Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

Open Source + Competition = Lean and Mean 216

Posted by CmdrTaco from the well-duh dept.
Lycestra writes "CNN has an article on why Linux is and Windows isn't. We all know this, but it's broken down for the non-geek to understand why the better OS comes out of basements and not Seattle. Its all about competition and what works. Also references to a few of ESR's writings. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source + Competition = Lean and Mean More

Open Source + Competition = Lean and Mean

Comments Filter:
  • Alpha Linux is 64-bit.

    SPARC Linux is 64-bit in the kernel, but there are issues relating to a microcode bug in the UltraSPARC I CPU preventing the userspace from going 64-bit. (The same issues caused Sun to prevent Solaris 7 from running 64-bit userspace on UltraSPARC Is. Suffice it to say that Sun has its own "F00F bug"....) Sun is refusing to release details about the microcode bug, so it's not possible to try to devise a workaround a' la the Pentium F00F bug; and the SPARCLinux team seems to have decided not to go the Solaris 7 route and block 64-bit userspace on UltraSPARC Is while permitting it on UltraSPARC IIs.

    IIRC Intel is already working on a Linux port for IA64.

  • How many people actually have 4 ethernet cards in their servers?

    I don't. And you probably don't. Linux beats NT except when you've got multiple ethernet cards.
  • Windows 95/98 are a huge technology step - just cause they run on top of command.com doesn't mean they aren't. Think about it.
    Preemtpice Multitasking, Preemptive Multithreading, memory protection, networking etc. They have more 'advanced' OS technology than MACOS which doesn't run on top of dos (or a command line for that matter).
  • If you work in a company that isn't totally 'technical' you'll find it's cheaper to buy an OS that's userfriendly and has obvious and natural features for normal people, than to shell out for a 'free' os that's not user friendly. Training is very expensive (for me anyway).
  • Or did you try and make up numbers anyway?

    I have a 64MB machine (K6-200). Running W2K professional, my machine boots very quickly, i can log on evn quiker. W2K professional is a workstation, if you noticed during the setup, it did ask you if you wanted a one user workstation, or multiuser (that's nothing to complain about).
    I have IIS, MTS, Telnet etc services installed (I like lots of toys), and It's taking 80MB memory.

    And what's this about I hate ignorance? LOL Look who's talking.
    You don't think Windows 2000 allows you to add a new device? HAHAHAHAHAHA
    The control panel applets aren't 'hidden', microsoft have centralized administration. You can find the new device manager in Computer Manager (which allows you to manage EVERTHING). Right click on "My Computer" and click manage.
    Or use the icon in Administrative tools.
    And even if you couldn't find that (god knows why not), control panel has a "Add/Remove Hardware" applet, is that too hard for you to use to add your com port? Just say, I want to add new hardware, and choose communications port...tada

    YOU SHOULD GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

    Just cause you can't work with an 'idiot-proof' OS (to quote another linux weenie), doesn't mean Windows 2000 is worthless.
    Are you the same person who claimed Windows 2000 has less features cause you can't find the user administrator? haha one word - computer manager.

    Who the hell is Jesse Bersts anyway?
  • This article is a double-edged sword. If Microsoft ends up being split up into smaller parts as a result of the anti-trust lawsuit, that same competitive spirit that is so vital to the growth of Linux will once again be a part of the Microsoft community. Rather than being a big bloated machine that we can all laugh at in our ignorance, it will become revitalized and a better player in the computer market. Something to think about. Comment?
  • Come on kids, IA64 is so delayed it's comical. Even with another NT-5 length production schedule, MS will beat IA64 by ~ 1000 years. When the Merced finally does ship it will barely be able to compete with the IA-32 branch. The Register got ahold of a Compaq roadmap and they say the following:
    "The estimate for the Alpha 1GHz 21264 is that it will reach 60 SPECint95 by Q2 of next year. Merced will (may?) enter the picture at 46 SPECint95, while the Xeon 8XX will tip in at 39 and the CuMine 8xx at 32."
    So it looks the IA64 architecture is all hype.

    Q: With numbers like these, will you want to move from your speedy Xeon boxes to only slightly more speedy Merceds?
    A: Only if you run linux, since that will be the only way to have > 2Gb files.

    Q: If you want 64 bits for either Linux or NT, what's the best choice?
    A: The alpha.

    Q: If the alpha is so great, how come the merced gets more hype?
    A: I have no idea.

    Q: Ok Shoeboy, when was the last time you bathed?
    A:


  • I hear what you are saying - it doesn't work well enough for you. I would interpret that to mean that the current state of linux and it's available packages is not strong enough for the tasks you need to get done. Fair enough - though you weren't very specific about your needs, I will have to guess.

    My personal situation is different... I have set up a dual-boot machine with Windows98 and Debian 2.1 Linux. I use Windows98 for games and occasional other items that only run there, and I use Linux for all my serious work (and a few games that run there, like FreeCiv). I am a programmer/developer by profession, so Linux fits my work needs well. I have a hand-assembled machine: AMD K6-2 380MMX, 256MB PC-100, 19" CompUSA monitor (documented as capable of 1600x1280, I use it in 1280x1024 - it was enough), SoundBlaster AWE 32. Configuring hardware does require some work in Debian (and Slackware, the only other distruibution I have worked extensively worked with), and XFree86 setup can be a little furstrating the first time, but it does appeal to my hands-on personal preferences (and yes, I like stick-shift transmissions also). By contrast, I have had problems in Windows with double-registered devices, things that can never be completely uninstalled, etc. - and I find wizard-based admin annoying and limiting.

    Anyway, what to I spend most of my time doing in this machine?

    • Editing in emacs.
    • Using the shell in Xterm.
    • Reading email/Surfing the web in Netscape 4.5
    • Using other utilities I have written myself in perl/Tk.
    • Telnet, ftp, etc..
    • Using the Citrix linux client to log on to Citrix/NT Winframe servers that my employer uses.
    • Occasionally I will play a CD or otherwise use the sound card.
    But mostly I program, and the Linux I get from the Debian CD is all I need - no need to dip my toe in the murky waters of downloading binary packages from Freshmeat or simlar sites (I prefer to custom-build sources, if I branch out). I have heard enough complaints about RPM's to prefer DEB's, despite the current funky dselect front-end. I upgraded from Debian 2.0 to 2.1 without rebooting and barely a hitch - I have heard that is impossible for other distributions.

    So Linux fits my work needs like a glove, I am very happy with it. So what are you doing that makes using Linux difficult? Why do you need to download bleeding-edge RPM's for shared libraries and otherwise muck with the internals of your distribution? For that matter, I don't know what RedHat does in /etc, but the Debian /etc layout is pretty logical and easy to administer (Maybe you should consider using another distribution? After all RedHat != Linux).

    Note, I am not saying that radically changing things is wrong, is just carries a higher level of risk. Distributions exist to provide assembled, stable snapshots of Linux. Debian is quite conservative in this respect - annoyingly so in some cases (Perl revs come to mind). But the payoff is stability.

    You do seem to have a strong need to run Windows apps, this could be an issue - Wine is still under development, the few times I have tried it it usually didn't work so well (except for FreeCell, my favorite worktime deversion!), and I never had enough interest or need to put any real effort into it. Since filesystem access is usually all I need (i.e. mount/mtools/smbclient), or an occasional Citrix session, this is not likely to change.
    --

  • If it does and competition infests halls of redmond, we will all benefit cuz microsoft will actually turn out revolutionary products that consumers want, instead of telling consumers what they want...
  • Interchange "Linux" with "Windows" throughout the article and you'll have an anti-Linux piece in the fine FUD tradition. Linux is starting to get "hot", so the media has to go out and sell it on this cheap level so that the great beast (the public) will accept (and even like) it, and start hating Windows - just because of this bozo's article and others like it.

    Why does it always have to be "us vs. them?"

  • --That's what Linux is like; imagine Macho Man Randy Savage advocating Linux!
  • Yes we know that the *BSD's have some special strengths. And it a damm shame that they don't get more attention from the press. But there's no need to get so nasty.

    I guess this just goes to prove the article's point about competition, just in a larger context.
    --

  • Admittedly, this was a pretty good article, even if it tended to be a 'rose colored glasses' sort of view.

    My problem is, do we really want someone like Joe Barr as a public spokesperson?

    I've read some of his responses to the Mindcraft debacle, not to mention many of his posts on the am-essentials forum, and his statements are often the worst form of childish, crude, and vitriolic invective I've ever had the displeasure of reading.

    It's bad enough when this kind of garbage is posted by the usual trolls, but to have this kind of attitude in a visible (even more so now) 'advocate' does our cause far more harm than good.

    While the current article managed to avoid this trap, what if some of the readers from CNN or LinuxToday decide to see what else Mr. Barr may have written, and come across some of the above examples? Any credibility that he might have had just went out the window.

    We have enough children in the Linux community as it is, we certainly don't need them representing us in any form of official capacity.
  • IIS etc are running.
  • Of course, it could just be that you're making up this story. This seems to be a frequent tactic of Linux advocates. :(

    This happens.. I've seen it myself. It really depends on what kind of hardware you have (Nothing specific from what I've seen though). NT runs decent on some hardware and chokes on other hardware. Linux does not have this problem.
  • None of the Unixes (BSD, HPUX, Dynix, SunOs, Mach, OSF/1) I ran back in my "dark decade" :-) were anywhere near as stable as NT 4 has been for me. The problem with unstable UNIX instalations seems to be a direct result of people not knowing what they are doing UNIX does require more tweaking, but it is much more stable. I am not accusing anyone of anything, but UNIX is not for your average "Jon. Q. User".
  • >That's intersting, because in my experience NT
    >stability peaked with NT4SP4 and has gotten
    >better since.

    Read that again. It peaked, and then got better? What? I'm confused now... I always thought the peak was the highest point... so therefore there couldn't be anything higher than said peak.

    I guess some of us have different definitions.... ;)

    >I'm running Windows 2000 Server and Professional
    >at home on my LAN, and both of these products in
    >their Beta form are faster and better than any
    >previous NT version.

    Better in what way?
  • In a position to take over what? The server market? Perhaps. But that is just a drop in
    the bucket to MS. The real money is in desktop
    software/OS's... there are more "normal people"
    using computers than high end servers using NT or
    Linux. Linux will never have a chance to compete
    against Windows, MacOS, or even BeOS when it comes
    to normal users... GUI GUI GUI. Unless Linux is
    rewritten from the ground up to be user-friendly,
    it will be confined to the server/geek market.

    Besides, why does Linux have to "take over"? It'd
    be nicer if all the major OS's each had a roughly
    equal slice of the pie.

    It's surreal to see Linux advocates yelling about
    a Microsoft monopoly and wishing for a Linux one.

    Irony, no?

    -WW


    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • >Better in what way?

    Easier to use, faster (as mentioned already), easier to administer, management tools are better
    integrated into a central place with the new
    "Management Console" plugin features, it has
    support for the newer technologies in Windows98
    (like USB), it is more stable, it is more
    polished.

    It is just all-around the best version of NT yet.

    -WW

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring

  • How many servers do you have that have multiple ethernet cards in them?

    According to a German magazine benchmark, Linux smokes NT except when you are dealing with multiple ethernet cards.

    All the benchmarks I've seen before the Mindcraft/PcWeek ones (in Smart Reseller), etc., Linux beat NT.

    When we fix the TCP/IP threading issues, we'll get over that problem too.
  • We never paid for IIS... it comes with the OS.

    FUD from the anti-FUD crowd. Interesting...

    -WW

    P.S. I'm so goddamned sick and tired of reading
    about OS A is going to kill OS B, and OS C sucks
    because it doesn't have the ULTIMATE feature D.

    Software is just a tool! Get over it.

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • Well I can piss further than you.

    (After all, this *IS* just a pissing match, right?)

    ::sigh::

    -WW


    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring

  • LOL talk about FUD FUD FUD (Score:3)

    by TummyX ( 84871 ) on Saturday June 26, 1999 @12:36PM (#1831088)
    As someone as already pointed out, Joe Barr is by no means a nuetral writer. Judging from his hatemail to Mindcraft, he's a FUD machine.

    His comments on Windows 2000 promising to be less stable is laughable (has this guy ever seen Windows 2000, or does he hang around slashdot collecting notes from Linux advocates). Maybe he just makes it up .

    His talk of Windows not improving because of no competition is just plain stupid. Windows went from Win16 to Win32, and Win64 is in the works by some of the smartest engineers in the world. He confuses Microsoft's marketing division with Microsoft's development division.
    Windows has consistently been improved, while getting cheaper and cheaper. Web integration, more hardware support, speed and stability improvements. Sure linux's momentum is very high atm, but don't let that fool you into thinking windows has and will still remain stationary. Windows 2000 has been in the works for quite some time, and will be released later on this year. And the amount of features it has will blow Linux away (for a while).
    It's interesting (to say the least) at how Joe seems to define competition in the Linux community. Linux is supposed to be succeeding cause of cooperation, not cause of competition. He's an idiot. People work on Linux cause they are proud of their work, and they submit their work for improvement and examination by others.
    In a sense, MS workers are also proud of their work, certainly seeing the beaming smiles on their faces when they see Windows 2000 boot after they upgraded the first PDC at Microsoft is an indication of their pride in their product.

    MS engineers aren't tied down by MS marketing and told, hey, you make Windows unstable and you can't be proud of your work. And Linux kernel hackers don't wake up ever morning preparing for battle with other Linux hackers.

    All these praises from people for Joe's article is blind. Look at his email to mindcraft and tell me if you think this guy is worth listening too - regardless of what camp you're in.
  • Windows 2000 doens't use FreeBSD's tcp/ip code. Microsoft wrote it themselves. Is this crap from the same source that said it was based on linux's tcp/ip code? I guess that can't be very true now.
    What's next? Windows stole notepad from vi?
  • I am not talking about NT4, 95, 98, etc, I was informed that Win 2000 does use some FreeBSD code!, by someone who is a beta tester for Windows 2000. Eat dirt!

  • Why (Score:1)

    by Senzar ( 23215 )
    Sooner or later MS will be history, when IA-64 comes along, linux should be in a position to take over
  • "A Linux Cult is like a herd of cats"


    What? Nonexistant?


    The only cats that I am aware of that engage in any truly social behaviour are lions, and prides of lions are generally small groupings. So Linux users are like lions?


    Well, I guess that would mean that they roam office buildings in small groups at night, the females hunting food while the males bicker with each other. And then they try to do as little as possible during the day. Unless there are some Wildebeest around (I like that word! Wildebeest! A very woody word, not at all tinny).


    Nah, I just don't see it :)

    --
  • It's nice to see someone in the mainstream press quoting a well-reasoned and balanced article. Barr's comment that most Linux users would purchase a comercial product if it was superior to an open-source product is right on target. Until major retail outlets realize this, however, we're going to be stuck with seeing only Linux distros on the shelves...and the one I've seen so far is always a version or two back (e.g., OfficeMax has Red Hat 5.2 on the shelf). it would be nice to see WP for Linux and Civ CTP for Linux on the shelves as well.


    Who am I?
    Why am here?
    Where is the chocolate?
  • Linux is in a good position to be used in alot of situations. How many people need a web server that gets 1500 hits/sec? How man people need a web server right now without shelling out the license fees? We hav been running a Linux server since Redhat 2.1/Caldera Network Desktop 1.0 preview 1. We don't get hits like that so why does it matter? If I was hosting a site that got 1500 hits/sec I would be making so much $$ that I would have a major support contract with sombody that I could blame when it didn't work (I wouldn't choose M$). Linux is here, linux is good, Linux will improve. NT is here, NT kinda works, you will reboot NT today.

    How's that for rambling?
  • Um, can you say pro-Linux? This is just about as positive as an article can get. Seeing something like this on CNN (with it's brand name) is pretty impressive.

    Lots of good points, such as
    "Likewise, we'll buy commercial offerings when it makes sense to do so -- that is, when a commercial version offers enough additional value over a competing free or open source offering. By the same token, vendors attempting to peddle Linux wares that are of doubtful quality, or that are only as good as open source equivalents, are going to find it very hard to make a dollar. We, the Linux community, win in either case. "

    Competition breeds better stuff. Look at nature, look at pro sports, the wide open competitive spirit will result in EXTREMELY good software, especially for those basic, every-one-needs-one apps. The GPL makes it sure that new stuff is better than old stuff, and if it isn't you have NO excuse. Good signs.

    LL=Linux Lover

  • I saw "Quake II for Linux" advertised. I was shocked. Not only were they stocking a version specifically for Linux, they were advertising it in the paper. They must perceive a market.

    To me, this is a strong indication that the change is taking place.

    --Lenny
  • Microsoft is paying people to post to slashdot? Cool - Where do I go to apply for that job?


  • This may be seen by some as a nit to be picked, but this appears to be only a link from CNN to Joe Barr at LinuxWorld. This isn't exactly what I would call the attention of the mainstream press, unless embedding a link is the equivalent of an internally generated story. I'd be much more impressed if it were an actual CNN correspondent who didn't already have the interest in the topic that Mr. Barr does (and a fine writer he is). The fact that they think enough of the subject to link to it is one thing, but it isn't quite the full editorial weight of CNN.


    I'm more interested in seeing what Josh Quittner at Time has to say as he undergoes his baptism by Linux fire. Anyone out there offer him any help after his Linux article a couple of weeks ago.

  • Yes, likewise I bought the boxed Red Hat 5.2, Civ: CtP, VMWare. Heck I even bought the WordPerfect 8 CD -- I support those companies with the class to make free non-commercial downloads available.

    I'm waiting for a chance to buy Quake 3, Railroad Tycoon, Myth 2, etc.

  • No, the iMac has 2 *USB* ports (on the unit itself), 1 10/100bT jack, 1 RJ11 jack (modem), 1 reset button, 1 interrupt button, 1 audio-in, 1 audio-out.

    --

  • Reverse FUD? (Score:3)

    by Signal 11 ( 7608 ) on Saturday June 26, 1999 @10:28AM (#1831105)
    This article sounds more like a marketing brochure than a technical evaluation. And maybe as it should be - for the non-geeky out there. But I would urge people not to cite this as proof that linux is winning, and microsoft is losing. When you have a small army, any victory seems like a big victory against a intractable enemy.

    Keep it in perspective, everybody.

    --
  • They need to put more things like this in there T.V. reports. I love seeing positive articals like this. Wonder how much we'll here about RedHat's IPO on their fortune program... oh well any press is good press. :)
  • > The massive train-wreck of a problem called The X Window System hasn't been fixed. Nobody knows if it ever will be.

    This sounds very close to an ongoing thread on uk.comp.os.linux ... what precisely do you have against X? (Though at least you got the name right, which is more than the original poster on ucol did!)
  • No question on the "some of the smartest engineers in the world". And Windows *HAS* improved during periods of competition. Most notable improvements in Windows history were when OS/2 was a realistic competitor (circa '95), and when NetScape was on the rise.

    But "cheaper and cheaper" when the time frame you are talking about spans win16 to today? Not so.

  • Heck, my son has a 64 bit Nintendo...
  • Well no, not ironic.
    A Linux monopoly isn't the same as a MS monopoly, in fact, you'd be hard pressed to define it technically as a monopoly.

    Besides MS has a really irritating media presence, so they deserve all the bad media they get. Really, Mindcraft? PC Week benchmarks? What's next, are they going to whip theirs out and compare?
  • Barr's comment that most Linux users would purchase a comercial product if it was superior to an open-source product is right on target

    I'm not so sure... Linux users can be even more rabid than Mac users.

    If I had a nickle for every time I saw "If it isn't OSS, I won't use it!", then I could start muy own company to buils sloppy knockoffs to sell at incredibly high prices.
    '
  • Compared to the competition, Windows is cheaper, and tho Windows hasn't dropped in price as much as other MS products (Office, Encarta etc), I think it has. Dos dropped in price quite a lot in the years leading to Windows 95, and Windows 95 wasn't expensive compared to OS/2. And even tho windows is on 90% of desktops out there, it remains cheaper than commercial alternatives like OS/2 and Unix etc. However, NT is a bit expensive, but it does come with lots of free stuff in the form of the option pack. If MS had a monopoly, Windows should be very expensive. It's clearly not. (OK, some i sound like a microsoft marketing guy :P)...i'm not one.
  • Doubtful. The people who primarily use Linux do so because it is free.
    That's what I think, but I get the feeling you're talking about the other kind of "free".
    Linux users are unwilling to spend money on software.
    I bought vmware. I will buy Quake 3 Arena.
    If you wish to question that assumption, then please provide me with sales figures for these Linux versions you speak of. I anticipate that the sales are quite dismal, but the pirating rate is quite high.
    I have never illegally copied, or used an illegal copy of, any linux software. I'm proud of that. If somebody wants my vmware license key, I'll tell them to buy their own. This is different from my attitude to pirating in the world outside Linux. I suspect many Linux users feel the same way. I imagine pirating rates should be low for Linux software.
    --
  • Windows has consistently been improved, while getting cheaper and cheaper.

    This is just plain wrong - at least for my part of the world. When I bought Windows for Workgroups 3.11 + DOS 6.22 OEM early in 1995 (or late 1994, can't remember), it cost me approx. USD75, which was less than 5% of the cost of my PC. Today, I could get an equivalent PC (compared to what the best available system would be today and would have been in 1995) for less than 2/3 the amount I paid for the PC then, while Windows 98 OEM is actually more expensive than WfW was (Win98 OEM costs ~USD100 here).

    Web integration, more hardware support, speed and stability improvements.

    Hardware support mostly depends on 1) what hardware is available at the time and 2) how much money the hardware vendors choose to spend on operating system support (OK, I can credit MS for USB support...). As for speed improvements - that's just plain ridiculous - Win98 crawls on my PII system compared to Win95 on a P133...

  • Heh. Now this is funny. Now if only they posted the complete header information, we might be able to tell if it was a forgery or if it was him.

    Of course, I have no idea who Joe Barr is, so it could be obvious it is him, but I always like to give some lee-way before making a snap judgement.
  • Should have been am-info, not am-essentials :/

    Here's a link. Do a search on Joe Barr, and you'll get his posts. Not all are as crude as the mindcraft crap, but there are some pretty bad ones mixed in with the less offensive posts.

    http://lists.essential.org/am-info/
  • Yeah, what about basements in Seattle? There's a LUG here, too.
  • Windows 2000 doens't use FreeBSD's tcp/ip code. Microsoft wrote it themselves.

    Data collected from detailed analysis of TCP/IP stack response (via nmap, the port-scanner, OS identifier, etc.) shows that Win95, Win98, NT3.51, and NT4 all responded identically (as in, unable to distinguish between them) despite testing for really minute things, which were frequently buggy responses (as in the most broken TCP/IP implementation yet seen by humankind). I'll bet the Mindcraft benchmarks were run on a new TCP/IP stack (probably the one they stole from Free/OpenBSD).

    However, supposedly "completely rewritten" NT5/Win2K betas all respond with an initial TCP window size identical (and previously unique to) the Free/OpenBSD's TCP/IP subsystem. Odd, huh?

    Take a look here, if you don't believe me.
    http://www.insecure.org/nmap/nmap-fingerprinting-a rticle.html

    And I'll bet cash that port-scanning the NT systems used in the infamous benchmarks would have responded with a peculiar new TCP window size, too.

    And a side-note: The author of nmap, unable to distinguish between 95, 98, NT has suggested an additional test to find the specific OS: try all of the exploits in chronological order. Start with Ping of Death, then Winnuke, etc, then move up to the Teardrops and Land. Just follow each test with a ping to find which one crashes the machine. Then you can even figure out the specific service pack or hotfix applied.

    So even if my company was in competive field of serving a few hundred million static webpages a day from a single server (with a nice fat OC3 for a pipe, mind you), we could hire a monkey to run the latest, greatest, automated script to BSOD our competitor's Windows NT box. Of course, if they were smart, they'd set their NT system behind a Solaris-based firewall -- like Microsoft does.
  • This is all quite ironic though, that you're complaining about people moaning about Linux in the responses to this particular article.

    If there's one thing to take away from this article, it's that people slagging off Linux is actually good in the long run - you know that Linux can overcome any complaint that they throw at it, and what they do is to spur people on to sort problems out!
  • That's definitely Joe Barr. He's written similar offensive stuff to other places in the past.

  • Star Trek (Score:1)

    by / ( 33804 )
    What, did you ever see him whip out a mouse and go gui? He spouted verbal commands at a computer capable of parsing natural english. It's not exactly the same as command-line, but it's much further from gui.
  • They may have written their own tcp/ip stack, but they aren't adverse to knicking BSD code when it suits them:

    [root@localhost windows]# pwd
    /dosc/windows
    [root@localhost windows]# strings ftp.exe | grep Cali
    @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.

    Least they coulda done was knick the telnet client code too. Someone please tell me that win2000 has a better default telnet built in.
  • Yes, linux users use linux because it is free. This is not the same as 'it doesn't cost anything', though. It means it is licensed under the GPL. I, and many others with me, buy linux distros, and I wouldn't mind paying a reasonable sum for good applications, too.

    Linux users are unwilling to spend money on software? I also run windows, mainlky for games. Of the 10 games I installed the past year, only one was a copy - and I liked it enough to buy the game, after playing it a while.

    I don't understand what you're on about with your 'pirating' of linux distributions. There is no such thing, since you are ALLOWED to copy them freely. Do you know what you are talking about, at all?
  • I read this article, and I have to say it is very well-written. The author brings up some valid points, and argues greatly on Linux's behalf. And while it's an article originally from Linux World, it's great to see it on a website like CNN.

    If you hang around Linux people for very long, you're going to hear some bickering about whose widget has the best kung fu: "My distribution will always be superior to yours!"

    Why, that one's easy to answer. Slackware is the best of course. ;)
    (It's a JOKE folks, let's not start a distro debate over this comment. :P)

    Linux people have opinions of their own and they aren't known for being shy about expressing themselves.

    Which is one of the reasons Linux has become such a success. It's not necessarily a matter of "This is better than That", but the point is that the competition is there. And it's friendly competition, which only drives both sides to make their product better. In the end, we all win.

    The only competition Microsoft has seen in recent years has been the trivial feuding between the Windows 9x and Windows NT development groups.

    I can't see this as competition, mainly because Microsoft touts NT as "The SERVER OS of choice." Home users don't necessarily want to run NT, because it's not really designed for home use. So, where's the competition? Windows 9x would choke as a server, and NT isn't really a sensational multimedia platform.

    If you want to do some kernel hacking to add a fix or improvement or polish to the Linux kernel, fine. But your code won't be automatically accepted and made a part of the next kernel release.

    Not necessarily a bad thing. So if your feature isn't implemented in the next kernel, you still have it for yourself. And you have the freedom to distribute it to those out there who would like similar functionality.

    Quality of the code isn't important. Instead, the holy grail -- marketshare and money -- is reached by embracing competitive innovations, thereby extending the Microsoft monopoly and eventually annihilating the competition.

    *Cough*Cough*Windows Media Player*Cough*Cough*

    I think most users, like me, would buy Linux applications[...]even if they weren't available under the terms of a free or open source license.

    Absolutely. The point of Linux as an alternative doesn't have to mean that you go broke supporting it.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • I disagree with some of your points.

    His talk of Windows not improving because of no competition is just plain stupid.

    Why? What kind of REAL competition has Windows seen before Linux? And Windows 98 is certainly not an improvement over 95.

    He confuses Microsoft's marketing division with Microsoft's development division.

    It's not exactly breaking news that Microsoft marketing has a heavy hand in development, and vice versa.

    Windows has consistently been improved, while getting cheaper and cheaper.

    The current MSRP on Windows 3.1 is $179.99

    Windows 2000 has been in the works for quite some time, and will be released later on this year.

    Estimated release date is mid 2001

    And the amount of features it has will blow Linux away (for a while).

    Doubtful. From what I have seen, it's a monster bloatware machine.

    All these praises from people for Joe's article is blind. Look at his email to mindcraft and tell me if you think this guy is worth listening too - regardless of what camp you're in.

    I haven't seen his E-Mail, but this point I do agree on. Slamming Mindcraft with immature e-mail will not get good press, or valued attention. And it certainly won't help our standpoint.


    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • ...is that I Love Holy Wars. Holy wars make the life interesting. Sticking to one option is boring, and arguing about what is the best thing for certain use is fun and hopefully rewarding. Holy Wars are what make the life in Linuxland so interesting.

    Umm, I think I will not put here the Obligatory War Cry. =)

  • >Linux: written by the best programmers who can't find jobs.

    From going to LUG's I have found that it is often programmed by those who had a job but are now retired, and now want to expirement on their own.

    It is also written in conjuction with a job as a hobby... or as a job for that matter ( eg. @ RedHat or at a Hardware vendor for device drivers etc. )
  • Posted by My_Favorite_Anonymous_Coward:

    It's surreal to see Linux advocates yelling about a Microsoft monopoly and wishing for a Linux one.

    Why you don't understand, that's suppose to be a joke. "Woowoo, world domination!" --that's a JOKE, get it. The geeks are playing with Microsoft's traditional mentality. I really don't understand, why would people angry at stuff when what being said is impossible. The nature of Linux prevent it from being an extreme OS, it will alway go what majority of the users/coders believe in. (I'm not saying it's the best way, but a democratic way.)

    CY

  • I'd like to know who has 400Mbps worth of upstream pipe and can't afford to put their servers on an internal Gigabit backbone (giving the Linux box a single NIC ).

  • What's wrong with Linux? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ok, first a disclaimer: I'm not a Linux user, but I've been following the hype surrounding Linux closely, both here on Slashdot and elsewhere. I've heard how fast and stable Linux is compared to Windows, how NT web servers crumble under the force of the Slashdot effect, etc. etc. I'm excited and interested in Linux.

    Then suddenly the Mindcraft benchmark comes along, showing, to put it bluntly, that NT kicks Linux's ass. This was justly criticized by the Linux community, but later verified to a large degree by ZD Labs testing.

    I know that the open source model has many advantages and even if Linux doesn't currently beat NT, it may very well do so in the future.

    But my question is: why didn't the hype surrounding Linux live up to the current reality as remonstrated by recent benchmarks? What went wrong? Was it all lies?



  • GUI GUI GUI, eh?

    Well, in my opinion, the current GUI is trash. Mice are too innacurate. Drag and drop means doing mouse tricks so that the window you need is on top. And hierarchical menus are more hassle than it's worth.

    I think GUIs need to be more keyboard oriented. I am not talking about cryptic UNIX commands (thought it should be possible) or 50 keyboard shortcuts, I am talking about logical commands that give you the same feedback as the mouse, without memorizing more than a few keys for common tasks. This way, anything you want to do can be done instantly without doing hunt&click with the mouse.

    Also, the current keyboards are quite old. We need "virtual" keypads, something like small flat monitor with touch screen and is angled the way most keyboards are. This way, you only see the keys you need. At one moment, you have a querty keyboard, the next you have controls for a flight simulator.

    Of course we don't have these kinds of thing because that would mean Microsofts software would become obsolete. I am just hoping that something like this happens sometime.

    --

  • analogy (Score:1)

    by vipw ( 228 )
    Safeway has free bread for anyone who wants it.
    Rosaurs(sp), who is the original designer of the free bread, asks that users pay $1 per loaf.

    Assuming we are cheap because we choose not to pay for what can be had for free is a very offensive attitude. Maybe, just maybe, give people the benefit of the doubt and allow them to make their own choices instead of forming your own offensive stereotypes.
  • OS/2 costed(not sure if thats real english) $80 when win95 cost $90 just to upgrade. Besides, BeOS, *BSD, and Linux cost less than windows does. The only competition win95 has that is more expensive are Macs, but that would be mostly becuase of the hardware, right?
  • Ok, I've been reading Slashdot for a couple of months now, and I installed FreeBSD (I'm going to Virginia Tech next year and it is what the CS program uses) and I'm playing around with it. Once I get FreeBSD working, I intend to install Linux and decide which one stays (sorry, but a triple-boot just isn't worth it to me, and I need Windows for games).

    However, that's not the point of this post. I've convinced myself that none of the current computer interfaces are near what they could be. So I've made it my mission in life to create a new UI that is to GUI what GUI was to the command-line (hey, a guy's got to have dreams, right?). And reading Slashdot and the Linux pages has convinced me that if I do make the next-level UI, I should Open-Source it.

    The only problem is that you're supposed to make money off of OSS by selling support services, but if I do a good job, there should be no need for support services! Taking this concept further, the economic markets will push OSS companies to make difficult software so that people must buy their services. Some would argue that because it is open source the unpaid, independent programmers could write a better UI. But if you are a programmer, you know the inherent flaw there; most programmers would rather add functionality than make the current functionality more usable (I know that I am guilty of this).

    What all of this means is that, if I'm right (which I hope I'm not), then OSS will *never* break into the main stream because it will always be difficult to use. As a warning, I haven't had a chance to get KDE or Gnome up and running on FreeBSD, and I haven't even installed Linux, yet. If you feel that my opinion will change once I use those, please say so.

    Thank you, Tom Panning tpanning@vt.edu (sorry about the length)

  • Posted by My_Favorite_Anonymous_Coward:

    Go to auction sites and check out the legit Microsoft Office 97, pro edition. You can get them 20 bucks a CD, it has cd key and everything. Why? Because everybody else is given away office software. You can get Corel preload from some of the PC ventor for free. And you can get StarOffice free (yeah I got the win32 version. It's basically a WinOffice copy but the find-replace function is weak.)

    Now go back to OS, can you find a windows 95 at a low price? You can't! I'd tried. There's not way to get a legit win95,98 for less than 55 dollars. Do I have to remind you that there's no competition? The list price is a joke, don't use it please. Look at the real price.

    As for multimedia encyclopedia, you can get them free after rebate from CompUSA every other week.


    If MS had a monopoly, Windows should be very expensive.
    It is.

    (OK, some i sound like a microsoft marketing guy :P)...
    Duh?!



    CY

  • We never paid for IIS... it comes with the OS.

    The OS which you paid for.

  • Linux will never have a chance to compete against Windows, MacOS, or even BeOS when it comes to normal users... GUI GUI GUI. Unless Linux is rewritten from the ground up to be user-friendly, it will be confined to the server/geek market.

    Arghhh!!! You are talking about the home market. Yeah, linux will probably always be a hard sell to a home user. But the business desktop is another matter entirely. Windows is frankly totally unsuited for business use. A linux desktop at work, whatever you want at home.

    Besides, why does Linux have to "take over"? It'd be nicer if all the major OS's each had a roughly equal slice of the pie.
    Well, for everyone to have a chance, linux does have to "take over".
    The more popular linux gets, the more popular Be gets. All I really want linux to do (market-wise) is knock windows off it's throne. Windows doesn't belong there. I don't want to annihilate Micros~1, but they are right now in a position to do whatever they want, and that is extremely bad. Do you really want to find yourself in year 2015, and be confused as to why drive "d:" on your coffee machine is drive "f:" on your computer? Linux may even force them to "fix" windows if it eats enough of its market share.

    I just see linux and the internet as forcing the application/os market to adhere to open interfaces. This is a necessary condition for other operating systems to flourish, or even to have a chance at all. The current system simply does not allow this and it is suffocating everyone. BeOS has therefore no chance without linux. And neither does anyone else.

    It's surreal to see Linux advocates yelling about a Microsoft monopoly and wishing for a Linux one.
    I don't care whether Micros~1 lives or dies. I just don't want them to be the only game in town. The current system is wrong, wrong, wrong.
  • My current company is a MCSP, so buying MS software is not a big expense. If Linux appeared to offer a great usability difference, we would probably consider it. My company develops stuff for all kinds of platforms, but MS stuff is doing a fairly good job for us. Personally, I would like to spend more time with Linux, but it is such a bear to work with. I am now more interested in OpenBSD as it appears to have a more sane development structure.

    matt
  • Let's stop arguing with the astroturf campaign people. It gets old after awhile, and sometimes can make you angry when dealing with Microsoftians. And when you get angry, and spout a bunch of insults us look stupid. Better to just ignore them, they may eventually go away. Just contuing to use Linux and posting your good experiences with it or contuing to develop Linux (if you're a developer) will probably give the Linux community a better image in the long run.
  • CNN and IDG (y'know, those dummies books...?) have a deal where CNN uses IDG's content for a lot of it's tech stories. IDG mags include InfoWorld, ComputerWorld, PCWorld, MacWorld, and yes, LinuxWorld. It is quite common for CNN to run an IDG article, but CNN gets to choose which articles they run: they don't have to run any particular article. So, yes, it's interesting that they choose to run a Joe Barr linux article. Linux is the mainstream now.

  • Re:What's wrong with Linux? (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Well, I am a former Linux user.

    Actually, that's not a fair thing to say. I have four computers on my 100-base-t home network. One runs Windows 98 (the main desktop machine I use for the web, for general purpose creative work, etc.) One runs Windows NT (kind of my experiment area for things like running Posix-compliant stuff like Interix and other things NT does well) One runs Windows 95 (down on the workbench in the lab, with the EPROM programmer, the EPROM emulator, the 68HC11 and Zilog Z8 development tools) One runs Linux (Slackware 4.0, for things like ripping CD Audio to WAV using CDParanoia.)

    A few months ago I spent about a half year experimenting with the idea of running only Linux on all my hardware (plus several NetBSD machines for various purposes). I wasn't getting a hell of a lot done on my main desktop machine. I purchased ApplixWare, had Windows 3.1 installed on top of the WABI I had purchased (and had Wine installed in parallel- the Windows Image WABI installs gives you an interesting embedded-Windows environment to run Wine inside).

    I'm not an ignorant know-nothing who tried Linux for a weekend and struggled for a week to figure out how to remove LILO. I started "playing around" with Linux in 1993 with the first Yggdrasil "Plug-and-Play" Linux distribution when I had a Sound Blaster pro and a 1X CD-ROM drive on my 486 box.

    I'm not interested in running Linux anymore as my main desktop machine. I found myself spending most of my time futzing around, trying to get things to work, downloading tarballs of source code and building all the half completed applications advertised on sites like FreshMeat.net. I wasn't getting a damn thing done, and I was bleeding away my money on books from O'Reilly (damn fine publisher, they have some of the BEST books out on Windows NT).

    I started to fall off the boat after purchasing several commercial releases of RedHat (4.2 and 5.1). I backed off to running Slackware with a commercial Motif Windows manager after I got tired of the hell that was configuring a RedHat system when you know how to get a stable Linux running by hand editing /etc files and RedHat decides to obfuscate the whole mess to make their GUI administration tools almost work properly.

    After awhile I got tired of it. Finally I just went out and bought Windows 98 for the main machine (it's so much better than Windows 95 that most of the things that drove me to Linux have disappeared). Now I'm running a machine with no sound card (cool USB speakers from Microsoft) and having a good time. I don't save files from the web browser into a home directory where they're forgotten for weeks. Everything I grab off the 'net is plain and visible on the Windows desktop.

    I am sure I am not the first person to abandon Linux as a desktop system. I constantly am finding little tricks and hacks (i.e. the CDParanoia program for ripping scratchy Audio CD Disks from the Library) where Linux is valuable. Valuable enough to keep it running on a P-166 with 128 MB of RAM. But that machine has a cheap 14" monitor. The machine with my new Sony 19" monitor is the Windows 98 machine. It makes me happy, because it works so well. There isn't anywhere I can't browse on the Web (formerly a major problem due to the paucity of useful plugins for Linux browsers).

    Enough though. This is LinuxAdvocate Central, they say. Have at it, dudes, Rip everything I've typed apart. You won't convince ME that Linux belongs on my desktop. It's a great server OS for those places where you're not trying to do anything particularly innovative.
  • Is it just me, or has everyone been seeing many more posts containing FUD against Linux? I guess Microsoft's new anti-Linux team must be working overtime posting to Slashdot, especially with the "NT beat Linux" so-called "benchmarks" from PC Week being recently published. Oh, and might I add, most seem to be by Anonymous Cowards. Hmmmmmmm...coincidence? I think not.

    ----------------

    "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
  • OS/2 sound familiar?

    OS/2 was never a threat to Windows. While it was a good OS, it wasn't about to topple Microsoft.

    Uh, Windows 31 is an old product. New windows products have are cheaper and have more features.

    Windows 3.1 = $179.99
    Windows 95 Full = $179.99
    Windows 98 Full = $179.99
    Windows 98 2nd Ed. Full = $199.99

    How do you figure the new ones are cheaper?

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • NT 4 currently requires reboots that are not necessary. Certain TCP/IP config changes result in a pop up windows requesting a reboot, but you can cancel out of them, as the changes actually successfully occured.

    My personal NT4 workstation crashed 4 times in the last year. Netscape > 4.x has been a habitual offender. I like it more than IE even though it is so unstable.

    Matt
  • Why? What kind of REAL competition has Windows seen before Linux? And Windows 98 is certainly not an improvement over 95.
    OS/2 sound familiar?
    It's not exactly breaking news that Microsoft marketing has a heavy hand in development, and vice versa
    that's just fud.
    The current MSRP on Windows 3.1 is $179.99
    Uh, Windows 31 is an old product. New windows products have are cheaper and have more features. The reason older products are more expensive is cause the cost of supporting a product that's no longer in development is higher.
    Estimated release date is mid 2001
    full of crud. Beta3 has been out for over a month, RC1 will be out in july, and the full release will be out in october. As a beta tester, i'm confident that 2000 will be out before 2000.
    Doubtful. From what I have seen, it's a monster bloatware machine.
    actually, for what it does, it's tiny. Most of the space that it takes up is in help files/pictures/movies and thousands of device drivers. I don't know what you're talking about.
  • Under windows, you can drag the object over the window's task button in the Task Bar (with the start button) and the window you want will magicaly pop up.

    just thougt you might like to know :)
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Of course, you know, in the stories the prince always comes and it always ends "They lived happily ever after."
  • Hrm, and immature little nerd like you running a computer with a $300,000 case... yeh.

    You're probably the person microsoft was talking about when they mentioned how you could crash the system by pulling out motherboards (without telling the kernel)
    _
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • True, there are high quality results produced by intense competition, but it uses up a disproportionate amount of human effort. Wonder if there is a system where all this hard work would pay off more than it is now.
  • I like the ads at the top of Slashdot. Now that's cool :)

  • Re:FUD? (Score:1)

    by ajf ( 7321 )

    Linux doesn't have a BSOD because it dumps core instead. Which hides the problem,

    Saving most of the state of the failing program in a file...

    requiring you to open the core file in a debugger.

    ... which can be inspected by a tool designed to help you find the problem - that is hiding the problem?

    This reinforces the need for a "priesthood" to fix problems. Mere users need not apply.

    Oh come on, "mere users" can't fix anything that causes a BSOD either. And the BSOD is less informative than a core dump.

  • Thank you mr. obvious. If you read the original
    post I was responding to, the person stated that
    you pay for NT and then you pay for IIS. That is
    not true.

    -WW

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • I wish people could read better.

    Note the original person said you pay for NT, and
    then you pay for IIS. As if they are two separate
    expenses.

    -WW

    P.S. I hate Microsoft, but I hate FUD even more.

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • If NT can show Linux to suck 3 times in a 2 months period,...

    It can do this 100 times in 2 months, because even with Linux's openness only so much can get done 2 months. So basically each of those 3 times are one and the same. In other words, your reasoning flawed and the number of times is irrelevant.

    But the raw data are not irrelevant. They show Linux catching up fast. Rematch in 6 months?

    --

  • >By the way you GUIsers are all the same.

    By this statement, I assume you think that a
    command line interface is the way of the future?
    Do you honestly feel that typing everything is
    the fastest way to get things done?

    I don't like Microsoft myself, but you're
    arguments are so full of bile and FUD that they
    are pointless. Come back with something more meaningful.

    -WW

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • "Even in TOS, Kirk SPOKE to the computer. NOBODY used a mouse. McCoy used a portable, multifunction device WITHOUT any external pointing objects."

    Oh lord. My point was that there is a level of
    progression. Punch cards -> Commandline interface -> Mouse-oriented GUI -> ???? (Voice recognition GUI, 2D/3D/holographic?).

    "Face facts, if Star Trek ships run on any thing they run LINUX."

    Why does everything have to be an OS contest? I'm
    not making a statement about the operating system,
    I'm making a statement about the interface.

    "I can shut down Gnome and come up in KDE in seconds. Try doing that with Windows."

    Now ask yourself WHY you need to do that. See,
    I don't need to do that in the OS's I use (BeOS
    and Windows). That's because the GUI's are built
    in from the get-go (moreso in BeOS).

    Why is it everything must dissolve into a pissing
    match with OS zealots.

    I guess I need to make my signature more "P.C."
    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • Yo guys! Let's just keep it straight. There is Seattle, a kewl coffee goin' hip place to live (and, the skies really do like like those from Austin Powers ;), and Redmond, an over priced yuppie-ville. Microsoft exists in Redmond (or the greater Eastside) where the housing market is equivalent to San Francisco (but everyone still has large houses) and everyone in the family drives their brand new BMW or Mercades. Seattle, is the happening city of all incomes and walks of life, lots of music and art, and general happy smiley culture.

    Oh yea, and I'm not gonna generalize here at all, but the two are different. :)


    Keepin' it real,

    Lego
  • "Mice are too innacurate."

    In what way? My mouse goes where I point it.

    "Drag and drop means doing mouse tricks so that the window you need is on top."

    Nah, the OS just needs to be smart enough to know
    what you're trying to do. As someone mentioned,
    you can hold the mouse over the taskbar icon for
    a program, and it will popup after a second or two. In Win98/2000, you can drag an item over a
    folder in Explorer, and it will expand as needed.

    But drag and drop is just one cool thing about
    GUI's. It's all about being able to have several
    programs visible at once, and allowing cool
    programs to do cool things that are impossible
    in a commandline environment.

    For example, in BeOS 4.5, there is a new program
    called 3dsound which has a really awesome
    interface. You'd have to try it to see what I
    mean. It just "makes sense."

    By all means, the current GUI/mouse paradigm is
    limited and will be phased out in 5 years or less.
    Monitors will be flatscreen technology that can be
    rolled up like a thick poster, and hung anywhere.
    We should be getting into really cool holographic
    technology by then. I'd be surprised if there
    wasn't a really ingenious 3D user interface by
    2005. And voice recognition should be nearly
    flawless by that time. (Michael Abrash, code
    wizard, is working with Microsoft on "natural
    language parsing" -- the reason he left id
    Software... I expect good things to ensue.)

    There's already technology out there that can
    beam the image directly into your eye, without
    a monitor at all, so the image appears to be
    floating out in front of your face.

    Cool.

    -WW

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring

  • That sort of thing exists everywhere. To say it is specific to Linux is to say fenders are specific to Hondas. The reason Linux is so popular is because it's Linux. To be more specific, it's because of its history -- Linus Torvalds writing his own kernel because he didn't like what he could use at the time. He released it under a 'free' license and for some reason, people began flocking to it. Eventually, it became the big hip thing.

    The Emacs vs. vi vs. ed, ksh vs. csh vs. sh, ANSI vs. K&R, etc. all existed way before Linux came into existance.

  • You can bet your butt they do. It is common knowledge that they did this in the OS/2 days, they admitted to as much. The seeded Fidonet with trolls to constantly post negative comments about OS/2, in an attempt to make it unenjoyable for OS/2 folks to hang out there. I remember this. Now they are doing it to slashdot.

    If you doubt this, there was an article about it on ZDNet somewhere, this info came out peripheral to the MS/DOJ trial. They did admit publicly to doing this shit. I can't find the article right now but will post it later if anyone wants "proof".

    There isn't anything you can do about it. Slashdot used to be a place for linux and nix folks to hang out. Now we have to listen to all this pro-MS off topic crap all over the place. Sad.
  • That's funny, it's daylight and I'm not made of stone. Just because I hold a different viewpoint
    does not make me a troll. Obviously, if you really
    thought I was a troll, why would you be dumb
    enough to respond?

    "Arghhh!!! You are talking about the home market.
    Yeah, linux will probably always be a hard sell to
    a home user. But the business desktop is another
    matter entirely. Windows is frankly totally
    unsuited for business use. A linux desktop at
    work, whatever you want at home."

    Is that a new rule you made up? Actually, I was
    talking about the DESKTOP market, period. What the
    hell kind of office do you work in? A programmer's
    office, a network management office, and IT
    office, etc. All those offices I could see Linux
    in. But your everyday, common office is filled
    with people that want a good GUI that is
    consistent (user-friendly) across applications.
    Linux does not fit the bill.

    "Do you really want to find yourself in year 2015,
    and be confused as to why drive 'd:' on your
    coffee machine is drive 'f:' on your computer?
    Linux may even force them to 'fix' windows if it
    eats enough of its market share."

    I don't quite get your analogy, but if I had my
    way, then my home would be networked with Java,
    not Linux or Windows or BeOS. Java and Jini.

    I think the problem is you're assuming that when
    I criticize Linux I'm also supporting Windows.
    Not true. I hate Microsoft. I would love to see
    BeOS, Linux, Java, etc. get more of the market.

    -WW

    --
    Why are there so many Unix-using Star Trek fans?
    When was the last time Picard said, "Computer, bring
  • Why was this moderated up?
    It's a great server OS for

    those places where you're not trying to do anything particularly innovative.


    What the hell is that? Interesting? This is a troll. What in the hell is going on here?
  • We aren't here to debate the cost of free software vs windows. if you read the original thread, it was about the cost of windows dropping while at the same time the features increasing.
  • I didn't mention monopoly or the competition.

    Held steady on price, with added function I could have lived with.

    A single "cheaper" might be technically accurate, albeit a little misleading.

    Cheaper and cheaper is simply wrong.

  • Odd, somebody using your id attempted to redefined cheaper not in absolute terms but in terms of the competition. This opens up the discussion to exactly these lines: the relative merits of competitive operating systems which truly are significantly cheaper than Windows.

    Even if Linux's only lasting legacy is to revitalize development on Windows while simultaneously exerting a downwards pressure on prices, then the world will be a better place.


  • We never paid for IIS... it comes with the OS.

    Really?

    When you buy a $20,000 steering wheel, does it come with a free car?

    When I buy computers at work, they come with Windows 9x installed for "free" -- and someone has to uninstall it.

    That'd be me. (I almost wish I didn't work for a hardware company so I could take advantage of Windows Refund Days.)

    --
    QDMerge -- generate documents automatically.
  • In a step that will surely shock both of us, I'm gonna have to side with tummyX. Joe's article has major problems. The assertion I like is that NT's stability peaked with 3.51. Based on my experience, this is laughable. I've had NT4 servers (running SQL 6.5 with 300 concurrent users) go 12 months with only 2 reboots (and those were service pack upgrades) OTO, the 3.51 servers I admin'd had to be cycled regularly (once a month to once a day) or they'd explode in a fiery ball o' bits. NT4, espescially SP3 is one hell of a stable OS - if you configure it properly. (I supported ~130 NT/SQL servers at MS, only ~6 of those ran 3.51 - so while my data isn't statistically relevant, it's _good_ anecdotal evidence.)

    I'm still not wild about NT5 (oops win2k) though. And lets not forget that MS has been trotting out the "Cairo->NT5->win2k will release later this year" line for going on 3 years now.

    --Shoeboy

  • I've been using linux of many variants for quite some time (4 years, not an old timer, but no newbie either.)

    Some things to understand about linux/Free Software development:

    1) As the poster above pointed out, all happens in FULL view, which means that any serious flaw can be pointed at, and hoisted by the marketing dept of [insert company name here as proof fo "how bad linux is." Personally, I prefer seeing it all out in the open. I learn something, and get to watch as the problem is tackled (more learning, which is a personal hot-spot for me. :)

    2)Linux develops based on needs and flaws found during use. I.E.: "I'm using linux for A, and found that when I do B, things go real bad. Can I/we implement C?"

    Now, I'd wager not to many people are serving a single static web page off 4 ethernet cards to a LAN. Why would you? If you need to serve THAT much content (or lack of content, if you will :) what you are serving is probably mission critical. And that means multiple machines in case one goes down.

    Yes, what Mincraft pointed at IS a problem, but it's currently a NON-ISSUE in most (all?) installations. It's like worrying about whether or not you can drive your car underwater (at least, for the time being.) Which is why it was never addressed before. But since there is an efficiency gain to be made by improving the kernel's network threading, and it's been pointed out that that IS the problem, it's being worked on. Which means the non-issue will be fixed, because fixing it will only be an improvement, and a technically correct one at that. That's one BIG advantage to Free Software... technically correct ALWAYS wins.

    So just because linux currently has a problem with 4 NICs at unrealistic high loads doesn't mean it's worse at working with one (or 2, as needed by firewalls, routers, etc..) and it doesn't mean it won't fit your needs better. It may NOT fit your needs better, but only YOU can evaluate that. Not some benchmark. The same is just as true for the benchmarks that show linux is faster (which actually seem to be the majority, if you insist on worrying about them.) No benchmark will fit what you are doing, unless you set up a real-world benchmark for yourself (which I invite you to do... the results I've gotten have turned up much useful info, and helped me tune both linux and NT in the LAN I take care of. I'll leave the results to your imagination ;)

    And remember, if you do decide to give linux a run, you CAN improve it. If you do not know how, you can SUGGEST improvements, or pay for someone to put them in. That's the WHOLE POINT. I really do believe that linux will do 90% of what people need to do at any given time, and do it well. It's a function of the licensing, and the culture.

    If you do NOT give linux a run, all I ask is you do the favor of not being a troll here or anywhere else (about ANY topic, linux or not.) It does no good, and is quite rude. Imagine going INTO the MS building, finding an engineering meeting, and bursting in every 2 seconds with "You suck, MS sucks." That's what's been going on alot lately and it's getting quite tiresome. Yes, the internet IS the meeting room, for all to see (not implying Slashdot is the place linux developers discuss issues, but alot of linux/freeBSD/etc. users do.) Do, however, feel invited to come and share your well stated opinions/questions, no matter WHAT you use (such as the question you asked here.)

    Thanks for listening :)

Slashdot Top Deals

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.

Close