't know what the average user thinks about Linux' readiness for the desktop; heck! I can't even say what my parents or my girlfriend think about Linux' readiness for the desktop. But I can say they are exclusively using it in such a role for the last five years without a claim.