I still believe OS/2 was superior to existing products. I'm talking about 1990 and onward. I had paid over $1400 for Consensus UNIX for my 386 and before that it was MicroPort UNIX on a 286. Pretty nice multiuser/multitasking PC operating system. Dos and then Dos/Windows only added a GUI to a poor OS and then IBM did it alone with OS/2 v2.0 (I ran the betas too) that put a nice GUI on a very nice multitasking OS for only alittle more RAM. Nothing touched OS/2 til NT v4 came out and wasn't that around 1996/97? For Six or seven years, OS/2 really didn't have a technical competitor and most of that time it was competing againt Dos/Windows. Paying another $250 for TCP/IP networking hurt but man it was nice playing with client/server development on OS/2 and most of that pleasure comes from its threading model. Guess I'm lazy but I always found thread communications easier then IPCs in *NIX. I have to seriously start looking into Linux's threading capabilities since my assumptions seem to be wrong based on responses here. I'm seeing parallel now here with Linux and OS/2. In early 1995 when IBM was still heavily advertising OS/2, my developer friends were just starting to ask about OS/2 (after >4 years of my encouragement). All of these people were *NIX and Windows developers and OS/2 was getting enough press to get them interested. I see Linux at the same place today. I just came from a party yesterday where I was talking to a lawyer and he was asking about Linux and a AVID Windows developer friend who has his own business actually put RedHat on one of his PCs. Since Linux has no single PR $$ like IBM has, I hope Linux coverage will continue and some here have said that Microsoft is posibly to thank for that being a likelyhood.
He is a pawn played by Bill Gates. He is the marketing director on Windows NT v2 (NT5, W2k). He is the considered to be the head of this Linux Hit Team. He is real and a full blown MS slacky.
Yeah I heard about that but I think that was the 16bit OS/2. The one Microsoft still had a part in. I only know the 32bit OS/2 of the 1990's and the dev kits were very reasonable with IBM Dev Conn at $99/yr with full OS, dev tools and sample apps included. There were miss steps but all one has to do is look at Germany for an idea of what could have been. IBM was able to get Vobis of Germany, their number one PC reseller, to preinstall OS/2 for a short period. OS/2 is very popular in Germany today. By the way, Vobis is one of the companies that complained to IBM marketing people when Microsoft was threatening them. HP and Dell were 2 big US companies that complained also. This is a brutal business and Microsoft is a brutal player and I hope Linux won't end up only a hobbyists OS.
The last 3 companies I worked for choose Windows because everyone else was using it. I was on a project 3 years ago where we were designing a distributed info system and we were going with Smalltalk and CORBA but after 6 months were were told to get rid of all our tools and start looking at MS C++ and MS Basic. We were livid at those choices and were eventually told that the decision was made "because nobody was ever fired for chosing MS". The project eventually failed but it was over 1.5 years later. The company still gets contracts from that same customer. Go figure. I hope you and your company are an example of things to come.
Very good. If Linux can show that OSS can improve at a far faster rate than MS could dream of..... This has to happen because a bad image of Linux by MS PR will be bad for Linux if that is all there is. The press would have to be in on this and be willing to show the new results. I always found it interesting that MS products seem to be benchmarked or marketed shortly before a competitor ships its product. It usually doesn't show up in comparisons for at least 12 months. Game, Set, and Match for some companies..... I'll be watching this trend to see if the press is more accomidating to Linux.
One doesn't need money to develope for Linux but one does need money to live. You seem to be in the fortunate position to be able to tell your boss what you will use. I, and many, can't do that and even find ourselves in the position that they don't listen to us. The PHB just reads PCWeak and such then tells us to use product X because it is supposed to be good and everybody else is using it. I'm stuck finding another job again and I have quit my job once already because of the choice of Windows for non-technical reasons. I'm in the process of doing it again. BTW, I know OS/2 isn't dead, I'm running it on 2 machines at home now and develope for it today. I'm being forced to start migrating to NT though and that is only because "NT is the future". So says our Principle Engineer and our customer (US Navy).
Corporate support makes Linux an option for me because I can get the time of day from some of the PHB's with that backing. When I was a student I didn't care what everyone was using but now FUD can affect what I do for my salary. And I'm pissed about it.
Maybe you're right, after all, the hype of Linux was only publicized early last year as the DOJ was coming down on MS. Quite a lot had already been done with Linux by then. Things like QuickTime, RealAudio, SoundBlaster and things like that seem to be showing up now from the makers of those products because of the excitement though. I hope you're right and I no longer have to use more advanced OS's at home and be forced to develope for inferior products at work. I hope you are right and you are not alone in the thought that corporate support from Oracle, IBM, and others can go away and Linux will still keep moving forward.
Sorry if I had it wrong but I was under the impression that Linux was multitasking but that once a process was in the kernel it was not pre-empted til its timeslice was complete or it blocked on IO. That is pre-emptive multitasking. As far as threading goes, I was told that Linux has process level threads not kernel level threads. This would mean that threads within a process will not be spread across the CPU's like it does in OS/2. In Linux, I was under the impression that the 2nd CPU wouldn't do anything for on application but only for the next application that was run if the first had CPU #1 close to max'ed out.
I'm not saying Linux sucks, I'm saying that a damn good OS (OS/2) got whacked my MS FUD and I hope Linux can continue to florish as it has in the last 2 years.
> So it wasn't a 'dark conspiracy' from evile > (hiss hiss... much thrashing around in fury) > Microsoft to count Windows 3.1 usage that way.
No kidding but accounting is accounting and if OSS needs to show high numbers do it any way you can. Licensed code or compatibility should be counted too becase you have to know that the competition will do that and more.
FYI, Go Inc had a pen-based OS in late 1980s and Microsoft targeted them. The build a mockup of Pen for Windows and invited all its Windows developers AND Go Inc's development partners. Microsoft handed out demo dev kits to everyone at the door. Shortly after at a major trade show Microsoft held up a huge display showing all the companies developing for Pen for Windows and that list showed ALL people who were given demo/dev kits. What would you think? Evil? No. Ruthless and deceptive? YES.
Think about using Linux 4 years ago and that is what Linux will be like if Microsft keeps Linux out of business. RedHat, Caldera, and others will disappear or shrink to very small companies and optimized drivers will not appear for new devices or will be so late that dust will have to be blown of the device before you can stick it into the case.
Think of Linux 4 years ago and tell me that is a good place for Linux to live? RedHat, Caldera and the others are in business to make $$ and Linux (and its users ) benefit. I will agree that there was probably some resentment of the OLD IBM that it didn't take too much pushing by Microsoft to keep developers away. As far as the kernel goes, OS/2's kernel is quite nice on x86. Is is preemtive (not Linux), multi-threaded (not Linux), most apps (threaded) immediately gain when SMP is enabled (not Linux). The kernel is not really the issue here, what is, is that a superior OS was kept out of the market by FUD. Just like MAC sales dropped sharply when the press started saying the Mac was dead when Windows 95 was shipped. FUD kills and even though Linux will still exist in source, Microsoft can succeed in relegating it to a ineffective niche. Without business support/acceptance, $$ for drivers will disappear. Look at what Microsft is doing with its $$ now. Paying AT&T 5 billion to use WinCE, buying SoftImage and making them port to WinNT, starting a company with SoftBank (Ziff-Davis) to feed money into companies to build Win32-only games. You underestimate the power of the "Dark Side".
But PHB's might not let it into business if they believe what Microsft PR feeds the press. Without business support, device support will dwindle and things like RealAudio support or hardware 3D will not arrive. Linux will go back to the early days of a few hackers playing with it and some renegade web sites using it behind the scenes.
Careful now. IBM couldn't get OS/2 to replace DOS/Windows or NT back in the early 1990's or even when they spent around $200 million to market it in around 1994/95. Only in Germany where they could get preloading did OS/2 become a dominant OS. Techies can scream all they want to the PHB but when in a meeting of PHB's, it is the PHB's choice that is on the line and Microsoft PR has the strength of "The Dark Side of the Force".
About Java, they have done a decent job at keeping Java relegated to the server. Microsoft never mentioned VisualBasic when they spread FUD that Java on the client was slow, interpreted and missing features. They know that if Java just replaced VisualBasic it would be a great success.
The code may exist but support for devices could dwindle to a trickle. Currently many large device manufacturers are working on Linux drivers for their devices. If Microsoft can prevent Linux from growing into a widely used business OS, the support will end. Does OS/2 ring a bell? Windows developers were forced to sign licenses that forbid them from writting code for other OS's, IIRC, and application and device support for OS/2 dwindled. This is a powerful threat!
No, no, no, you people must be too young to have seen what a Microsoft fed press can do to a superior competitor. OS/2 was annialated in the press with front page stories like OS/2 not having long filename support or that users found it very difficult to use. Even when IBM was selling around 1 million copies a month (selling, not preloads) a Ziff Davis reporter in Europe said IBM was killing OS/2 and the word spread. Later a friend was visiting the head of a Denver Hospitals IT department( they are friends ) and in conversation the IT head said that he had stopped evaluating replacing DOS/Windows with OS/2 because IBM was killing it. This is what CAN happen to Linux and they have been targetting Linux since October of 1998. Remember the Holloween Document? This is serious folks, they are masters at this.
That is not what they do to kill competitor. It is something they constantly do though. What they have already started is a campaign to spread FUD about the competitor. They will not allow a superior technology eclipse their junk in the MINDs of IT and IS managment. I will say this again, THEY DID THIS TO OS/2 and the result is ugly. Published lies, invalid benchmarks, biased user studies by industry 'professionals'. If they win again we will have no hope of ever having a choice as to what data comes into our homes or what tools we can choose to do our jobs (technological solutions).
I just hope the public/press is smarter now then when OS/2 was attacked.
Help us Obe Wan Email, you're our only hope. (knowledge is power if it can be diseminated)
I think it is a accounting thing since the whole issue is being used to show Linux's usage numbers. Since 1991, Microsoft counted copies of OS/2 shipments in its number of copies of Windows 3.x units shipped. How could one show OS/2 gaining ground when Microsoft could show there was ALWAYS more Windows versions being sold and the gap never changed. The desire to get these numbers right makes for a more informed descission. Because of who the competition is I think using the numbers as they were used is a good thing. Today. I don't want Linux being another Windows. Choice and interoperability is what we should be after. The right tool for the right job and not one tool for every job (or change the job). IMHO
Sorry but that had to be said. Todays word processors keep trying to be full blown publishers and 90% of the users don't need that stuff. I remember that days when word processors did things like spelling and grammer checking and basic layout stuff for sending letters. I would use Ventura Publisher to take that text for font, layout and the likes if I wanted brochures and polished documents. The word processors were fast and the publisher full capable. Today you have slow word processors that 90% of the users only use 10% of the features and publisher packages are harder to find and more expensive because people try to make word processors do thing they just weren't supposed to do.
I could set up a web site for this poll. Not til Thursday though, Java UG meeting tonight and investment club meeting tomorrow night. I'll set it up to simply count responses and the amounts. If it looks good I can apply for a non-profit org license or locate a group that might be able to handle this. We'll then have to start finding a location for the equipment and gather users preference for its eventual use after benchmarking life is over. First things first, $200 won't even get us a CPU at this point.
>>It's just a capable OS that's seen it's last >>major release. > >Mmmmm, seems like I heard that one back in '95. and every year there after.
I have contacted a IBM person at IBM NCD and asked if Warp Server for e-Business was being marketed only to Fortune 500 companies and he said he believed that was the case. Why they added the small business 'talk' to the ad on IBMs Warp Server homepage I don't know. Even if that is the case, it doesn't mean the product isn't good for http and SMB work. That is what the tests were about. I think it has more to do with who is paying the money for ads at Ziff-Davis and has nothing to do with capabilities. I mean, come on, it has managed Windows clients for years and now can manage NT Servers and NFS drives. Sounds like something to overlook because only multi BILLION $$ businesses run it.
That is one heck of a 'bone' to throw. Scales to 64 processors and a journalling file system. The NFS stuff is more like a 'bone' thrown since it is just a packaging thing. IBM put some money into Warp 5 so there has to be some large number of legacy users to justify that. Besides, do you disregard a VERY capable product because the company selling it targetting Fortune 500 companies? We are just talking about web serving and file/print serving. Since this is a benchmark it is widely known that OS/2 runs rings around NT on the same hardware and the fact that it has a history that includes Microsoft should make it even more 'comparable'. I am sending email to IBMs NCD division to ask why they haven't insisted on being tested. If they tell me that Warp Server for e-Business is not being targetted for web and file/print customers then I'll remove OS/2 from all my systems and buy Microsoft stock. After all, with a marketing budget like Microsoft has, why would we use anything else?;)
You read my mind. I have been thinking of this since the MindCrap 'study' was released. I couldn't think of a place to put the hardware after it was done though. I'd like to see it combined into a bewolf system that the general Linux (donating) comminity can use. Like having our own community super computer when benchmarking isn't occuring. I'd throw in a $100 or 2 to build a community testing platform.
I'd also like to see other systems tested like OS/2 Warp Server and Mac System X Server(x86).
The author of one of the articles mentioning the 'fact' that the 2 new test show NT is better said that Warp Server wasn't included because it isn't widely marketed. Leading me to believe that advertising dollars is what determines the test results. We need to fight this or we will be doomed to turning off our microwave oven by first hitting the Start button!
Linux may not do so well in THIS test but like it was mentioned, the load Linux was able to serve was larger then most business would need and that serving from a few lower-end systems with load balancing would be a better solution.
On to the topic of OS's not tested since you mentioned Be and NetBSD. MS-Ziff Davis did a test of 3 network servers on Intel and one OS (on 1 CPU) bested NT (on 2 CPUs) by 10% and Netware fell even further behind. That OS was OS/2 Warp Server. IBM just announced Warp Server for e-Business just 2 weeks ago and it scales to 64 CPUs with optimizations at 4 CPUs. Why wasn't this system tested? I'll venture that it would have kicked NT's butt on the SELECTED HARDWARE they used to show Linux's weakness. The Ziff Davis press is NOT unbiased and both those articles come from Ziff Davis publications. It just amazes me that a company that is so BIG on e-Business and has just released a OS for such Intel based e-Business was not included in the tests. Before the NT marketing machine went into full steam, after Windows 95 shipped, OS/2 servers were the #2 servers used. Right behind Netware and ahead of the UNIX servers and none of the NT vs System? tests but one included the OS/2 server software. Why is that?
Wow, I didn't realize RedHat was so naive. Then again I didn't think Sun would ever be dumb enough to accept any license arrangement with Micros~1 either.... Maybe I'm the naive one for thinking I could understand the intelligence in partnering with Micros~1 or it's main PR branch (Ziff Davis). Did you know that Ziff-Davis and Micros~1 formed a company back in 1995 whos only purpose was to promote the writting/porting of games to Micros~1 Windows 95? Nothing to do with quality, just quantity of games. Now is Ziff Davis a independant 3rd party?
Slashdot Mirror
I still believe OS/2 was superior to existing products. I'm talking about 1990 and onward. I had paid over $1400 for Consensus UNIX for my 386 and before that it was MicroPort UNIX on a 286. Pretty nice multiuser/multitasking PC operating system. Dos and then Dos/Windows only added a GUI to a poor OS and then IBM did it alone with OS/2 v2.0 (I ran the betas too) that put a nice GUI on a very nice multitasking OS for only alittle more RAM. Nothing touched OS/2 til NT v4 came out and wasn't that around 1996/97? For Six or seven years, OS/2 really didn't have a technical competitor and most of that time it was competing againt Dos/Windows. Paying another $250 for TCP/IP networking hurt but man it was nice playing with client/server development on OS/2 and most of that pleasure comes from its threading model. Guess I'm lazy but I always found thread communications easier then IPCs in *NIX.
I have to seriously start looking into Linux's threading capabilities since my assumptions seem to be wrong based on responses here. I'm seeing parallel now here with Linux and OS/2. In early 1995 when IBM was still heavily advertising OS/2, my developer friends were just starting to ask about OS/2 (after >4 years of my encouragement). All of these people were *NIX and Windows developers and OS/2 was getting enough press to get them interested. I see Linux at the same place today. I just came from a party yesterday where I was talking to a lawyer and he was asking about Linux and a AVID Windows developer friend who has his own business actually put RedHat on one of his PCs. Since Linux has no single PR $$ like IBM has, I hope Linux coverage will continue and some here have said that Microsoft is posibly to thank for that being a likelyhood.
He is a pawn played by Bill Gates. He is the marketing director on Windows NT v2 (NT5, W2k). He is the considered to be the head of this Linux Hit Team. He is real and a full blown MS slacky.
Yeah I heard about that but I think that was the 16bit OS/2. The one Microsoft still had a part in. I only know the 32bit OS/2 of the 1990's and the dev kits were very reasonable with IBM Dev Conn at $99/yr with full OS, dev tools and sample apps included. There were miss steps but all one has to do is look at Germany for an idea of what could have been. IBM was able to get Vobis of Germany, their number one PC reseller, to preinstall OS/2 for a short period. OS/2 is very popular in Germany today. By the way, Vobis is one of the companies that complained to IBM marketing people when Microsoft was threatening them. HP and Dell were 2 big US companies that complained also. This is a brutal business and Microsoft is a brutal player and I hope Linux won't end up only a hobbyists OS.
The last 3 companies I worked for choose Windows because everyone else was using it. I was on a project 3 years ago where we were designing a distributed info system and we were going with Smalltalk and CORBA but after 6 months were were told to get rid of all our tools and start looking at MS C++ and MS Basic. We were livid at those choices and were eventually told that the decision was made "because nobody was ever fired for chosing MS". The project eventually failed but it was over 1.5 years later. The company still gets contracts from that same customer. Go figure. I hope you and your company are an example of things to come.
Very good. If Linux can show that OSS can improve at a far faster rate than MS could dream of.....
This has to happen because a bad image of Linux by MS PR will be bad for Linux if that is all there is. The press would have to be in on this and be willing to show the new results. I always found it interesting that MS products seem to be benchmarked or marketed shortly before a competitor ships its product. It usually doesn't show up in comparisons for at least 12 months. Game, Set, and Match for some companies.....
I'll be watching this trend to see if the press is more accomidating to Linux.
One doesn't need money to develope for Linux but one does need money to live. You seem to be in the fortunate position to be able to tell your boss what you will use. I, and many, can't do that and even find ourselves in the position that they don't listen to us. The PHB just reads PCWeak and such then tells us to use product X because it is supposed to be good and everybody else is using it. I'm stuck finding another job again and I have quit my job once already because of the choice of Windows for non-technical reasons. I'm in the process of doing it again.
BTW, I know OS/2 isn't dead, I'm running it on 2 machines at home now and develope for it today. I'm being forced to start migrating to NT though and that is only because "NT is the future". So says our Principle Engineer and our customer (US Navy).
Corporate support makes Linux an option for me because I can get the time of day from some of the PHB's with that backing. When I was a student I didn't care what everyone was using but now FUD can affect what I do for my salary. And I'm pissed about it.
Signed: Uninformed....
Maybe you're right, after all, the hype of Linux was only publicized early last year as the DOJ was coming down on MS. Quite a lot had already been done with Linux by then. Things like QuickTime, RealAudio, SoundBlaster and things like that seem to be showing up now from the makers of those products because of the excitement though. I hope you're right and I no longer have to use more advanced OS's at home and be forced to develope for inferior products at work.
I hope you are right and you are not alone in the thought that corporate support from Oracle, IBM, and others can go away and Linux will still keep moving forward.
This is the same guy who said that Linux and OSS was like the resurgence of socializm.
Say hello to time if you feel the NEED.
Sorry if I had it wrong but I was under the impression that Linux was multitasking but that once a process was in the kernel it was not pre-empted til its timeslice was complete or it blocked on IO. That is pre-emptive multitasking.
As far as threading goes, I was told that Linux has process level threads not kernel level threads. This would mean that threads within a process will not be spread across the CPU's like it does in OS/2. In Linux, I was under the impression that the 2nd CPU wouldn't do anything for on application but only for the next application that was run if the first had CPU #1 close to max'ed out.
I'm not saying Linux sucks, I'm saying that a damn good OS (OS/2) got whacked my MS FUD and I hope Linux can continue to florish as it has in the last 2 years.
> So it wasn't a 'dark conspiracy' from evile
> (hiss hiss... much thrashing around in fury)
> Microsoft to count Windows 3.1 usage that way.
No kidding but accounting is accounting and if OSS needs to show high numbers do it any way you can. Licensed code or compatibility should be counted too becase you have to know that the competition will do that and more.
FYI, Go Inc had a pen-based OS in late 1980s and Microsoft targeted them. The build a mockup of Pen for Windows and invited all its Windows developers AND Go Inc's development partners. Microsoft handed out demo dev kits to everyone at the door. Shortly after at a major trade show Microsoft held up a huge display showing all the companies developing for Pen for Windows and that list showed ALL people who were given demo/dev kits. What would you think? Evil? No. Ruthless and deceptive? YES.
Think about using Linux 4 years ago and that is what Linux will be like if Microsft keeps Linux out of business. RedHat, Caldera, and others will disappear or shrink to very small companies and optimized drivers will not appear for new devices or will be so late that dust will have to be blown of the device before you can stick it into the case.
Think of Linux 4 years ago and tell me that is a good place for Linux to live? RedHat, Caldera and the others are in business to make $$ and Linux (and its users ) benefit. I will agree that there was probably some resentment of the OLD IBM that it didn't take too much pushing by Microsoft to keep developers away. As far as the kernel goes, OS/2's kernel is quite nice on x86. Is is preemtive (not Linux), multi-threaded (not Linux), most apps (threaded) immediately gain when SMP is enabled (not Linux). The kernel is not really the issue here, what is, is that a superior OS was kept out of the market by FUD. Just like MAC sales dropped sharply when the press started saying the Mac was dead when Windows 95 was shipped. FUD kills and even though Linux will still exist in source, Microsoft can succeed in relegating it to a ineffective niche.
Without business support/acceptance, $$ for drivers will disappear. Look at what Microsft is doing with its $$ now. Paying AT&T 5 billion to use WinCE, buying SoftImage and making them port to WinNT, starting a company with SoftBank (Ziff-Davis) to feed money into companies to build Win32-only games. You underestimate the power of the "Dark Side".
But PHB's might not let it into business if they believe what Microsft PR feeds the press. Without business support, device support will dwindle and things like RealAudio support or hardware 3D will not arrive. Linux will go back to the early days of a few hackers playing with it and some renegade web sites using it behind the scenes.
Careful now. IBM couldn't get OS/2 to replace DOS/Windows or NT back in the early 1990's or even when they spent around $200 million to market it in around 1994/95. Only in Germany where they could get preloading did OS/2 become a dominant OS. Techies can scream all they want to the PHB but when in a meeting of PHB's, it is the PHB's choice that is on the line and Microsoft PR has the strength of "The Dark Side of the Force".
About Java, they have done a decent job at keeping Java relegated to the server. Microsoft never mentioned VisualBasic when they spread FUD that Java on the client was slow, interpreted and missing features. They know that if Java just replaced VisualBasic it would be a great success.
This is war. period!
The code may exist but support for devices could dwindle to a trickle. Currently many large device manufacturers are working on Linux drivers for their devices. If Microsoft can prevent Linux from growing into a widely used business OS, the support will end. Does OS/2 ring a bell? Windows developers were forced to sign licenses that forbid them from writting code for other OS's, IIRC, and application and device support for OS/2 dwindled. This is a powerful threat!
No, no, no, you people must be too young to have seen what a Microsoft fed press can do to a superior competitor. OS/2 was annialated in the press with front page stories like OS/2 not having long filename support or that users found it very difficult to use. Even when IBM was selling around 1 million copies a month (selling, not preloads) a Ziff Davis reporter in Europe said IBM was killing OS/2 and the word spread. Later a friend was visiting the head of a Denver Hospitals IT department( they are friends ) and in conversation the IT head said that he had stopped evaluating replacing DOS/Windows with OS/2 because IBM was killing it.
This is what CAN happen to Linux and they have been targetting Linux since October of 1998. Remember the Holloween Document? This is serious folks, they are masters at this.
That is not what they do to kill competitor. It is something they constantly do though. What they have already started is a campaign to spread FUD about the competitor. They will not allow a superior technology eclipse their junk in the MINDs of IT and IS managment. I will say this again, THEY DID THIS TO OS/2 and the result is ugly. Published lies, invalid benchmarks, biased user studies by industry 'professionals'. If they win again we will have no hope of ever having a choice as to what data comes into our homes or what tools we can choose to do our jobs (technological solutions).
I just hope the public/press is smarter now then when OS/2 was attacked.
Help us Obe Wan Email, you're our only hope.
(knowledge is power if it can be diseminated)
I think it is a accounting thing since the whole issue is being used to show Linux's usage numbers. Since 1991, Microsoft counted copies of OS/2 shipments in its number of copies of Windows 3.x units shipped. How could one show OS/2 gaining ground when Microsoft could show there was ALWAYS more Windows versions being sold and the gap never changed. The desire to get these numbers right makes for a more informed descission. Because of who the competition is I think using the numbers as they were used is a good thing. Today. I don't want Linux being another Windows. Choice and interoperability is what we should be after. The right tool for the right job and not one tool for every job (or change the job). IMHO
Sorry but that had to be said. Todays word processors keep trying to be full blown publishers and 90% of the users don't need that stuff. I remember that days when word processors did things like spelling and grammer checking and basic layout stuff for sending letters. I would use Ventura Publisher to take that text for font, layout and the likes if I wanted brochures and polished documents. The word processors were fast and the publisher full capable. Today you have slow word processors that 90% of the users only use 10% of the features and publisher packages are harder to find and more expensive because people try to make word processors do thing they just weren't supposed to do.
I could set up a web site for this poll. Not til Thursday though, Java UG meeting tonight and investment club meeting tomorrow night.
I'll set it up to simply count responses and the amounts. If it looks good I can apply for a non-profit org license or locate a group that might be able to handle this. We'll then have to start finding a location for the equipment and gather users preference for its eventual use after benchmarking life is over. First things first, $200 won't even get us a CPU at this point.
>>It's just a capable OS that's seen it's last >>major release.
>
>Mmmmm, seems like I heard that one back in '95.
and every year there after.
I have contacted a IBM person at IBM NCD and asked if Warp Server for e-Business was being marketed only to Fortune 500 companies and he said he believed that was the case. Why they added the small business 'talk' to the ad on IBMs Warp Server homepage I don't know. Even if that is the case, it doesn't mean the product isn't good for http and SMB work. That is what the tests were about. I think it has more to do with who is paying the money for ads at Ziff-Davis and has nothing to do with capabilities. I mean, come on, it has managed Windows clients for years and now can manage NT Servers and NFS drives. Sounds like something to overlook because only multi BILLION $$ businesses run it.
That is one heck of a 'bone' to throw. Scales to 64 processors and a journalling file system. The NFS stuff is more like a 'bone' thrown since it is just a packaging thing. IBM put some money into Warp 5 so there has to be some large number of legacy users to justify that. Besides, do you disregard a VERY capable product because the company selling it targetting Fortune 500 companies? We are just talking about web serving and file/print serving. Since this is a benchmark it is widely known that OS/2 runs rings around NT on the same hardware and the fact that it has a history that includes Microsoft should make it even more 'comparable'. ;)
I am sending email to IBMs NCD division to ask why they haven't insisted on being tested. If they tell me that Warp Server for e-Business is not being targetted for web and file/print customers then I'll remove OS/2 from all my systems and buy Microsoft stock. After all, with a marketing budget like Microsoft has, why would we use anything else?
You read my mind. I have been thinking of this since the MindCrap 'study' was released. I couldn't think of a place to put the hardware after it was done though. I'd like to see it combined into a bewolf system that the general Linux (donating) comminity can use. Like having our own community super computer when benchmarking isn't occuring. I'd throw in a $100 or 2 to build a community testing platform.
I'd also like to see other systems tested like
OS/2 Warp Server and Mac System X Server(x86).
The author of one of the articles mentioning the 'fact' that the 2 new test show NT is better said that Warp Server wasn't included because it isn't widely marketed. Leading me to believe that advertising dollars is what determines the test results. We need to fight this or we will be doomed to turning off our microwave oven by first hitting the Start button!
Linux may not do so well in THIS test but like it was mentioned, the load Linux was able to serve was larger then most business would need and that serving from a few lower-end systems with load balancing would be a better solution.
On to the topic of OS's not tested since you mentioned Be and NetBSD. MS-Ziff Davis did a test of 3 network servers on Intel and one OS (on 1 CPU) bested NT (on 2 CPUs) by 10% and Netware fell even further behind. That OS was OS/2 Warp Server. IBM just announced Warp Server for e-Business just 2 weeks ago and it scales to 64 CPUs with optimizations at 4 CPUs. Why wasn't this system tested? I'll venture that it would have kicked NT's butt on the SELECTED HARDWARE they used to show Linux's weakness. The Ziff Davis press is NOT unbiased and both those articles come from Ziff Davis publications. It just amazes me that a company that is so BIG on e-Business and has just released a OS for such Intel based e-Business was not included in the tests. Before the NT marketing machine went into full steam, after Windows 95 shipped, OS/2 servers were the #2 servers used. Right behind Netware and ahead of the UNIX servers and none of the NT vs System? tests but one included the OS/2 server software. Why is that?
Wow, I didn't realize RedHat was so naive. Then again I didn't think Sun would ever be dumb enough to accept any license arrangement with Micros~1 either.... Maybe I'm the naive one for thinking I could understand the intelligence in partnering with Micros~1 or it's main PR branch (Ziff Davis). Did you know that Ziff-Davis and Micros~1 formed a company back in 1995 whos only purpose was to promote the writting/porting of games to Micros~1 Windows 95? Nothing to do with quality, just quantity of games. Now is Ziff Davis a independant 3rd party?