I once applied for a job with Draeger Medical. I was not 'good' enough. And now this. *ROFL* Compared to this even the programs I wrote as kid on my Atari 400 were much better. Looks more like one of the team leaders was afraid of the competition.
I see what you mean, but I am not sure what to answer. It is said that Linux was/is a disruptive technology for all the other 'Unices' and Windoze. Now claim Solaris could be a disruptive technology for Linux. If you look here:
You find there several example of how disruptive technologies could work. There is something like a "low-end disruption". This does not fit. Solaris does not strive to be low-end. There is something like a "new-market disruption". Does not fit either. Solaris could try a "high-performance disruption", but this is expensive. Will Sun really invest serious money in Solaris for as long as it takes?
Fair enough (though I have to ask why you want those particular programs), but that's pretty unusual.
Easy. I code Qt program for money. At least this is my favourite development toolkit. I like using kdevelop and I am used to Firefox. That's why I want those particular programs. Ok, as I said, I am always willing to change, but for that I need a substantial surplus value.
"what is the best OS" but rather "what is the best OS to run these particular programs on". And that may well be Linux, though KDE/Solaris is quite mature, but it's not officially supported by Sun so that negates many of the advantages Solaris has.
This is more or less what I said from the beginning: For the majority of Linux users is simply does not matter, whether behind their desktop a Solaris Kernel, a *BSD kernel, or a Linux kernel works. I worked on BSD machines without noticing a difference, I did not really notice a difference in different Linux kernel versions since 2.2 -> 2.4. So yes, for me it is "what is the best OS to run my favourite programs on".
Frankly, there aren't many for end users; it's advantages are mostly for enterprise.
Argument #1
This alone makes it hard for Solaris to challenge Linux. With Windoze I heard very often the argument that it is so successful in companies because so many users use it at home and got used to it. This is probably true, but works in this case for Linux. There is no reason for an end user to change. And let's be truthful, if there is no real pressing need, even professionals are a bit reluctant to change and learn something new.
I disagree with your claim that Linux has the best documentation;
Ok, this might be true. But I did not solely mean official written and released documentation. Really for every problem I ever had with Linux, I found without effort a solution in Google. Solaris has a much smaller user base, would I be also so lucky to find solutions even for arcane problems with Solaris?
Sun can and does get the programmer who wrote the software you're using to look at your bug,
What if it is not Sun software? Suppose I have problems with Firefox? When I had problems with Linux it wasn't necessarily Linux, but some 3rd party program I needed.
Stability and maturity;
Perfectly ok for me. I have a mldonkey client running for month. Again I am using the end user view. No need for my machines to run for years.:-)
Consistency; the Solaris software is all from the same source,
Is this something I want or care for? Even under Solaris I'd probably want to code for KDE or using pure Qt. I'd want to run Firefox, which is not from Sun. I'd want to use a couple of other programs, which are also not from Sun. For me this is not really an argument.
As I said, nothing against Solaris, I'd change the second I see a convincing advantage for me. It is always FUDed that Linux is not ripe for the desktop. For Solaris it is too ripe. Compared to Solaris it has got a head start on the desktop, which won't be easy to catch up: GOTO Argument #1.;-)
so please dont come down on me with a sack of bricks for *daring* to reply...
No, don't worry. No bricks. But you misunderstood me. This of course is my fault alone, I always need to express myself in the most convoluted way.;-)
In short: I am a regular computer user. I am even an experienced software developer. But as long as I don't develop on the system itself, I simply don't care for the system. In my normal work I could not see a difference between a BDS or a Linux kernel. Be it a 2.4.x or a 2.6.x. It simply does not matter. So why should I care for a modern Solaris kernel? I would not see a difference, either.
as i said i dont *claim* to know anything about solaris so please feel free to *politely* correct me.
No need for correction. You are right. But try to see Solaris from the view of an average user and tell me how you convince him to change his system. What would you tell a friend, who surfs the net, writes emails, uses bittorrent, and perhaps even codes a bit, why he should change?
Can anyone explain me why those countries voted "yes" ? Take Cuba... MS is not allowed to sell licenses there due to the USA governement childish rules.
Oh, the decision of Cuba is easily explained: Hatred. Who do you think will suffer most if the abomination becomes a standard? Cuba or the western world, which can afford licences?
...or *BSD, or Linux. I am working with Linux, I am developing under Linux. My programs compile for *BSD and for Linux. I am pretty sure they would compile and run as fine under Solaris. So why am I using Linux? It has the best driver support, the best documentation, the best software support. Would I change when *BSD or Solaris get the same quality of support? No, why should I? They have to be better and solve at least one problem, I have with Linux. Currently I have no problems with it. Would I change if there was a problem, which one of the others solve? At once. As I said, I could not care less, which one of the three I use.
So please could anyone tell me, what are the USP's of Solaris?
Have you ever tried to walk someone through a bloody GUI over the phone? Or even by email/IM?
Hey, this is easy. 'Suppose there is a grid over your dialog. And now, please press the button at A15. Next check the box at D5. Oh, and if you by chance click G4, your are check mate.';-)
Why would he be a patent troll? The pinnacle of software engineering was not able to find this solution. So it is for sure worth patenting and worth millions.
It is very interesting how the ISP is blamed here. He could, he should, yada yada. M$ delivered a broken configurations and the ISP has to fix this. Generally not wrong. However, as Linux user I wonder a bit, why he should do this? I have enough examples where ISP refuse to support Linux. If it works, fine. If not, problem of the user. I never heard similar ISP blaming comments about this in any forum. More likely: "Oh yeah, Linux is the outsider, only 0.00001% of all user use it, heh heh heh."
And how often do I hear about the superiority of Windoze. When some WiFi card does not work under Linux: Linux is not fit for the general desktop. If some WiFi card does not work under Vista: The stupid manufacturer was not able to deliver proper drivers on time.
I begin to think the only reason that Windoze works at all is because everybody bends over for M$ and paves their path.
Sorry, but even if those voices, which say the ISP could have acted on behalf of their customers, are right, and they are, I still deem them hypocrites.
Could you explain how the update stuff is implemented in Ubuntu? I am using Linux, but not Ubuntu. Since you are an expert, you surely can enlighten me. Stupid me can only think of a method, which asked for a list of available software, without revealing what is actually installed on my computer. Locally I can compare the versions of the software I have installed with the versions the list tells me are available. But I suppose this is too easy.
Linux still isn't as userfriendly as Windows is today, especially when it comes to installing software, or even finding software..
Hey, I must admit you are right here. Installing and finding software really is much easier on Windoze. It is that easy that in many cases you don't even know that you find and install software. Windows has the software installation streamlined that you don't have to care about anything. Software finds you and installs itself. Good job.
You sound like a broken record. Repeating the same tone over and over again. Unfortunately this does not help your case at all. The other arguments are just more convincing.
On the contrary, this is a problem. Copyright must be abolished totally.
Sounds strict? Sounds crazy? Maybe, but all alternatives are unacceptable. With the internet exists a method for the great masses to violate copyrights. The problem is that this can only be prevented with police state methods made in china. Even today my civil rights get more and more restricted. I live in Germany and many so called measurements against terrorism make absolutely no sense against terrorism. For instance the data retention laws make only and without exception sense when used to prosecute copyright violations.
Generally I don't have anything against copyright laws, but if there has to be a decision between copyright and civil rights...bye bye copyright.
He told them that he had obtained the emails legally. He lied. Is that so hard to understand?
I get my movies and music always legally. At least my friends on emule and bittorrent tell me they have the rights to distribute the stuff. Is this so hard to understand?
They are only when they are in a weaker position. To influence at least a few stupid people, who might buy into it. Ethics and laws are fine when one interacts with his neighbours or colleagues. When it comes to corporations they can rightfully be ignored. I mean 'rightfully' not in the same sense as 'legally'.
secondly, torrentspy is nothing but a haven for copyright infringement...
Ah, I understand. And this makes torrentspy an outlaw, with absolutely no rights? Fine. If I am searching/. I surely find an article where the MPAA or RIAA abuse the DMCA or do something else illegal. Therefore these organisations does not have any rights whatsoever anymore and downloading is officially legal.
Is this what you meant, or did I misinterpret you somehow?
Of course it is legal. It is as legal as downloading movies. Ok, there is the saying that two wrongs make no right, but I always supposed this was invented by those who wronged first and wanted to protect themselves from retaliation. The MPAA is leading an ethical campaign? For me, when it comes to ethics, I find it unethical to pay for music and movies. Paying for movies is for me the same as supporting a terrorists group. Don't do it.
As I pointed out with a comment on GCC, just because you have the source does not mean you are safe or can even be sure of what the compiled binary will do. Correct, but the probability is higher that problems are seen and fixed earlier. Personally I never read the code of a open source package I am going to install. This would be impossible. But I read the code of several packages to learn how it worked, to learn how to use it when the docs where bad not unavailable or to jump start my own open source project. So even though I don't actively search for security risks, I might have found some by pure chance. I think this is the more likely scenario of the 1000 eyes principle of open source. Not perfect, not as good as some open source evangelists claim it is, but by far better as anything a closed source program can offer.
Am I imagining things, or are systems that are supposed to be more secure than others getting caught with their pants down alot more lately ? You can't really say that. Unless you include in 'get caught with pants down' when I post my IP and my root password here and than complain that this stupid Linux is unable to protect me against the simplest break in attempts.
Idiots click all and execute everything they find, no OS can be secured against idiot admins (everybody in possession of a root password is an admin) and still be usable. However, this does not apply here. The problem was not a shady program from a shady source. It was the official driver for a certain piece of hardware. The only protection against this is not to buy anything, which cannot be run 100% on open source. Not always an option today.
Slashdot Mirror
I once applied for a job with Draeger Medical. I was not 'good' enough. And now this. *ROFL* Compared to this even the programs I wrote as kid on my Atari 400 were much better. Looks more like one of the team leaders was afraid of the competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technolog
You find there several example of how disruptive technologies could work. There is something like a "low-end disruption". This does not fit. Solaris does not strive to be low-end. There is something like a "new-market disruption". Does not fit either. Solaris could try a "high-performance disruption", but this is expensive. Will Sun really invest serious money in Solaris for as long as it takes?
Easy. I code Qt program for money. At least this is my favourite development toolkit. I like using kdevelop and I am used to Firefox. That's why I want those particular programs. Ok, as I said, I am always willing to change, but for that I need a substantial surplus value. This is more or less what I said from the beginning: For the majority of Linux users is simply does not matter, whether behind their desktop a Solaris Kernel, a *BSD kernel, or a Linux kernel works. I worked on BSD machines without noticing a difference, I did not really notice a difference in different Linux kernel versions since 2.2 -> 2.4. So yes, for me it is "what is the best OS to run my favourite programs on".
This alone makes it hard for Solaris to challenge Linux. With Windoze I heard very often the argument that it is so successful in companies because so many users use it at home and got used to it. This is probably true, but works in this case for Linux. There is no reason for an end user to change. And let's be truthful, if there is no real pressing need, even professionals are a bit reluctant to change and learn something new. Ok, this might be true. But I did not solely mean official written and released documentation. Really for every problem I ever had with Linux, I found without effort a solution in Google. Solaris has a much smaller user base, would I be also so lucky to find solutions even for arcane problems with Solaris? What if it is not Sun software? Suppose I have problems with Firefox? When I had problems with Linux it wasn't necessarily Linux, but some 3rd party program I needed. Perfectly ok for me. I have a mldonkey client running for month. Again I am using the end user view. No need for my machines to run for years.
As I said, nothing against Solaris, I'd change the second I see a convincing advantage for me. It is always FUDed that Linux is not ripe for the desktop. For Solaris it is too ripe. Compared to Solaris it has got a head start on the desktop, which won't be easy to catch up: GOTO Argument #1.
In short: I am a regular computer user. I am even an experienced software developer. But as long as I don't develop on the system itself, I simply don't care for the system. In my normal work I could not see a difference between a BDS or a Linux kernel. Be it a 2.4.x or a 2.6.x. It simply does not matter. So why should I care for a modern Solaris kernel? I would not see a difference, either. No need for correction. You are right. But try to see Solaris from the view of an average user and tell me how you convince him to change his system. What would you tell a friend, who surfs the net, writes emails, uses bittorrent, and perhaps even codes a bit, why he should change?
...or *BSD, or Linux. I am working with Linux, I am developing under Linux. My programs compile for *BSD and for Linux. I am pretty sure they would compile and run as fine under Solaris. So why am I using Linux? It has the best driver support, the best documentation, the best software support. Would I change when *BSD or Solaris get the same quality of support? No, why should I? They have to be better and solve at least one problem, I have with Linux. Currently I have no problems with it. Would I change if there was a problem, which one of the others solve? At once. As I said, I could not care less, which one of the three I use.
So please could anyone tell me, what are the USP's of Solaris?
Why would he be a patent troll? The pinnacle of software engineering was not able to find this solution. So it is for sure worth patenting and worth millions.
It is very interesting how the ISP is blamed here. He could, he should, yada yada. M$ delivered a broken configurations and the ISP has to fix this. Generally not wrong. However, as Linux user I wonder a bit, why he should do this? I have enough examples where ISP refuse to support Linux. If it works, fine. If not, problem of the user. I never heard similar ISP blaming comments about this in any forum. More likely: "Oh yeah, Linux is the outsider, only 0.00001% of all user use it, heh heh heh."
And how often do I hear about the superiority of Windoze. When some WiFi card does not work under Linux: Linux is not fit for the general desktop. If some WiFi card does not work under Vista: The stupid manufacturer was not able to deliver proper drivers on time.
I begin to think the only reason that Windoze works at all is because everybody bends over for M$ and paves their path.
Sorry, but even if those voices, which say the ISP could have acted on behalf of their customers, are right, and they are, I still deem them hypocrites.
Could you explain how the update stuff is implemented in Ubuntu? I am using Linux, but not Ubuntu. Since you are an expert, you surely can enlighten me. Stupid me can only think of a method, which asked for a list of available software, without revealing what is actually installed on my computer. Locally I can compare the versions of the software I have installed with the versions the list tells me are available. But I suppose this is too easy.
Generally you are right. But if arguments like this are true: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=285783&cid=204 46113
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=285783&cid=204 45927
Would you endanger your network and all other customers to mitigate the problems of a small group with a broken client?
You sound like a broken record. Repeating the same tone over and over again. Unfortunately this does not help your case at all. The other arguments are just more convincing.
Yes, it is that easy. And what would you change tomorrow should M$ decide that with service pack 1 for Vista the network order is little-endian?
Generally I don't have anything against copyright laws, but if there has to be a decision between copyright and civil rights...bye bye copyright.
They are only when they are in a weaker position. To influence at least a few stupid people, who might buy into it. Ethics and laws are fine when one interacts with his neighbours or colleagues. When it comes to corporations they can rightfully be ignored. I mean 'rightfully' not in the same sense as 'legally'.
Is this what you meant, or did I misinterpret you somehow?
Of course it is legal. It is as legal as downloading movies. Ok, there is the saying that two wrongs make no right, but I always supposed this was invented by those who wronged first and wanted to protect themselves from retaliation. The MPAA is leading an ethical campaign? For me, when it comes to ethics, I find it unethical to pay for music and movies. Paying for movies is for me the same as supporting a terrorists group. Don't do it.
Idiots click all and execute everything they find, no OS can be secured against idiot admins (everybody in possession of a root password is an admin) and still be usable. However, this does not apply here. The problem was not a shady program from a shady source. It was the official driver for a certain piece of hardware. The only protection against this is not to buy anything, which cannot be run 100% on open source. Not always an option today.