I meant as in worsening weather conditions. The area the Mars Lander is in has gotten much colder this week and it has been forced to stop scientific functions and focus solely on preserving itself (heating, etc.).
I know it's the accepted belief in the industry that rebooting servers/downtime can be bad to a server, but couldn't you spin that the other way around and say that running a server 24/7 is bad too? Couldn't there also be benefits from letting a server rest as well?
I don't know if the Phoenix is past its expect life yet. I thought the project was expected to go until the end of the year. It is the Mars Rovers that have gone way past their expected life, as they landed back in 2004.
To be fair, we did name these things. The Lander is called the Phoenix, and the two current Mars Rovers are Spirit and Opportunity. Of course, if we keep this up, Mars will begin to sound like a highly patriotic US-version of Harry Potter.:-)
I think anyone could get into a distro battle due to my comment, but my primary point was that if there was a linux-based corporation that wanted to really stabilize and produce a polished, finished desktop linux OS, it'd be Canonical. Novell and RedHat are strongest when working on stable servers, while Canonical could start reigning in the lackluster enterprise linux desktop market.
Lots of confusion...but yes, Spirit and Opportunity are still going strong. It's the Mars Lander Phoenix that's entering safe mode due to failing electronics and deteriorating climate.
Good call. It'd really be a shame for the project to end so abruptly. Though, I don't think we'll see the successes we had of the Mars Rovers, especially, since they lasted way beyond their expected life. I think their mobility really helped that along, and the lack of that is killing the current lander.
I have an iPhone myself (first gen), and it I wouldn't say it's all marketing. It is an excellent phone by the virtue that it is enjoyable to use, as opposed to other phones which feel clunky and, well, unusable. It does excel at its core functionality and wraps it up in a beautiful interface. However, I do feel Apple's role in the market isn't as a market leader, but as an innovator. The iPhone really helped point cell phone developers where the phone market should be heading. That being said, I think the G1 is the first real response to Apple's innovations. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that it is a horrible mp3 player compared to the iPhone, I'd probably buy one right now.
I've been using Debian for about 8 years (since version 2.1) and I tried Ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10 for about four months. In my personal opinion, Debian is a superbly-stable server OS, even when you use Testing as opposed to Stable. I've run a Debian Testing server for roughly 4 years with absolutely no problems before the hardware became too old and I decomissioned it. Debian would be an excellent contender to the corporate Linux server market, but the Debian Project is obviously not interested.
As far as Ubuntu, I've tried the three major flavors of Ubuntu of versions 7.4 and 7.10. I've also tried Ubuntu server, but was not really impressed. I found nothing that Ubuntu server had that Debian Testing didn't, with the exception that you could select a preconfigured LAMP setup during the install.
From my experience, Ubuntu offers little on the back-end of the OS that Debian doesn't have. The quicker release-cycle and detailed attention to the GUI certainly do make things easier, but the added bloat and instability isn't worth it for me personally.
As far as the corporate world, Ubuntu still has very little to offer in terms of the server market, except for sysadmins that know little about Linux in the first place. But of course, that's just my opinion.
I agree fully, but if Canonical did attack the market in this way, they wouldn't need to attack people's reluctance to switch, they'd be attacking the businesses that might be interested in moving off of Windows. They'd naturally be hard-pressed to switch US companies this easily, but European markets might be a good entry-point for this.
The problem with Canonical concentrating on Linux Server OSes is that it is a market where they are completely outclassed in branding and product performance. Competing against RedHat and Novell is just crazy in the sense that they won't gain traction unless they bring something new to the table. The "new thing" they can bring is full desktop integration with all corporate needs in a desktop platform. While end-users might not be interested in the switch, an CTO might. But there's no way Canonical can, at least at this point, be strong enough with their server platform to move companies off of RedHat or even Windows.
To be blunt, they should be attacking the corporate desktop market or nothing at all.
Good point.
If I had to make a serious idea as to what Canonical should do, it should seriously push a corporate Linux desktop that the average user can enjoy and be productive with. At least it'd play to their strengths and they could provide the nitty-gritty support like RedHat and Novell do with their server OSes. This would provide them a niche that RedHat and Novell just don't have any traction in. I mean, really, who has EVER tried SLED? Besides, Canonical would be in the best place to push getting out of the Windows desktop methodology and showing that a Linux desktop can be a viable alternative.
I think Canonical hit the ground running with Ubuntu Desktop, since it tried to bring Linux to the masses with easy GUI tools and whatnot. The problem is that Ubuntu's strengths don't carry over to Ubuntu Server, especially when you deal with SysAdmins that know what they're doing. Their only strength is that they're based off of Debian, which you can get with, well, Debian.
You can tell that they are trying to tout ease-of-use with their default LAMP install out-of-the-box, but that's already been done years ago, and they just don't have the advanced server options that Novell or RedHat have for their enterprise solutions.
I appreciate them trying, but their methodologies are doomed to fail.
Slashdot Mirror
I heard a rumor that the name of the game that the Beatles music will be in will not be called "Rock Band." Anyone have info on this?
I meant as in worsening weather conditions. The area the Mars Lander is in has gotten much colder this week and it has been forced to stop scientific functions and focus solely on preserving itself (heating, etc.).
Yes, I fixed it. Thanks. I can see someone else likes Calvin and Hobbes. :-)
Yeah, yeah, it was a typo. Thanks for the help, fellow Calvin and Hobbes lovers. :-)
Of course not, silly. Lawn chairs don't have spectrometers.
I know it's the accepted belief in the industry that rebooting servers/downtime can be bad to a server, but couldn't you spin that the other way around and say that running a server 24/7 is bad too? Couldn't there also be benefits from letting a server rest as well?
I don't know if the Phoenix is past its expect life yet. I thought the project was expected to go until the end of the year. It is the Mars Rovers that have gone way past their expected life, as they landed back in 2004.
To be fair, we did name these things. The Lander is called the Phoenix, and the two current Mars Rovers are Spirit and Opportunity. Of course, if we keep this up, Mars will begin to sound like a highly patriotic US-version of Harry Potter. :-)
I think anyone could get into a distro battle due to my comment, but my primary point was that if there was a linux-based corporation that wanted to really stabilize and produce a polished, finished desktop linux OS, it'd be Canonical. Novell and RedHat are strongest when working on stable servers, while Canonical could start reigning in the lackluster enterprise linux desktop market.
Lots of confusion...but yes, Spirit and Opportunity are still going strong. It's the Mars Lander Phoenix that's entering safe mode due to failing electronics and deteriorating climate.
Good call. It'd really be a shame for the project to end so abruptly. Though, I don't think we'll see the successes we had of the Mars Rovers, especially, since they lasted way beyond their expected life. I think their mobility really helped that along, and the lack of that is killing the current lander.
The Mars Lander entered safe mode? Why do I have bad shivers all of a sudden? Must be my conditioned response from Windows.
I have an iPhone myself (first gen), and it I wouldn't say it's all marketing. It is an excellent phone by the virtue that it is enjoyable to use, as opposed to other phones which feel clunky and, well, unusable. It does excel at its core functionality and wraps it up in a beautiful interface. However, I do feel Apple's role in the market isn't as a market leader, but as an innovator. The iPhone really helped point cell phone developers where the phone market should be heading. That being said, I think the G1 is the first real response to Apple's innovations. In fact, if it wasn't for the fact that it is a horrible mp3 player compared to the iPhone, I'd probably buy one right now.
Either that or John F. Kennedy in 1961.
I've been using Debian for about 8 years (since version 2.1) and I tried Ubuntu 7.04 and 7.10 for about four months. In my personal opinion, Debian is a superbly-stable server OS, even when you use Testing as opposed to Stable. I've run a Debian Testing server for roughly 4 years with absolutely no problems before the hardware became too old and I decomissioned it. Debian would be an excellent contender to the corporate Linux server market, but the Debian Project is obviously not interested. As far as Ubuntu, I've tried the three major flavors of Ubuntu of versions 7.4 and 7.10. I've also tried Ubuntu server, but was not really impressed. I found nothing that Ubuntu server had that Debian Testing didn't, with the exception that you could select a preconfigured LAMP setup during the install. From my experience, Ubuntu offers little on the back-end of the OS that Debian doesn't have. The quicker release-cycle and detailed attention to the GUI certainly do make things easier, but the added bloat and instability isn't worth it for me personally. As far as the corporate world, Ubuntu still has very little to offer in terms of the server market, except for sysadmins that know little about Linux in the first place. But of course, that's just my opinion.
I agree fully, but if Canonical did attack the market in this way, they wouldn't need to attack people's reluctance to switch, they'd be attacking the businesses that might be interested in moving off of Windows. They'd naturally be hard-pressed to switch US companies this easily, but European markets might be a good entry-point for this. The problem with Canonical concentrating on Linux Server OSes is that it is a market where they are completely outclassed in branding and product performance. Competing against RedHat and Novell is just crazy in the sense that they won't gain traction unless they bring something new to the table. The "new thing" they can bring is full desktop integration with all corporate needs in a desktop platform. While end-users might not be interested in the switch, an CTO might. But there's no way Canonical can, at least at this point, be strong enough with their server platform to move companies off of RedHat or even Windows. To be blunt, they should be attacking the corporate desktop market or nothing at all.
Good point. If I had to make a serious idea as to what Canonical should do, it should seriously push a corporate Linux desktop that the average user can enjoy and be productive with. At least it'd play to their strengths and they could provide the nitty-gritty support like RedHat and Novell do with their server OSes. This would provide them a niche that RedHat and Novell just don't have any traction in. I mean, really, who has EVER tried SLED? Besides, Canonical would be in the best place to push getting out of the Windows desktop methodology and showing that a Linux desktop can be a viable alternative.
I think Canonical hit the ground running with Ubuntu Desktop, since it tried to bring Linux to the masses with easy GUI tools and whatnot. The problem is that Ubuntu's strengths don't carry over to Ubuntu Server, especially when you deal with SysAdmins that know what they're doing. Their only strength is that they're based off of Debian, which you can get with, well, Debian. You can tell that they are trying to tout ease-of-use with their default LAMP install out-of-the-box, but that's already been done years ago, and they just don't have the advanced server options that Novell or RedHat have for their enterprise solutions. I appreciate them trying, but their methodologies are doomed to fail.