Don't worry. As soon as everyone runs Linux, just switch to FreeBSD or the Hurd. Should keep you alternative for years to come.
On a related note, I occasionally still see Linux described as "alternative" by some people. I guess that it can nowadays hardly be considered "alternative". It seems to be the second most popular OS by now...
Well, some sysadmins I know, and also some other people I know, including myself, actually think that vi is a great editor, especially in its reincarnation as vim.
Fortunately for us, but unfortunately for those who are looking for another USP for Linux, Vim is also available for NT.
OK, I see that you want a Real CD(TM) to reinstall if your server has an accident, but why wouldn't you burn such a CD yourself. Moreover, even if you decide to buy an "official" distribution, you don't have to buy one CD for each and every server your install in your 100+ server farm. You buy, say, 10 CD's and store them in geographically separate locations in an earthquake and volcano free bunker.
Well, the "problem" is that Linux is very cheap. I also have bought several Linux distributions, some of them from some guy who burns customized distributions on a CD. It's therefore very cheap to try out several distributions.
On the other hand, at our department several Linux computers have been installed from a single Suse CD.
All in all, it's difficult to estimate Linux sales. And who cares anyhow?
Frankly, I'm afraid that this whole "Aqua" GUI qualifies as "too little, too late". I took a look at it, and I was not impressed. In my humble opinion, Window Maker looks a lot prettier. There's nothin as cool looking as a semi-transparant Xterm, although it limits the choice of background quite considerably... I also agree with the concerns mentioned in the article. All this chrome (transparancy etc.) eats CPU power and actually makes the system more difficult to use. I'm now back to using a plain solid background and non-transparant windows.
You are probably referring to the classic story of Ken Thompson's backdoor involving the C compiler and the login program (not telnet). In this case, the backdoor was in the binaries, not in the source. So if you fear the NSA's binaries, just recompile from their source with your "pristine" GCC from your RedHat CD, or use the C compiler you wrote in ML for Compilers 101 for bootstrapping GCC. Depends just on how paranoid you are.
So company A (Secure) produces a derived work on Linux and sells it do organisation B (NSA). According the the GPL, organisation B has now the rights to get the source at a nominal cost, and may redistribute the software as its sees fit. Probably, the NSA will choose NOT to redistribute the software, but they do have that right... The GPL does NOT force anyone to redistribute their software to third parties.
Well, perhaps I'm reading too much in the series, but I always got the impression that the ST Borg are not really "evil"; if they have any connotation of good and bad at all, they probably think that they are doing the species being assimilated a favour. after all, they are part of this big, powerful Collective now...
I guess that Bill more or less honestly thinks that the world would be a better place if everything ran Windows. The fact that some of us don't agree only means that some people haven't seen the "light" yet. and that's where spin doctors can help...
So of course he smiles. He is going to rid us of this nasty diseasy called "choice".
Who cares about the server anyhow? OK, I will give some advice to all Evil Businessmen (TM) who want to take over the world:
The server is not interesting. No one cares what operating system the server is running. The server is NOT run by the scientific staff, therefore it is irrelevant.
The client is not interesting. The client is used for low-brow stuff like e-mail and TeXifying documents. Since e-mail programs and TeX are available for any OS, it is utterly irrelevant.
So then what IS important? Is there anything else except for clients and servers?
Strange enough, there is. It is the very small category of computers that are used for Real Work. I mean the computers which are performing the Important Computation, which are running the Experimental Operating System, or the computer cluster running PVM which is doing the new Parallel Algorithm.
That's only a very small part of all the computer systems, but that's the part that actually matters. And nowadays, if it is not running a home-brewn OS, it is increasingly often running Linux.
This small percentage of computers on which real research is done isn't likely to show up in the statistics. However, this is the most important part. It's the part on which people are actually trained.
What is a GNU compiler? Remember that "GNU" is the FSF's name for their operating system. So I could read a "GNU compiler" as "a compiler which produces code for the GNU platform", just like a "Windows compiler" is a compiler that produces code for the Windows platform. That would mean that Compaq's compiler is indeed a GNU compiler, since it produces code for GNU/Linux. Not saying that this is the interpretation the FSF intended, but just that the License text is ambiguous.
Well, perhaps the privacy laws are better in the Netherlands, but a full gas tank is very expensive here. And besides, you have to leave your guns at home. So I guess that disqualifies Holland for half the Slashdot crowd.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
On a related note, I occasionally still see Linux described as "alternative" by some people. I guess that it can nowadays hardly be considered "alternative". It seems to be the second most popular OS by now...
Fortunately for us, but unfortunately for those who are looking for another USP for Linux, Vim is also available for NT.
OK, I see that you want a Real CD(TM) to reinstall if your server has an accident, but why wouldn't you burn such a CD yourself. Moreover, even if you decide to buy an "official" distribution, you don't have to buy one CD for each and every server your install in your 100+ server farm. You buy, say, 10 CD's and store them in geographically separate locations in an earthquake and volcano free bunker.
On the other hand, at our department several Linux computers have been installed from a single Suse CD.
All in all, it's difficult to estimate Linux sales. And who cares anyhow?
Cool! Did you write it in Elisp?
Frankly, I'm afraid that this whole "Aqua" GUI qualifies as "too little, too late". I took a look at it, and I was not impressed. In my humble opinion, Window Maker looks a lot prettier. There's nothin as cool looking as a semi-transparant Xterm, although it limits the choice of background quite considerably... I also agree with the concerns mentioned in the article. All this chrome (transparancy etc.) eats CPU power and actually makes the system more difficult to use. I'm now back to using a plain solid background and non-transparant windows.
You are probably referring to the classic story of Ken Thompson's backdoor involving the C compiler and the login program (not telnet). In this case, the backdoor was in the binaries, not in the source. So if you fear the NSA's binaries, just recompile from their source with your "pristine" GCC from your RedHat CD, or use the C compiler you wrote in ML for Compilers 101 for bootstrapping GCC. Depends just on how paranoid you are.
So company A (Secure) produces a derived work on Linux and sells it do organisation B (NSA). According the the GPL, organisation B has now the rights to get the source at a nominal cost, and may redistribute the software as its sees fit. Probably, the NSA will choose NOT to redistribute the software, but they do have that right... The GPL does NOT force anyone to redistribute their software to third parties.
However, less marketing dollars are spent on getting this fact in everybody's head. (unfortunately)
I guess that Bill more or less honestly thinks that the world would be a better place if everything ran Windows. The fact that some of us don't agree only means that some people haven't seen the "light" yet. and that's where spin doctors can help...
So of course he smiles. He is going to rid us of this nasty diseasy called "choice".
- The server is not interesting. No one cares what operating system the server is running. The server is NOT run by the scientific staff, therefore it is irrelevant.
- The client is not interesting. The client is used for low-brow stuff like e-mail and TeXifying documents. Since e-mail programs and TeX are available for any OS, it is utterly irrelevant.
So then what IS important? Is there anything else except for clients and servers?Strange enough, there is. It is the very small category of computers that are used for Real Work. I mean the computers which are performing the Important Computation, which are running the Experimental Operating System, or the computer cluster running PVM which is doing the new Parallel Algorithm.
That's only a very small part of all the computer systems, but that's the part that actually matters. And nowadays, if it is not running a home-brewn OS, it is increasingly often running Linux.
This small percentage of computers on which real research is done isn't likely to show up in the statistics. However, this is the most important part. It's the part on which people are actually trained.
OK, my 0.05$...
What is a GNU compiler? Remember that "GNU" is the FSF's name for their operating system. So I could read a "GNU compiler" as "a compiler which produces code for the GNU platform", just like a "Windows compiler" is a compiler that produces code for the Windows platform. That would mean that Compaq's compiler is indeed a GNU compiler, since it produces code for GNU/Linux. Not saying that this is the interpretation the FSF intended, but just that the License text is ambiguous.
Well, perhaps the privacy laws are better in the Netherlands, but a full gas tank is very expensive here. And besides, you have to leave your guns at home. So I guess that disqualifies Holland for half the Slashdot crowd. ;-)