I used Ubuntu for almost a year and I think linux cachnig / virtual memory is implemented better than win7. It seems win7 cache is too aggressive and it dumps active programs from RAM to page files when it should not. Maybe it works OK for most desktop users, but it doesn't work very well for a development machine.
I have nothing but my subjective feeling to backup my observations.
We are just about to launch Project Management / Professional services automation solution for German speaking market (if we get enough request, we might prepare English version very soon).
Projektnik supports:
- Project planning (WBS, resurce allocation, scheduling)
- Reporting and project tracking
- Cost tracking
- Resource management (availability, allocation,...)
- Issue tracking (mainly intended for customer support)
- Automation of some business processes (monthly work report, absence requests, also billing and travel orders for some localizations)
Well, Microsoft can't just ignore the risk "if x86 goes down, we go down".
For this reason some kind of even the lastest versions of windows portability is plausible, IMO.
Banning links to web content is the same as banning references in off-line world, which is of course, idiotic.
On the other side, caching and aggregating pages without permission from original author/publisher is a whole different matter.
I'm just about to buy a new server and I'd like to hear from slashdot what's your experience with the new CPUs? Should I buy the new 55 or the old 54 series?
I was ubuntu user from 7.10 or so. A few days ago I was ranting over Linux here on Slashdot about linux and what I don't like about it. As it happened, out of curiosity I downloaded Windows 7. Well, id did one thing: it deleted my Ubuntu partition!!??
Well, no real harm done since I have my/home on a separate partition and I could switch betwen ubuntu versions or even different gnome distributions with no problem. The thing is, I was just going through different distros, trying to find something better (I was using 8.10, btw. It was slow, DVD burning completely stalled the system, and so on and on). Centos: not really ready for desktops Debian: probably very stable, but it looks somehow 1990. Old packages (openoffice 2 something, nautilus without tabs). Ubuntu: slower and slower. I think 7.10 was their best release. After that it started to be slower, with more bugs etc. As I later found out, it would take 9.4 liveCD DAYS to copy my data from/home to an external usb disk. No way, with 7.10 LiveCd it was about an hour. That should tell you something. Oh, and nvidia driver was not installed on 9.04. I never figured why.
Ok, after I lost my active ubuntu system, I first tried 9.4. Common guys. You bitch over Vista, but clearly, Ubuntu 7.10 is a performance upgrade to 9.4. Really. If you just added nautilus with tabs to 7.10 it would be great. All other neafty features you keep adding? I really couldn't care less if my system boots 5 seconds faster (btw, windows 7 blows Ubuntu 9.4 at boot speed) or about some shiny notifications (which were really quite ok in 7.10 - why are you trying to Kdeisize Gnome??). I care about stability, performance and usability.
So, ubuntu was out of the list. Next I asked myself "why not try Kde. It's supposed to be stable now, and it looks nice". From the internetz I learned that opensuse is one of the best distros. So I download, burn and isntall 11.1. Fonts are ugly by default (why, why, WHY is this still a problem in 2009? Ok, first thing on 7 I disabled ClearType and switched system fonts to Tahoma, but linux fonts are still ugly.) Network. I use WPA personal with TKIP or something like that. No go. Suse's network manager won't connect. I was supposed to check if I was runing wpa_something etc. Nvidia driver not installe dy default. I have to add additional repos, and then somehow choose the right driver from the list (I learned all that connected to neighbour's open WiFi, btw).
At that moment I just said to my self: WTF. Is this really productive? Whyt do I gain by using linux? I LIKE Windows 7 interface. What I really like about gnu/linux/gnome is: - virtual desktops (I've been evaluating Virtual Dimension now, it seems fine) - ssh integration in nautilus (can use cygwin for command line ssh and winscp for file transfers) - windows roll-up (I found something that adds this to windows, but it somehow doens't feel right and it seems buggy)
Is all this really worth the trouble I have with linux? Guess not. So I'm writing this from Windows 7. Yeah, I got a few BSODs, but it's nice, fast and it does the job. Yes, sadly it's acctually faster than Ubuntu. More sadly, I jhust realized the application I've been developing for a year or so works much much faster in IE8 than it does in Ubuntu/firefox.
A few days ago some slashdoters said "I was trying to use linux as if it was Windows". I don't really understand what you werw trying to say. Now, if you think I was trying to use my os without much hassle, yes, you are right. If that means I was supposed to go through different forums, mailings, scripts and config files just to make my system work, well, you can have it, it's not worth my time. Other than that, there should really be no difference in how you use an operating system. It just manages files and schedules processor for crying out loud. Other than than, I'm more trying to use Windows as X/Gnome.
Last, but not least, I also have performance problems with Ubuntu server. Md raid is ver
And yet linux fanboys mod me troll. Do as you are pleased, but that's precisely what's wrong with linux. Point to a problem and you are either a troll or you can "fix it yourself".
Like, you know, GIMP USER INTERFACE STILL SUCKS. But developers surely know waaaayyy better what's good for the user.
for over a year now, I must say I agree. Sadly, linux is not mature.
In the times pre windows nt/2000, yes, linux was more stable and had far better up time. But after windows 2000 came out, stability was greatly improved and is simply a non-issue these days. When that happened, linux lost its strong point and the direction where it's going. A few weeks ago, Mark Shuttleworthd said "Linux must not be just better Windows" or something like that. That of course, is wrong. No matter what you want linux to be or not be, it's just a freaking OS. It deals with scheduling processor time and resources, and IO (and sadly, there's a IO bug in kernels after 2.6.18 that still hasn't been fixed IIRC). Anything more than that is not linux any more. It's either gnome or kde or whatever.
What I really care about as the user is that the os can run my software of choice. For example, MS office is my software of choice. I prefer MSO to any other solution I've seen. Specifically: i also like the look and feel of office 2007 (and since MacOS is forcing me into something else, Mac is off my OS list). Now, should linux run my app or should linux provide "an alternative" to any single pice of software there is? Dear god, speak about reinventing the wheel).
I currently use linux (or should I say Gnome, since linux really doesn't matter that much) because Vista has a really really REALLY stupid memory management (I don't understand what's the point of prefatching software you MIGHT use and then swapping programs you actually do use. I mean, how brain dead is that??). I like having multiple desktops (hello MS it can't be THAT hard), love powerful shell and SSH integration into nautilus.
But the more I use linux (Ubuntu in case you are interested), the more unhappy I am. It's the little things, like, keyboard not processing input on dual screen when there's no window open on that desktop. And configuring / changing (external) display configuration is simply broken. And high IO really brings system on the knees (even surfing is not possible while writing to a CD). Firefox is sloooooowwww. No exchange client. No out of the box AD integration. And so on and on and on.
It's really strange. Currently, there's no desktop OS i'd like to use. I don't get why people are sooooo amoused over mac os. I've tried it but didn't really liked it (yes, i'd prefer windows). On the other hand, MS doesn't know wher to go with Vista/7, but they don't implement a simple virtual desktops and tabs in windows explorer (yes, I'd buy 7 for these simple features).
Based on my experience I agree with gartner, windows is the better choice for EU's cuncil IT environment.
I work at an Oracle shop and I must say this would make sense from Oracle's point of view.
They would probably kill most of the free stuff (bye bye MySql, Glassfish,...), but would probably keep seling hardware (remember, oracle just got into hardware business!) and possibly solaris.
As for Java... I don't know. I work with Jdeveloper - it's good but bloated, and most important, not open sourced (it's free, but not open sourced). I have no idea what happens if ANY other company than SUN owns Java...?
Generally, I also prefer Ubuntu over RHEL/OEL, but Oracle database and WLS are not supported on Ubuntu. Also, database did work for us on Ubuntu, but WLS had some strange problems, so we decided to switch our Oracle servers to OEL, and that works really good. I think Oracle buying Redhat would be a good thing. I think it was quite amazing how quickly they merged BEA into their Fusion Middleware. Dropping your own app server in favor of another in a few months is not a small thing to do. Jdeveloper 11g TPs was still using what was supposed to be OC4J 11g... They also don't drop existing brands. They'd probably call it Oracle RedHat linux and drop their own unbreakable linux. From an enterprise point of view, probably a good thing. What I don't know is how is Oracle going to respond to IBM/Sun merger. Java is THE platform Oracle put all their strategy in. If somehow Java is not as open as it is any more, Oracle looses big time. So... how about Oracle buying Sun?
no, really.. this is utter crap:
so called benefit:
"The first benefit is that they are simple and thus scale much better than today's relational databases. If you are putting together a system in-house and intend to throw dozens or hundreds of servers behind your data store to cope with what you expect will be a massive demand in scale, then consider a key/value store."
but then:"Bugs in a properly designed relational database usually don't lead to data integrity issues; bugs in a key/value database, however, quite easily lead to data integrity issues."
and then it just goes on on how RDBMSs are really cool... oh, I got it, it was really written by Oracle reverse marketing department!
form the article:
"For example, a relatively simple SELECT statement could have hundreds of potential query execution paths, which the optimizer would evaluate at run time. All of this is hidden to us as users, but under the cover, RDBMS determines the "execution plan" that best answers our requests by using things like cost-based algorithms."
So, you have no idea how optimizers work and how you can access tuning information, and you'd like to tell us RDBMSs are bad?
Get of my lawn! (yay, I'm getting old)
you had a headache (your original problem), went to a drugstore and saw an menstrual pain reliever, which neither applies to your (male) platform nor describe your symptoms on the package, you bought the menstrual pain reliever anyway and now you're ranting that clerk didn't ask you if you were buying it for yourself.
With all due respect, sir, basically you're telling us you're an idiot.
but they don't. So, we don't really use Linux, neither GNU/linux. We use Gnome/GNU/Linux or KDE/GNU/Linux or any other combination.
That's BAD.
IMHO all utilities should be common, with well defined interface (heck, just make small command line utils, that alwyas worked on linux). Gnome/KDE should be nothing more than presentation for these common utils.
Having different network managers, BT managers etc. is nothing but overhead and bad design.
That's one of the problems of FOSS: inefficient resource utilization (in this case, developers).
Slashdot Mirror
I used Ubuntu for almost a year and I think linux cachnig / virtual memory is implemented better than win7. It seems win7 cache is too aggressive and it dumps active programs from RAM to page files when it should not. Maybe it works OK for most desktop users, but it doesn't work very well for a development machine. I have nothing but my subjective feeling to backup my observations.
Yeah, that's why I'm always a bit nervous when flying with airbus.
How is this offtopic?
I know, it's not a FPS (it's a WW2 flight sim), but really, very accurate.
Visual studio and .Net use XML extensively. Think web services (wcf). Think database (xml support). Shit, this is BIG!
We are just about to launch Project Management / Professional services automation solution for German speaking market (if we get enough request, we might prepare English version very soon).
...)
The site is accessible at http://www.projektnik.de/ (ah great, the marketing guys have not localized the logo, hurray).
If anybody would like to get 30 day free trial, just fill in the form at: http://www.projektnik.de/deu/kostenlose_testversion/
Projektnik supports:
- Project planning (WBS, resurce allocation, scheduling)
- Reporting and project tracking
- Cost tracking
- Resource management (availability, allocation,
- Issue tracking (mainly intended for customer support)
- Automation of some business processes (monthly work report, absence requests, also billing and travel orders for some localizations)
Well, Microsoft can't just ignore the risk "if x86 goes down, we go down". For this reason some kind of even the lastest versions of windows portability is plausible, IMO.
And that's why you should run RH / OEL on mission critical systems. Not trolling, just facing the reality.
did somebody draw the shadows in the wrong direction!?
I keep seeing BSODs with 7 beta. Some days it works ok and some days it's crashing like mad.
Banning links to web content is the same as banning references in off-line world, which is of course, idiotic. On the other side, caching and aggregating pages without permission from original author/publisher is a whole different matter.
I'm just about to buy a new server and I'd like to hear from slashdot what's your experience with the new CPUs? Should I buy the new 55 or the old 54 series?
Do you remember the title by any chance?
I was ubuntu user from 7.10 or so. A few days ago I was ranting over Linux here on Slashdot about linux and what I don't like about it.
As it happened, out of curiosity I downloaded Windows 7. Well, id did one thing: it deleted my Ubuntu partition!!??
Well, no real harm done since I have my /home on a separate partition and I could switch betwen ubuntu versions or even different gnome distributions with no problem. /home to an external usb disk. No way, with 7.10 LiveCd it was about an hour. That should tell you something. Oh, and nvidia driver was not installed on 9.04. I never figured why.
The thing is, I was just going through different distros, trying to find something better (I was using 8.10, btw. It was slow, DVD burning completely stalled the system, and so on and on).
Centos: not really ready for desktops
Debian: probably very stable, but it looks somehow 1990. Old packages (openoffice 2 something, nautilus without tabs).
Ubuntu: slower and slower. I think 7.10 was their best release. After that it started to be slower, with more bugs etc. As I later found out, it would take 9.4 liveCD DAYS to copy my data from
Ok, after I lost my active ubuntu system, I first tried 9.4. Common guys. You bitch over Vista, but clearly, Ubuntu 7.10 is a performance upgrade to 9.4. Really. If you just added nautilus with tabs to 7.10 it would be great. All other neafty features you keep adding? I really couldn't care less if my system boots 5 seconds faster (btw, windows 7 blows Ubuntu 9.4 at boot speed) or about some shiny notifications (which were really quite ok in 7.10 - why are you trying to Kdeisize Gnome??). I care about stability, performance and usability.
So, ubuntu was out of the list. Next I asked myself "why not try Kde. It's supposed to be stable now, and it looks nice". From the internetz I learned that opensuse is one of the best distros. So I download, burn and isntall 11.1. Fonts are ugly by default (why, why, WHY is this still a problem in 2009? Ok, first thing on 7 I disabled ClearType and switched system fonts to Tahoma, but linux fonts are still ugly.) Network. I use WPA personal with TKIP or something like that. No go. Suse's network manager won't connect. I was supposed to check if I was runing wpa_something etc. Nvidia driver not installe dy default. I have to add additional repos, and then somehow choose the right driver from the list (I learned all that connected to neighbour's open WiFi, btw).
At that moment I just said to my self: WTF. Is this really productive? Whyt do I gain by using linux? I LIKE Windows 7 interface. What I really like about gnu/linux/gnome is:
- virtual desktops (I've been evaluating Virtual Dimension now, it seems fine)
- ssh integration in nautilus (can use cygwin for command line ssh and winscp for file transfers)
- windows roll-up (I found something that adds this to windows, but it somehow doens't feel right and it seems buggy)
Is all this really worth the trouble I have with linux?
Guess not. So I'm writing this from Windows 7. Yeah, I got a few BSODs, but it's nice, fast and it does the job. Yes, sadly it's acctually faster than Ubuntu. More sadly, I jhust realized the application I've been developing for a year or so works much much faster in IE8 than it does in Ubuntu/firefox.
A few days ago some slashdoters said "I was trying to use linux as if it was Windows". I don't really understand what you werw trying to say. Now, if you think I was trying to use my os without much hassle, yes, you are right. If that means I was supposed to go through different forums, mailings, scripts and config files just to make my system work, well, you can have it, it's not worth my time. Other than that, there should really be no difference in how you use an operating system. It just manages files and schedules processor for crying out loud. Other than than, I'm more trying to use Windows as X/Gnome.
Last, but not least, I also have performance problems with Ubuntu server. Md raid is ver
And yet linux fanboys mod me troll. Do as you are pleased, but that's precisely what's wrong with linux. Point to a problem and you are either a troll or you can "fix it yourself". Like, you know, GIMP USER INTERFACE STILL SUCKS. But developers surely know waaaayyy better what's good for the user.
for over a year now, I must say I agree. Sadly, linux is not mature.
In the times pre windows nt/2000, yes, linux was more stable and had far better up time. But after windows 2000 came out, stability was greatly improved and is simply a non-issue these days.
When that happened, linux lost its strong point and the direction where it's going. A few weeks ago, Mark Shuttleworthd said "Linux must not be just better Windows" or something like that. That of course, is wrong. No matter what you want linux to be or not be, it's just a freaking OS. It deals with scheduling processor time and resources, and IO (and sadly, there's a IO bug in kernels after 2.6.18 that still hasn't been fixed IIRC). Anything more than that is not linux any more. It's either gnome or kde or whatever.
What I really care about as the user is that the os can run my software of choice. For example, MS office is my software of choice. I prefer MSO to any other solution I've seen. Specifically: i also like the look and feel of office 2007 (and since MacOS is forcing me into something else, Mac is off my OS list). Now, should linux run my app or should linux provide "an alternative" to any single pice of software there is? Dear god, speak about reinventing the wheel).
I currently use linux (or should I say Gnome, since linux really doesn't matter that much) because Vista has a really really REALLY stupid memory management (I don't understand what's the point of prefatching software you MIGHT use and then swapping programs you actually do use. I mean, how brain dead is that??). I like having multiple desktops (hello MS it can't be THAT hard), love powerful shell and SSH integration into nautilus.
But the more I use linux (Ubuntu in case you are interested), the more unhappy I am. It's the little things, like, keyboard not processing input on dual screen when there's no window open on that desktop. And configuring / changing (external) display configuration is simply broken. And high IO really brings system on the knees (even surfing is not possible while writing to a CD). Firefox is sloooooowwww. No exchange client. No out of the box AD integration. And so on and on and on.
It's really strange. Currently, there's no desktop OS i'd like to use. I don't get why people are sooooo amoused over mac os. I've tried it but didn't really liked it (yes, i'd prefer windows). On the other hand, MS doesn't know wher to go with Vista/7, but they don't implement a simple virtual desktops and tabs in windows explorer (yes, I'd buy 7 for these simple features).
Based on my experience I agree with gartner, windows is the better choice for EU's cuncil IT environment.
I work at an Oracle shop and I must say this would make sense from Oracle's point of view. They would probably kill most of the free stuff (bye bye MySql, Glassfish,...), but would probably keep seling hardware (remember, oracle just got into hardware business!) and possibly solaris. As for Java... I don't know. I work with Jdeveloper - it's good but bloated, and most important, not open sourced (it's free, but not open sourced). I have no idea what happens if ANY other company than SUN owns Java...?
Yeah! The other day, I created a user interface to track someone's IP address in VB.Net. My team was sooo impressed!
Generally, I also prefer Ubuntu over RHEL/OEL, but Oracle database and WLS are not supported on Ubuntu.
Also, database did work for us on Ubuntu, but WLS had some strange problems, so we decided to switch our Oracle servers to OEL, and that works really good.
I think Oracle buying Redhat would be a good thing. I think it was quite amazing how quickly they merged BEA into their Fusion Middleware. Dropping your own app server in favor of another in a few months is not a small thing to do. Jdeveloper 11g TPs was still using what was supposed to be OC4J 11g...
They also don't drop existing brands. They'd probably call it Oracle RedHat linux and drop their own unbreakable linux. From an enterprise point of view, probably a good thing.
What I don't know is how is Oracle going to respond to IBM/Sun merger. Java is THE platform Oracle put all their strategy in. If somehow Java is not as open as it is any more, Oracle looses big time. So... how about Oracle buying Sun?
Remember? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/17/1452228
Beat that (if I managed). Sorry for trolling.
no, really.. this is utter crap: so called benefit: "The first benefit is that they are simple and thus scale much better than today's relational databases. If you are putting together a system in-house and intend to throw dozens or hundreds of servers behind your data store to cope with what you expect will be a massive demand in scale, then consider a key/value store." but then:"Bugs in a properly designed relational database usually don't lead to data integrity issues; bugs in a key/value database, however, quite easily lead to data integrity issues." and then it just goes on on how RDBMSs are really cool... oh, I got it, it was really written by Oracle reverse marketing department!
form the article: "For example, a relatively simple SELECT statement could have hundreds of potential query execution paths, which the optimizer would evaluate at run time. All of this is hidden to us as users, but under the cover, RDBMS determines the "execution plan" that best answers our requests by using things like cost-based algorithms." So, you have no idea how optimizers work and how you can access tuning information, and you'd like to tell us RDBMSs are bad? Get of my lawn! (yay, I'm getting old)
you had a headache (your original problem), went to a drugstore and saw an menstrual pain reliever, which neither applies to your (male) platform nor describe your symptoms on the package, you bought the menstrual pain reliever anyway and now you're ranting that clerk didn't ask you if you were buying it for yourself. With all due respect, sir, basically you're telling us you're an idiot.
but they don't. So, we don't really use Linux, neither GNU/linux. We use Gnome/GNU/Linux or KDE/GNU/Linux or any other combination. That's BAD. IMHO all utilities should be common, with well defined interface (heck, just make small command line utils, that alwyas worked on linux). Gnome/KDE should be nothing more than presentation for these common utils. Having different network managers, BT managers etc. is nothing but overhead and bad design. That's one of the problems of FOSS: inefficient resource utilization (in this case, developers).