OSNews

I second that. "Reductio ad absurdum" doesn't even mean what he thinks it means. It means contradicting a hypotesis (on purpose, even if you know it's absurd to do so), in order to show that the inverted alternative would be impossible and therefore the original hypotesis must be correct. It's a mathematical problem-solving method which can help when you have enough data to contradict the negated problem but not enough to prove the normal problem.

He thought it means to contradict yourself, which it doesn't.

Edited 2006-12-06 16:07

Mmm, the Internet started as ARPANET in 1969.
The basic GUI concepts appeared at Xerox' PARC in the '70s.
These technologies HAVE hit the 20 year mark and as you can see, who started doing what and when still matters.

And you can renew patents, you know?

No you can't. That's the whole point of the patent system, so people will share their knowledge rather than make everything a trade secret.

Now the author seems to think that Linux is simply copying Microsoft on everything. That’s not true.

Of course it is not. Linux is copying Unix, too.

Linux is not losing a war or even fighting one

Well it is not winning a war either, that's for sure (according to the market share numbers).

You don't win by simply copying the stuff and that is exactly what Linux does, no matter how hard you deny it. They simply copy everything from Unix and Windows, all the time. Great ideas should be copied, no problems here with that, but the thing is --- they don't do it well. Microsoft does it really well ("embrace & extend").

I think you were right, with some corollaries.

Linux was essentially written with the goal of copying Unix. It's like spaghetti was originally made with the goal of copying Chinese noodles. Now you wouldn't call spaghetti a copy today would you?

Next, I don't think Linux copies from Microsoft at all. In fact, I would argue it the other way around. Microsoft does not "embrace & extend"; it's strategy is "copy & market until people don't realize it's not original." I distinctly recall a Microsoft executive or someone affiliated with Microsoft claiming that the company invented the operating system. Pull a person off the street and ask them who invented the operating system; I guarantee the majority will tell you Microsoft.

Linux does copy a lot from Microsoft or general OS concepts. In fact there is hardly a kernel level innovation that is done by Linux and it has been mostly behind in implementing kernel level features as compared to solaris or Windows.

Example: M:N thread support, Well defined driver model, Asynchrnous IO in kernel etc etc. You should read "A tale of two kernels" by Mark Russinovich.

Next, I don't think Linux copies from Microsoft at all. In fact, I would argue it the other way around.

Microsoft doesn't have to copy from Linux. MS had its own Unix called Xenix some 25 years ago and it was the most popular Unix for desktop PCs, so I would say they hardly need Linux to copy from.

Microsoft doesn't have to copy from Linux. MS had its own Unix called Xenix some 25 years ago and it was the most popular Unix for desktop PCs, so I would say they hardly need Linux to copy from.

If Microsoft and their lackies think 25-year-old technology represents today's state of the art, no wonder the company's products are so laughably execrable.

If Microsoft and their lackies think 25-year-old technology represents today's state of the art, no wonder the company's products are so laughably execrable.

Nothing stops Microsoft from offering both the good old stuff and the new cool thing, at same time. Besides, some things are just good the way they were 25 yeras ago and need not replacement. I guess you're too young to know that. Just wait and you'll see :-)

Nowhere I said that 25-year-technology is the only possible way. You're twisting my words.

Nowhere I said that 25-year-technology is the only possible way. You're twisting my words.

No, you're twisting mine. The fact is that if people stuck to 25-year old technologies (as you implied Microsoft can), they would be even farther behind.

But in fact even if Microsoft did base anything on XENIX in 2006, not only would it be obsolete, they would also be stealing, since they sold their XENIX product to the old SCO years ago.

The fact is that if people stuck to 25-year old technologies (as you implied Microsoft can), they would be even farther behind.

Again, you're twisting my words. Nobody sad they have to stuck to 25-year old technologies. They can exist side by side with new technologies.

One thing you're missing again: some things are fine today the same way they were 25 years ago.

But I already explained all that, kinda repeating myself. I think you know what I'm talking about.

But in fact even if Microsoft did base anything on XENIX in 2006...

Oh, come on.. I am not talking about literally copying and stealing the code, but about concepts, ideas, etc. For example, some Unix ideas/concepts are great and it's great to have them in Windows, and vice versa, don't you agree?

I'm sorry but I don't agree. Linux may be indirectly modeled after Unix (Unix->Minix->Linux) but that's as far as it goes. Linux has continued to evolve and Unix has for the most part stagnated. Not saying that Unix is bad, I think it's a fantastic system and once you have it configured and running it doesn't require much tinkering, because it's a server OS; Always has been, always will be. Lets face it. If you throw a fancy desktop environment on Unix you may be able to get it to work on that particular model of machine, but try making it run on anything else. There's a reason that you can't get the newest desktop software for Unix/BSD...it's not a flexible desktop OS.
If Linux were just a carbon copy of Unix, there is no way that it would have turned into the incredibly fast, secure, powerful, and flexible system that we have today. A system that is capable of being a mission critical server and the same time, desktop oriented enough for me to type this comment on.

You and I know it's impossible to slap a UI over BSD, but those guys in Cupertino just won't listen.

"You and I know it's impossible to slap a UI over BSD, but those guys in Cupertino just won't listen."

I'm assuming that your being sarcastic, but anyway. I'm a huge Mac fan and have been using them for 19 years. OSX/Darwin at this point is only a distant relative of BSD. You would have an easier time comparing Darwin/XNU to HURD or Tru64 Unix. Besides, have you ever tried installing KDE or Gnome on a Mac. It's possible but not the best way to spend a weekend. Aqua/Cocoa/Quartz were built specifically for OSX and that's why they work. As much as I love OSX, it too is not that flexible, certainly not as much so as Linux.

"Linux may be indirectly modeled after Unix"

It is modeled directly after Unix and Minix.

"There's a reason that you can't get the newest desktop software for Unix/BSD...it's not a flexible desktop OS."

I must be imagining myself typing this on the latest KDE on OpenBSD then. And lets not even mention DesktopBSD or PC-BSD.

your a joke, you think linux did not "copy" NTFS, or reverse-engineer/copy the Windows API's. ???

linux copied Unix so they could gain market share of Unix uners.

Once they did that, they changed their target to windows. as windows and MS are a successful model for an operating system, and application suite.

therefore, next thing you see, is linux "desktop", OpenOffice.

Was it "just by accident" that you ".doc" format is exactly the same as what MS developed, by paying programmers ??

this is a joke, its pointless saying Linux does not copy the good work from everyone else.

and then use that stolen IP against the very company they stole it off.

Why else would you need or want NTFS in Linux ?? if it was not to take MS Windows users away from MS.

You saw something good, and popular, so you copy it, and give it away.

and wonder why the company you stole off, gets upset.

and then use that stolen IP against the very company they stole it off.

Reverse-engineering is *not* stealing IP. It isn't in the US, nor is it in Australia. That's a blatant lie.

Linux copied the desktop paradigm, but so did Windows and Mac OS.

Copying ideas (and improving on them) is not only legal, it is *good*! Why do you think Microsoft does it all the time?

Why else would you need or want NTFS in Linux ?? if it was not to take MS Windows users away from MS.

How about rescuing the data on an NTFS disk from a Linux system? How about sharing data between the two OSes on a dual-boot machine?

Are you going to say that the Ext2 and Ext3 drivers available for Windows are also examples of "stealing IP"?

BTW, Microsoft *itself* said that it wanted to improve interoperability between *nix systems and Windows...didn't you get the memo?

I swear, can any anti-Linux troll actually post *factual* information once in while??

I swear, can any anti-Linux troll actually post *factual* information once in while??

It would certainly make a nice change, wouldn't it?

There's only one way to achieve something, that is why in Evolution eyes have evolved several times independent from each other, and why scientists think that on a planet with similar conditions like on earth a species with similar biology to man would again evolve as the dominant (intelligent? not so sure about this) one.
There aren't that many ways to interact with a computer outside a console, and to implement a GUI if that's what you want and it does not mean implementing one is copying MS or Apple.

BTW why do so many on here seem obsessed with market share? I always see these figures quoted but the reality is even only 2% of a global desktop market will quite likely be millions of machines which is significant enough and self sustainable. Linux type developers are clearly passionate enough not to ever let up coding what they care about without getting paid and distros like Debian or Slackware will never go away even though commercial Linux might one day.
I do not care about market share and please, people like NotParker, stop banging on about figures. They indicate trends AT BEST and frankly, the less Linux usage out there the longer we can continue to leave virii and malware to Redmond's OS - no hard feelings.

For the people who like to use something they consider technologically superior or just more flexible and suitable to their needs and liking.

IT IS ABOUT CHOICE - NOT ABOUT WHO 'WINS'.

Don't apologize! I haven't had such a good laugh in quite a while. Humor is a great way of combating FUD.

"1. Most of the bad grammar is intentional for the purpose of parodying the original article"

Well, that explains it. Maybe the parody is more obvious to those who read the previous "War" article (I didn't, it looked pretty dumb just reading the title).

Do you take any statement made by Steve Ballmer seriously?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3446931931514285011

Just watch this video.

Now do you consider him an important figure?

ah. steve doing the monkey dance. a classic.

honestly, any other average joe would have been locked away in a room with padded walls for doing soething like that... at microsoft you get a well-paid exec job for it.
'nuff said.

rofl. This is the funniest bit of sarcastic parody that I have seen in a long while. Jolly good show.

"and I dont appreciate being marked down by cultists"

Because calling people cultists is very civil and "sticking to the issue".
By the way, your use of "cultists" is a dead giveaway, NotParker.

No, we can't.

It's already apparent.

That was an actual video from a Microsoft developers' conference in 2001.

Plus, what kind of CEO would vow to "f--king kill Google"?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/microsoft-ceo-im-going-to-fin...

And its funny that he has his kids "brainwashed": "You don't use Google, and you don't use an iPod."

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/04/03/8...

It's not that Stevie-B is important, as he is the CEO of Microsoft; it's just that everything that comes from his mouth to the media is - let me emphasize this - f--kING RETARDED.

Please lie in confusion concerning Ballmer (aka "The Juggernaut, Bitch!") no longer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ballmer

I tried swearing off confrontational speech, but I keep getting modded down by archiesteel and his posse of accounts.

If you're going to continue making the false claim that I have multiple accounts, then I'll just claim that apolitical1 is one of your sockpuppets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28internet%29

BTW, if you don't want to get modded down, try to stay on-topic.

It's nice to see though that moderation the only reason you tried to rein in insulting those who disagree with you (what you call "confrontational speech", which I'd call "incapacity to present counter arguments forcing a recourse to ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments"...though I admit your euphemism is shorter...).

I don't know, it could have been because, well, insulting those who disagree with you is not a valid form of debate. But I guess you were unable to come up with rational arguments, therefore you're going back to thoughtless provocation. Makes sense.

The meme is spreading! Yay!

How about two more examples of things that spread: First, the (untrue) meme that War and Peace was originally meant to be called War! What is it Good for?!"

Secondly, cancer.

Neither of these is a good thing, and by analogy neither are your interminable and interminably diuretic posts.

@apolitical1 your off topic its your first post. I am too I hope people do the same to me.

The argument is quite simple. GPL needed an updated license. people are now siding between v2 and v3.

v2 which allows developers to bend the rules of the philosophy behind the license *may* mean it that it gets greater adoption and recognized, and those benefits will filter back to the original developers.

v3 plugs the holes in the license and enforces the philosophy behind the license, which *may* mean less adoption and less recognized, but will allow users to enjoy the freedom of use on devices which does use it.

Pick a team.

GPL v3 was the reason why I abandoned Linux. I don't like the trend, and I bailed out rather sooner than later. For me, Linux is history.

DG

Linux is licensed under GPL v2. Linus Torvalds has made it quite clear that he would not re-license it under v3.

If that's the reason why you abandoned Linux, then you did so based on erroneous information...

I want to justify myself here, but I don't understand your first point. For your second one, I'm referring to something like changing TCP/IP settings. In Windows it's trivial. In Linux it usually requires editing files by hand. For your third point, that's exactly what I said in my article, so I don't think there are any discrepencies there. In other words I'm agreeing with you.

For your second one, I'm referring to something like changing TCP/IP settings. In Windows it's trivial. In Linux it usually requires editing files by hand

Err...From what year you coming from? As far as I know, most Linux distros default to DHCP by default, and things like SuSE has Yast which allows you to very easily and conveniently change your network settings. I don't know about Fedoras or such, but I'd assume they have that too.

"Err...From what year you coming from? As far as I know, most Linux distros default to DHCP by default, and things like SuSE has Yast which allows you to very easily and conveniently change your network settings. I don't know about Fedoras or such, but I'd assume they have that too"

Its important to remember that often Microsoft PowerUsers(sic) often try a Linux as they hear good things about it. They often give it a go...but there is something they don't like X piece of hardware doesn't work, or no alternative to X, or in a lot of cases *expected* things to work like they are familer, and simply were not as *good* in this environment, becasue things simply work differently.

Its also difficult to remember how rapidly Linux is evolving. If you worked with windows XP for the last 5 years *nothing changed*. Linux is still having a revolution. Its pace has been frightening. What was true of the desktop 6 months ago isn't true now. Vista as it is is not just competing with Linux now, but the linux after that, and the one after that. If its 5 years again, thats 20 revisions of Linux; 10 of xorg; 10 of Gnome; and multiple revisions of the other applications that make up your distribution.

SuSE has Yast which allows you to very easily and conveniently change your network settings. I don't know about Fedoras or such, but I'd assume they have that too.

Not just that, there is at least one cross-distribution solution with the GNOME Setup Tools, which is available on most generic distributions.

I always get a little irritated when people take it for granted that Windows has an easier GUI environment than Linux. There is no area in which Linux is making faster progress, so your knowledge and experiences from yesterday could already be outdated again. This becomes especially obvious when examples like the above are mentioned, which clearly aren't valid anymore.

agreed.

for normal, basic work, KDE 3.5.x absolutely doesn't offer a worse environment compared to Windows. in many area's it's actually better, and indeed worse in a few.
system maintenance is much easier in linux, esp if you have tools like yast. even without yast, you don't need a4us, antispyware or firewall. driver installation is very rare. updates/upgrades are much easier. so in some area's, linux might be a bit harder, but in most, it's as easy, or easier, compared to windows.

MS Office is a great piece of work, and kicks Openoffice and Koffice's ass in most (but not all) area's. but the other office's are improving, OO.o slowly and Koffice at a crazy speed. so this might get fixed in time.

Overall, a 'normal' user can work as easy with linux as with windows. he'll need a 'geek' for certain things anyway, and that geek will need less time supporting his linux users, compared to the windows users...

Linux 1.0 released in Marh 1994.

Linux was in usable form well before the 1.0 kernel release. I started using SLS Linux just before the 0.99 kernel release, for example.

Gates hired Cutler in 1989 along with 20 other digital engineers to work on NT OS/2, which would be focused on OS/2 API.

To clarify, the only OS/2 API that Windows NT supported was the 16-bit VIO (text mode) API. I seem to recall that 16-bit PM (Presentation Manager) support may have been an optional add-on, but I'm not sure.

Maybe you could have linked a webpage instead of posting 4 damn posts?

"Yes Mr Smart Ass aka Soulbender i would have but this article is saved on my computer and i don't think it is available online"

Never heard of Google? Searching for "Mark Russinovich" "A Tale of two Kernels" yeilds quite a few hits. So instead of a annoying people with 4 not very readable posts you could have linked to an easy to read and follow article.

I'm not a fan of the GPL nor a Linux user, btw.

http://www.schrankmonster.de/PermaLink,guid,b543be1b-068a-4161-8e83...

First hit.

http://ryangregg.com/archive/2004/05/24/871.aspx

It doesn't have any details which shows how linux is catching up The link you point misses what i wanted to point out. So now get back to google and get me the result

What you pointed out is a very well known article unfortunately for you.
It is known and was proved that :
- the author is/was a Linux ML troll that got burned lots of time
- his papers taste more like a vengeance
- most of what he said concerning Linux was outdated when the paper was out
- it's completely outdated now

He wanted to say that Windows kernel is very good in theory, and that's all.
The problem, that he always try to avoid, is that even in 2.2, Linux was running circles around the better Windows kernel in most loads.
In 2.4, Linux completely left the better Windows kernel behind, performance wise.
Now with 2.6, they don't even dare compare, MS prefers referring to (wrong) settings using kernel 2.4.
So I think you are completely mistaken as to which kernel has catchup to do.
A lot of people will tell you that "theoretically" Windows kernel is better, but practical evidence shows this doesn't hold up in reality.

CrazyDude0,

The industry copies each others innovations very often. Microsoft copied Linux's Sudo in UAC, Mac OS X widgets; Microsoft even used some of FreeBSD's code in Vista's new TCP/IP stack.

So...

Linux will do the same but much faster. I figure Linux will rival Vista (in terms of kernel security features, performance improvements, etc.) within several months. Desktop environments will also be on a level playing field when KDE 4.0+ and Gnome 2.20+ are shipped.

GNU/Linux is already far more advanced than Windows and Mac OS X when it comes to GPU-utilizing eye-candy GUIs. This trend will only continue with upcoming releases of Gnome and KDE.

"Vista has a brand new TCP/IP stack with full IPv6 support not something you will find in BSD or Linux."

This is a pretty lame and fake claim too. *BSD (not sure about Linux) has had full IPv6 support in their TCP/IP stacks for quite some time.

"neither will you find cool stuff like TCP offload engine"

More fake and inaccurate claims. Many *BSD (dunno about Linux) drivers supports TCP offloading when the NIC hardware supports it. This has been available for a long time.


"RSS"
Uh, do you know what RSS is? It's an XMl format and has nothing to do with hardware. Unless you mean some other RSS that I've never heard of.

"Tell me how you can run a process in Linux under a less privileged user automatically if you are running as admin?"

For one noone runs under admin/root in Linux by default and even if they did it would be simple to make the Firefox/Konqueror/Whatever shortcut do a "sudo -u <username>".

"so bsd has it but it is not on by default thus i assume not well tested."
It's on be default. The major Ipv6 reference work (KAME) is bsd. Microsoft hasn't been all that involved in the creation of IPv6.

"Wow so you claim that BSD has a well designed TOE support in their TCP/IP stack?"
Hmm... I was thinking of TCP checksum offloading. My bad. However:
http://linux-net.osdl.org/index.php/TOE
http://www.usenix.org/events/hotos03/tech/full_papers/mogul/mogul.p...

TOE is no magic bullet.

"No it is receive side scaling"
AH, that RSS.

"According to you this is UAC? "

You didnt ask for UAC, you asked how it could be done.

Edited 2006-12-06 09:01

Sorry to disapoint you but windows was always using a crappy BSD ripoff of TCP stack. Vista may have it rewritten (and man was that shit in need of that) but I highly doubt windows will ever get to the level of stability performance and general quality considering networking as freeBSD.

You're comparing a Trabi to a tank here. Windows is simply not a networking specialist.

so bsd has it but it is not on by default thus i assume not well tested. Linux doesn't have it. So i am at least 50% correct.

So Linux doesn't have IPv6 support? Errrrrr, right. Whatever.

And a totally untested, untried and totally new network stack that was outsourced to India is a good idea........because?

Vista has a well designed and well defined TOE support in the TCPIP driver. All big network card vendors like Broadcom, Intel will support that. Show me that on BSD or Linux please?

Support was actually written for TOE in Linux some time ago, but the patches were rejected simply because TOE has very little merit. I'm sure Microsoft thought it was a really great idea to rewrite their network stack to hack that in, but, well, most of us prefer stuff that actually works ;-). Reasons:

1. System hardware always catches up to TOE speeds in no time at all.

2. The Linux network stack is proven, people know how it works and it is consistent between systems. Handing that off to a piece of hardware that will more than likely not work as it should, will have quirks between different hardware and will need endless firmware updates like other pieces of hardware today is a really bad idea.

Maybe Microsoft should just write themselves a decent network stack? ;-)

3. TOE requires more hardware programming to set up and destroy connections. Connection intensive protocols often underperform.

4. TOE NICs simply do not have the memory or CPU available to them to work effectively under very heavy loads. Under 100% load a TOE NIC will fall back to the software stack, defeating the object of using TOE in the first place.

5. Resource based denial of service attacks on individual and poor performing NICs. The NIC will either get flooded totally or bounce back to the software stack, making the DoS attack even worse.

6. No guarantee whatsoever that any given NIC is RFC compliant. Linux's network stack is.

7. Netfilter, packet filtering and QoS software in Linux is very well proven. This would have to be rewritten to support TOE and vendor specific hardware for no benefit whatsoever, as do all the tools in Windows, which again are unproven.

TOE is all about vendor lock-in using hardware again, and it will most likely have many people scratching their heads over inexplicable network problems caused by the vendor specific implementations in the card. It just makes a NIC more expensive to produce with no appreciable benefits and massively increased support costs.

TOE is a disaster waiting to happen, Linux was right to reject it and for you to proclaim it as a holier than though benefit is so laughable it isn't funny. Now that you've mentioned this I'm less keen to use Windows and the Longhorn Server for anything network related.

No it is receive side scaling. It is used so that a network card can direct interrupts to different processors based on TCP connection information.

Funny. Very, very funny. RSS lets the TCP stack run on multiple processors, which Linux has been able to do for years. It may be Earth moving for you in the Windows world, not so for the rest of us.

Tell me how you can run a process in Linux under a less privileged user automatically if you are running as admin?.......According to you this is UAC?

UAC. Oh, you mean that piece of unproven crap that everyone has complained bitterly about with Vista?

If you don't think Linux or a Unix system can run a process under a different user when running another as root, you haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. It's been one of the biggest problems with Windows over the years, because it will simply not reliably run well when logged in as an ordinary user and 'Run...as' is simply a poor implementation of su and sudo that doesn't work a lot of the time.

You're full of it, I'm afraid.

- So Vista stack is developed in India. How do you know? How about you acknowledge that you are just lying because i know it is developed in Redmond.

- Wow so according to you TOE is bad, let us enumerate the cases:

1. System hardware always catches up so you want your general purpose CPU to do all the processing when you can have a hardware specially designed for networking. Nice try but it falls flat because TOE is in demand.
2. Hardware netowkr stack is not reliable, that is just your assumption, no proof, pure FUD. BTW most of the TCP stack handling like connection management is done in software. Hardware NIC only does sending packets, receving them and assmebling them.
3. TOE is bad for connection intensive protocols, ok which protocol is connection intensive? I think you meant connection intensive workloads or short lived connections, right? Yes TOE is not for webserver type workloads where data trasfer happens in small amounts but database server hell yeah.
4. So just because you can't have all the connections fast, does it mean you don't make the ones faster that you can? Again same flawed logic. Think of TOE in enterprise database servers, i think TOE is pretty useful.
5. Why will it make DOS attack worse, if a NIC doesn't have TOE how does that help? Are you spreading FUD?
6. RFC compliant...point ... MORE FUD.
7. So what if they needs to be re-written. Linux kernel is updated so many times that it breaks binary compatibility and then you think it is ok? With your logic, Linux kernel itself is not stable.

TOE is not vendor specific lock-in because it is a specification and any hardware vendor can implement it. Sorry if Linux doesn't have any equivalent, it is not Microsoft's problem.

- RSS - I am not talking about procesisng packets on multiple processors. I am talking about a NIC itself indicating packets on different processors. Think about it, if the NIC doesn't do it, then you would have to do that in software. You would need to store TCP connection information and distribute them in software on multiple processor to avoid out of order recieve. That is pretty expensive and that is why RSS is there. Also in software version only one CPU will have to process all the interrupts but not in RSS enabled NIC. Do you get it now?

- UAC - Windows could run process under different user since windows 2000 as well. Did you hear of RunAs? UAC is about making sure that the applications run under normal user even if the application is badly coded and assumes that it is running under admin account. Windows does this to give a better user experience, what does Linux do? Oh well try 100s distro and see which one works...nice.

Edited 2006-12-06 10:56

Wow so my last post is modden down and read it and wonder why.

I don't say bad about anyone, i am not offensive and i am not offtopic. Still the one that says TOE is bad gets modden up and the one that shows TOE is better gets modden down. Just goes to show the honesty in fanboys:)

Nice try but it falls flat because TOE is in demand.

TOE is not in demand, nor is it anything new. We've had TOE 10 Mbit cards, TOE 100Mbit cards and TOE 1 Gbit cards. Hands up who thinks that TOE on these cards here are cost effective, reliable and are worth the money? What, no hands?

Hands up also who thinks that each vendor replicating a network stack in hardware is a good thing? Wow. No hands either.

Hardware netowkr stack is not reliable, that is just your assumption, no proof, pure FUD.

So you believe different hardware based network stacks are more proven than the Linux, BSD, Unix or even Windows network stacks? Right..........

Oh, and do go and look up the definition of FUD. It doesn't apply here.

TOE is bad for connection intensive protocols, ok which protocol is connection intensive?

Some little thing called HTTP.

Yes TOE is not for webserver type workloads

So why is this useful again?

So just because you can't have all the connections fast, does it mean you don't make the ones faster that you can?

Strawman argument which is knocked down by the fact that the costs of doing this outweight the benefits - they always have.

Why will it make DOS attack worse

Resource based algorithmic attacks on NICs themselves.

RFC compliant...point ... MORE FUD.

Ooooh, yer. People really fear and are uncertain of the truth.

True I'm afraid. There is no guarantee whatsoever that any given hardware based network stack will be RFC compliant. Diversity is not a good thing here.

So what if they needs to be re-written.

Because it works and it works damn well. You can wander off to the Windows world of piss-poor networking if you want to. No change there.

TOE is not vendor specific lock-in because it is a specification and any hardware vendor can implement it.

History tells us that different implementations of supposedly the same standard work out badly. We've had TOE NICs before and they've been poor.

Jesus. We don't want Microsoft and hardware vendors f***ing up the now stable world of ethernet like we used to have in the early years.

I am not talking about procesisng packets on multiple processors.

Yes you are.

Think about it, if the NIC doesn't do it, then you would have to do that in software.

That would be so bad wouldn't it? And you think that dumping this stuff over the hardware interconnects is good? Right......

That is pretty expensive and that is why RSS is there.

Maybe in your world.

Also in software version only one CPU will have to process all the interrupts but not in RSS enabled NIC. Do you get it now?

Maybe in Windows' piss poor current implementation. Not in everyone elses'. It's not even worthy of a reply to be honest. You don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Did you hear of RunAs?

Hang on. That's what I said wasn't it? It's piss poor, especially where you are logged in as yourself and need to run a particular application that needs resources like mapped drives that are assigned to you when you are logged in. It fails here. It's not something Microsoft recommends either, nor do they build their admin tools with it in mind as you have to do in the Unix and Linux worlds.

UAC is about making sure that the applications run under normal user

Did you read tha part about UAC being crap on every version of Vista so far?

Windows does this to give a better user experience

Does it really? Everyone really seems to love those popups!

what does Linux do? Oh well try 100s distro and see which one works...nice.

Oh dear. Sadly, sudo and su works in exactly the same way on all distros. Bugger.

You're full of it, quite clearly. Sadly, you even believe your own bull.

Edited 2006-12-06 22:06

so bsd has it but it is not on by default thus i assume not well tested. Linux doesn't have it. So i am at least 50% correct

You are 120 % wrong !
You are so clueless I'm amazed you dare speak about this subject : do you believe everyone is stupid here ? That there are no knowledgeable people ?
Hear well : Linux had IPv6 stack since 2.2 (and before that in 2.1 dev versions). I can't even tell you how many years ago this was.

Wow so you claim that BSD has a well designed TOE support in their TCP/IP stack? Something which is actually patented by others is in BSD? Or do you mean that it is upto individual drivers to hack TOE in? Vista has a well designed and well defined TOE support in the TCPIP driver. All big network card vendors like Broadcom, Intel will support that. Show me that on BSD or Linux please?

Wow, you should shut up right now. Really, you're making a fool of yourself here !
TOE is not a standard, it has NOTHING to do in a TCP/IP stack implementation. It has to be in drivers.
It is not up to individuals to hack TOE in, but you're right, TOE are a hack upon TCP/IP.
TOE are proprietary closed hacks to try to accelerate network traffic, made by the NIC vendors.
So TOE support can't be "well designed" or "well defined", it's plain stupid to say that, as there's no specification on this.
Each NIC vendor will do its own, and FYI, some NIC vendors provide closed drivers with TOE support for Linux.
You're more than wrong again.

No it is receive side scaling. It is used so that a network card can direct interrupts to different processors based on TCP connection information

So don't call that RSS. This is a Windows only marketing speak, that try to cope for Windows poor TCP/IP performance.
Of course, this also adds lots of latency.

"Tell me how you can run a process in Linux under a less privileged user automatically if you are running as admin?"
For one noone runs under admin/root in Linux by default and even if they did it would be simple to make the Firefox/Konqueror/Whatever shortcut do a "sudo -u username".
According to you this is UAC?

Wow, so clueless !!
So when someone shames you with an answer, you then ask sth exactly like in Windows ?
You didn't even realize that on Linux, it's simpler than in your Windows example : you don't need to have UAC at all, because you don't have to run as root at all.
You could launch a session window to log into another user on your root GUI though (in both KDE and Gnome) if you really want to, or use su, or gksu, which won't prompt you for any password, as you're root already.

You just seem like a troll, Linux had IPv6 in the TCP/IP stack years ago. AIGLX and the X Window System model is far more superior than anything in windows, is not even comparable. They are both different things, Qt 4.3 is by far one of the best widgets and KDE 4 with Plasma, Phonon and D-BUS will rock our desktops. D-BUS, HAL, asynchronous booting are changing a lot in the desktop part, we already have a Composite/GL stack with AIGLX, we have nice toolkits like Qt 4.3 and GTK+/Cairo/Glitz, Aaron Seigo is a skilled programmer and artist and I'm sure he will do Plasma just great, it will even support Dashboard Widgets when it ship, just wait and see what I'm talking about and stop your troll circus.

MS is copying a lot from Linux and UNIX in general, since Windows NT come out.

Edited 2006-12-07 19:42

And we have root, not admin.

I figure Linux will rival Vista (in terms of kernel security features, performance improvements, etc.) within several months

Vista is playing catchup in the area you cited and hasn't caught up at all, so what you say is wrong : Linux already outdo Vista in most area.
Didn't you notice that for some years, Windows has no advantage over Linux except familiarity, monopoly and inertia ?
There's years since MS stopped trying to use technical ways of saying Windows is better.

Desktop environments will also be on a level playing field when KDE 4.0+ and Gnome 2.20+ are shipped

I don't think so, they are already better, KDE 4 and Gnome 2.20 will only make them way ahead.
For example, I hear now Vista can change the desktop language after reloading the session, a feature that Gnome (and KDE) had in 2001 !

I'm sorry, but your last sentence is wrong.

Windows Vista (which is a released product now) has far better technologies using the GPU for 2D rendering. For example, it can send glyphs as vertex data to the GPU and let it be rastered there. XGL can also accelerate text rendering on the GPU, but it relies on having the glyph available as pixmap first...


The open source community has the advantage of fast "release" cycles. So they can enhance their XLG/AIGLX code within some months and ship it. On the other side, there is lack of focus. So the X development was stuck for years.

So basically, Linux had compositing with GL first, but not stable and grown up. Now after Vista is out, XGL/AIGLX/compiz are clearly behind in terms of technology. But they have the opportunity to catch up very fast.


I don't use any Windows version, but if you don't have a look at it once in a while, you can indeed miss some (not many ) innovations...

"On the other side, there is lack of focus. So the X development was stuck for years."

I would be tempted to argue that this statement is a little out of date. Lots of exciting things are happening with X right now, and its a lot to do with a fork to X-org and even more to do to moving down the modular path.

I'd be tempted to say that freedesktops standards are getting a rid of a lot of the annoyances that have plagued linux for years.

Although I am interested how is "XGL/AIGLX/compiz are clearly behind in terms of technology" is that even true?

@gonzo Linux is not a clone of Xenix

Edited 2006-12-06 14:28

Well, I said it _was_ stuck. You're right, since the fork of Xorg, this is history


Well, Windows Vista has mastered some hurdles that aren't solved in X yet. For example, having direct rendered GL applications inside XGL/AIGLX. Or at least, if rendered indirectly, have them access OGL 2.0 + Extensions and not only the GL 1.4 subset.

Also, video acceleration within the GL accel. X server doesn't work stable / reliable yet.

What I also pointed out already, are further advanced shaders, for example for font rendering:
"Video cards that support Direct3D 10 will cache fonts in video memory and perform all ClearType text rendering in hardware."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista


One big problem of Xorg are still video drivers, esp. the closed source ones. Major changes in the drivers or their APIs aren't easily done as ATI, but also nVIDIA take long to support them, if at all. Contrary, Microsoft just told video card vendors that a new API for allowing direct GL rendering is needed - and they implemented it ready for release.

"Well, Windows Vista has mastered some hurdles that aren't solved in X yet. For example, having direct rendered GL applications inside XGL/AIGLX"

Ok just had a go in a AIGLX enviroment GL works great. Thats simply not true.

"Also, video acceleration within the GL accel. X server doesn't work stable / reliable yet."

So your arguing that its behind windows because of stability.

"Video cards that support Direct3D 10 will cache fonts in video memory and perform all ClearType text rendering in hardware."

Thats a difference that Aero has to AIGLX. It doesn't *seem* something thats required for a 3D desktop. It sounds like I need an expensive card, and it is only a small part of a large implementation.

What I don't get is. I have a cheap card that will not support DX10 it runs better effects than Aero, makes better use of the desktop space. I'm starting to believe that that Linux's implementation is superior. I actually see surprisingly little discussion either way.

There is GL and there is GL. If you want to have OpenGL 2.0(!) and extensions, for example shader programs, the answer is tricky or simply "No". This is a fact and you can do research on it. If you want to have OpenGL 1.4 only, the answer is "Yes", but even Quake3 (as released in '99) will produce wrong graphics (only visible on certain surfaces)!


About video acceleration. Sure, it's definitely behind because of - but not only because of - lack in stability. But what I explicitely ment with video accel. was that it only works (fast enough) with some video cards, not others, and so on. For example, on my system, I have to use mplayer -o gl2 and still can get performance problems.


You're right in that freeing the CPU from doing font rasterization is not "required". But it's clearly superiour to only do blitting and scaling on the GPU. And it's difficult and tricky. So it's a definite technology advantage. It's a big step forward, if the main goal is (and it should be) to get as most graphics processing as possible away from the CPU onto the mostly unused GPU.


You're completely right about the advantage of XGL/AIGLX on "legacy" hardware. It works great even on poor powered, integrated or old graphics chips.

Partly this is due to the fact that it doesn't go as far as Vistas techniques, and in Vista their seems to be no effort to make it scalable at all.

Partly this could be politics, or whatever. The whole point is, Vista gets more stuff done in this sector in a more stable and clean way. The reasons for that are easy, and I assume most Xorg developer know them very well. Still, if Xorg stays on it's actual pace, it should catch up very fast.

If you want to have OpenGL 2.0(!) and extensions, for example shader programs, the answer is tricky or simply "No". This is a fact and you can do research on it. If you want to have OpenGL 1.4 only, the answer is "Yes", but even Quake3 (as released in '99) will produce wrong graphics (only visible on certain surfaces)!

There is no fact there, only a tricky answer, as in closed drivers having OGL 2.0 since 1+ year, but FOSS drivers don't have it yet AFAIK.

About video acceleration. Sure, it's definitely behind because of - but not only because of - lack in stability. But what I explicitely ment with video accel. was that it only works (fast enough) with some video cards, not others, and so on. For example, on my system, I have to use mplayer -o gl2 and still can get performance problems

?!!! This doesn't depend at all on you using GL or not. Video acceleration works fine, and its problem is not instability (are you talking of Linux there ?).
I mean, its main problem is that all implementations of video accel on Linux (which means, uh, from one vendor only) are closed, and don't work on all cards, as it's buggy (I think).
But if it works, it works well.

You're right in that freeing the CPU from doing font rasterization is not "required". But it's clearly superiour to only do blitting and scaling on the GPU

It's not so clear to me. the scaling is trickier than what you think, as it needs lots of context, which is the largest problem with font rasterization IIRC. OK for the blitting.

And it's difficult and tricky. So it's a definite technology advantage

No, it's not. Anybody in the field can do it. The problem is getting these damned drivers. The definite technology advantage is having the drivers right.

It's a big step forward, if the main goal is (and it should be) to get as most graphics processing as possible away from the CPU onto the mostly unused GPU

Which is true for expensive GPU. On Linux, the goal is more to allow use of this for most architectures.

Partly this is due to the fact that it doesn't go as far as Vistas techniques, and in Vista their seems to be no effort to make it scalable at all

Ah OK, so we agree on that.

The whole point is, Vista gets more stuff done in this sector in a more stable and clean way

I don't think so. Developing for only one set of API you defined, on only one architecture won't make you do stuff in more stable and clean way that the same thing done in multi-architecture environment, using a true standard.
I also disagree, because MS doesn't let anyone see the implementation, or any mean to use it efficiently on other systems.
Actually, all this is supposition on my part, as no one can say if their stuff is stable or clean.
So in the field, MS is no help at all actually.

>> Now with Vista, Linux is again falling behind in GPU functionality,

Woo, that's worth quoting... have you tried XGL versus Vista. I mean Vista looks ok, but usage of GPU-wise, Vista is the one trying to catch up...

Also, games under Vista are expected to be 10% SLOWER than on XP. Not exactly the blazzing speed superiority you implied...

So exactly what is it that Linux is falling behind ?

Also, games under Vista are expected to be 10% SLOWER than on XP. Not exactly the blazzing speed superiority you implied...

At least the games will be playable, Linux by the other hand mmmm.

What's the point of all this back and forth "My OS is better than yours"?

While I strongly prefer Unix-like OSes, I have no problem with the fact that the Windows family enjoys some undeniable advantages.

This may seem a bit sappy, but wouldn't we *all* be better off acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of OSes that happen not to be our favorites, as well as those of the one(s) that do(es)?

I dislike Windows. But that is totally orthogonal to my opinions of where it shines and where it sucks.

Just to take this post deeper into sappy-land, I'll say that I grew up with the original Star Trek series, and the concept of IDIC (Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations) has a deeply rooted appeal to me.

That said, although the number of commercial games available for Linux is quite low indeed, all the ones that I care about run natively under Linux due to the fact (OK, my opinion) that the best gaming houses have a respect for portable code.

e.g. I noticed the post that I am replying to while taking a break from Quake4.

Of course, depending upon your gaming tastes, YMMV. The games you like may *not* run under Linux. But that's not the end of the world.

At least the games will be playable, Linux by the other hand mmmm.

1) There are tons of open-source games that go far beyond solitaire, minesweeper, and tuxkart.

http://www.happypenguin.org/
http://www.linuxgames.com/

2) There are commercial games by id Software, Epic Games and more.

http://www.tuxgames.com/

3) You can run many hundreds Windows games with Win32 and DirectX API emulation. Some games will even run using Windows inside of VMware, Parallels, and Xen.

http://www.transgaming.com/
http://www.codeweavers.com/
http://www.winehq.com/

Edited 2006-12-06 19:33

Those games sucks, honestly, givme the games I want not limited options.

Thx.

Doom3 and Quake 4 suck?

Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Coldwar, X2: The Threat, Half Life 2, Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, etc. all suck! ;-)

Oh and all the Windows game you can run suck too!

Isn't that right Mitarai?

Woo, that's worth quoting... have you tried XGL versus Vista. I mean Vista looks ok, but usage of GPU-wise, Vista is the one trying to catch up...

XGL and AIGLX aren't even needed with the NVIDIA driver. ATI drivers shall be similar once official support for the OpenGL "GLX_EXT_texture_from_pixmap" extension is incorporated.

Compiz and Beryl window managers wont be necessary either once the next version of Gnome and KDE are released.

Also, games under Vista are expected to be 10% SLOWER than on XP. Not exactly the blazing speed superiority you implied...

That with Desktop Window Manager (DWM) and Aero disabled. The performance is worse when they are running.

Likewise, I expect we'll see a way of disabling compositing and effects while running games on GNU/Linux.

The problem is not the grammatical errors, or the first language stuff. People are actually very forgiving on here.

The main problem is it tries to cover too much lightly. There are lots of common...catchphases to cover up lack of substance which shows serious lack of research.

I'll run through your points. Always behind windows, thats a strong statement if the GUI is the issue. How? Comparing something like File Manager with something like Nautilus is serious work.

Unix fragmentation is different from Linux fragmentation. The world then and the world now are two totally different environments. And thats a serious article all on its own...their are even benefits to fragmentation.

Competition from other niche OS's. To be fair I see more niche OS's than competitors. The reality is I see the same applications come up time and time again on all the different *kernels*. If linux got replaced by ReactOS tomorrow I'd use most of the same programs. It also leaves out that even a tiny percentage of the computer market is still lots of computers.

To be honest I would have been happy to see any of these topic come up...with perhaps less dramatic headlines. None of these points screams *Death* or *War*

So are we at all surprised that we've also arrived at the commodity
operating system?

What we should be surprised at is that (a) it's taken so long; and (b) a commodity OS is considered "non-obvious" by some people.

(Hey, maybe that means we can patent it ;-) )

Of course, it's not surprising if you factor in corporate greed.

In those same 20 years we've also seen shake-outs in hardware. BUNCH is history.

Two members of the BUNCH (Burroughs and UNIVAC) joined to form Unisys a while back, if you'll recall, and both of those companies' hardware and software architectures survive in each case (Unisys A-series and Clearpath NX and Libra servers still run Burroughs MCP with CANDE, WFL, COMS, and friends, while Unisys Clearpath IX and Dorado servers run OS1100 (renamed OS2200 except on the sign-on screens as you can see):

*UNISYS 1100 Operating System Level CP11-03D-DEV(RSI)*
************************************************************
* *
* DDDDDD EEEEEE VV VV SITA *
* D D EE VV VV "M" Series *
* D D EEEE VV VV Development System *
* D D EE VVV Running on CS7800-C *
* DDDDDD EEEEEE V Exec Level 47R5D (CP11.0) *
* *
************************************************************
Current session number: 700
Previous session was: THU 07 DEC 2006 16:52:29 GMT
DATE: 2006-12-07 TIME: 20:46:51 GMT

HVTIP, MAPPER, CTS, FURPUR, and friends all live there quite happily. No IBM architecture and very little IBM influence in sight (thank God).)

While each is a niche player when compared to IBM, each still has significant holdings at some companies and in some industries (the number of airlines which depend to some extent on the proper operation of Clearpath IX, Dorado, and 2200-series hardware is still fairly large percentagewise).

Edited 2006-12-07 20:53

I'm sure your making 3 and 4 up.

I think its more confusing as to what an OS is especially as I would never describe one as having a chat, web browser etc etc.

The reality is the OS is pretty much GNU/Linux by my outdated understanding of what an OS is.

Linux here most of the time refers to a mythical meta-distribution of things that will run on the linux kernel

(and yes I just wanted to make up the term mythical meta-distribution)

Well, if you read the article, the author himself used definitions 3 and 4.

Short answer: Read the article. The author used Linux as the name of a community of users and developers. I'm just playing along.

Long answer: Why I added "Linux user community" and "Linux software development philosophy" there is not a flamebait. Maybe people aren't conscious of the fact they sometimes use Linux as the name of "all things Linux", but it sure looks to me like that.

Besides that, GNU/Linux is a correct term if we want to say "a system consisting of GNU utilities (or userland) and the Linux kernel". However, take any distribution, and you'll notice that it has components from a variety of sources. Should we say X11/MIT/Perl/GNU/.../Linux? Or */Linux? If we put GNU in the name, why aren't we putting X11, too? It's at least as important nowadays. And once we're on that path, why don't we put all the other names of the software packages?

Don't take me wrong. GNU is and has been essential to what we call Linux (or GNU/Linux, if you like) today. The system has, however, long since passed the point where it would consist of solely GNU components and the Linux kernel.

Cyclops: Read the post by Ookaze above and see his tone and his comment score of 4 you will know the answer.

I for one am glad that i am not a part of Linux community anymore.

Edited 2006-12-06 11:52

@CrazyDude0. My view of OSNews. Is computing is fun. I've done it for a long time, but I want to get better. Its a bit of fun and nothing to get worked up about. If you do you normally come off as a pratt.

You made good points...badly. The reality is Ookaze made some better points, and they weren't his points they were well thought out arguments done by kernel developers who on mass, are pretty good, and to reject something that sounds as good as toe they need good reasons, and they have them.

I modded you down over the fanboys comment. Its a stupid thing to say, and not true. Its a bad insult, people here like often have preferences for different OS's its true. The reality is that those who have the same bias that you have, will not back you with points if you come across as a pratt. I know from experience.

I learnt something today about toe, and I learnt it because of you, and I'm grateful for that. I will look out for your name in future to see how your hone your discussion skills.

cyclops: It is not really about better points. It is about being in favor of Linux vs Windows.

If you mod up post which uses language like:

Wow, you should shut up right now. Really, you're making a fool of yourself here !

Then i treat the person who is modding up as dishonest.

If you mod me down just by referring to 100 distributions in Linux which is a fact, and mode up the pro linux but offensive comment, do you think it is really honest?

It is kind of fun for me to see how people behave. I was once a part of so called freedom fighters but i am not anymore because i chose the platform which served my needs better i.e. Windows and i am really happy using it. Be it general use, playing games or developing software with excellent MSDN documentation.

I was just pointing you to the fact that the linux fanboy community is quite intolerant and the modding above proves that.

Edit: btw Ookaze's point on TOE was completely wrong. TOE is not vendor specific hack in Windows and TOE specifications are well documented in MSDN. Any NIC vendor can follow them to provide TOE support on their TOE enabled NIC.

Edited 2006-12-06 12:33

@CrazyDude0 Your missing the point, bias is part and parcel of this site simply because we spent so long working in these environments. Most people here are pretty reasonable and accept there a good reasons for liking Linux or Windows.

You simply came off badly, and his points were better.I wasn't happy with silicon for trying to put a stop to what was interesting.

The only thing I have modded you down for is the fanboy thing. What surprised me about your comment is it was well thought out, and badly executed, you could have made the same comment and walked away with points.

Your clearly not seeing how people behave, look at some of the comments in the "Vista is pretty so better thread" you can see that Microsoft users get good points, on what is the most superficial comments, but there civil ;well thought out; and stick to one point.

cyclops: nah buddy, i don't really care for the points that much to be political about it. People don't like my views well they can mod me down but I don't mod anyone cause i want everyone to see this discussion.

If people get pissed off, so can they...it is their problem that they treat computing as a religion.

@Crazydude It is political, but Linux users are in the *minority*, a very *vocal* minority, but they only have so many Votes. The problem with your post was *not* political, or even *technical*...you have weak discussion skills, and its a shame you make some good points.

You know what crazydude0, I'm doing all I can to stay civil when hearing so much nonsense coming from you.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

Ookaze's point on TOE was completely wrong. TOE is not vendor specific hack in Windows and TOE specifications are well documented in MSDN. Any NIC vendor can follow them to provide TOE support on their TOE enabled NIC

What I said is completely true. Perhaps you'll finally realize that the more you write, the more you look like a fool.
Just the few things you've written there are amazing. And FYI, I try to stay general, less we go in long off-topic technical discussions.
TOE is a Windows only marketing speak, which is true, as even you can cite only MS references on this.
You cite TOE in Windows, but these are just API to hook to the cards, so that NIC vendors use a common one.
But this has no advantage against Linux, as, again, vendors can and do provide Linux NIC cards with TOE drivers, because they have the source.
I won't try to prove you how TOE is dangerous for network stability, or not efficient on most loads, do as you wish.
Just remember that having some TOE support in your kernel is no advantage at all.
And please, when I was talking standards, I was talking of at least a RFC, not MSDN. Or was this a joke of yours ?
Now, if MSDN is your reference, it's pretty sad. I know the MCSE and what other MS certifications are basically brainwash material (yes, people even showed me these, IMHO they're amazing piece of nonsense), but I urge you to try reading some true networking books at least.

Despite what the fanboys on this website may want you to believe, read Linux and IPv6 story here:
http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/basic-history-ipv6-linux.htm.....
If i was a system administrator, this would make me very skeptical of IPv6 in Linux.
And who was it that claimed Linux has IPv6 since 2.2...liarrrrrrrr
Edit: So it was again Ookaze. Ok he is clueless for sure

You really are an amazing guy, you have no shame at all.
Did you even understand what you read ?
I specifically said that Linux had IPv6 support since 2.2, and I think I said that it was also in the 2.1 dev version.
So where is the lie ? I think that's a misunderstanding on your part, because you don't even understand what you read there.
So let me explain it to you.
After the implementation of IPv6 in Linux 2.2 (10 years ago it seems, so you were really 120 % wrong), the IPv6 spec continued to be updated, and, guess what, nearly nobody used IPv6. But it was used during kernel 2.4 time, to connect to an experimental high speed edu network, encapsulated in IPv4 of course.
The IPv6 of Linux was completely functional and worked at least with this one and only IPv6 internetwork.
Now, the updates on IPv6 weren't implemented, because, you see, IPv6 worked with the project I just talked about, and nothing else could use it.
USAGI helped put the already working Linux IPv6 stack up to date. But this stack was already there and working since even before 2.2.
The new improved and well maintained IPv6 stack was integrated in Linux 2.6 (that's also many years ago, mind you, 2003 IIRC), as IPv6 is more used today.
So yes, IPv6 was in Linux 2.2, and you are indeed really clueless beyond all recognition.
And if I want to concede to you, in a laaaarge kind move, that you were talking about the latest extensions of IPv6, you would still be completely wrong, as you said Linux doesn't even have an IPv6 stack. And you're wrong 120 % anyway, because Linux had even that years ago, and it's well tested everyday, which is not the case with the Windows Vista stack.

Fred: One correction - Windows NT was designed from scratch to be mutli-user. It was due to the legacy of DOS and Windows 3.x and 9x that Microsoft made the poor choice of promoting people to use Admin account all the time.

On my laptop in XP, i always use limited user just like Linux and i do runas to get an admin command shell and do my admin work.

So it is wrong to say that Windows as it is today wasn't designed for multi-user, it is just that Microsoft gave preference to user friendliness over security. So yes if you blame Microsoft for bad decision i would agree, but i wouldn't agree if you say Windows is inferior in technical terms.

...but i wouldn't agree if you say Windows is inferior in technical terms.

I didn't. Just different.

I still think multiuser in anything Windows has been an afterthought...or badly designed, depending on how you look at it But alas, that's not really the point in this thread, not the point I'm trying to make. Any comparison between Windows and non-Windows OSes ultimately fail because there's really so little common ground to compare on.

I agree that windows NT is built multi-user, and I respect any effort to run it limited user.

I, for one, admin a few XP boxes. Needless to say, I have them adequately locked down and thus suffer from little malware. However, I simply cannot achieve the same amount of ease running in limited user as admin in windows-land as in linux.

Moreover, with the implementation so focused on legacy compatibility, the multi-user OS is designed mono-user and becomes a chore to run in enterprise settings. Hence the view that the multi-user OS is "multi-user".

Furthermore, CrazyDude0, the rest of the people who replied to you had great points. And they have evidences to support why TOE is not exactly sought-after, why windows isn't exactly the networking king (and IPv6 too) and so forth. If you are going to dismiss their viewpoint as being politically inclined, it will show more about you than about them.

Finally, this is really off-course. No. This is total derailment. Please do not continue with it.

twenex - if you spend some time honestly appreciating Linux than badmouthing windows, may be you will do community a favor.

Oh, I appreciate Linux every day, believe me.

I was checking the comments and it seems twenex is in every thread about windows and is badmouthing it. Whats up with that?

Because it's crap?

EDIT: That's not the whole story though. I can't think of a single other industry where a single range of products holds such a dominant place in the industry, let alone one that fails so abysmally in comparison to the competition.

Actually, if you actually read my comments you'll see I don't so much "badmouth Windows" as "shoot down dangerous anti-Linux FUD".

Why are you so infatuated?

"Infatuation" implies positive, if needlessly exaggerated, feelings.

Usually people who badmouth others are the ones who don't have confidence in their own stuff so they want to bring the other down by badmouthing.

Erm, no. People don't badmouth dictators and criminals because they secretly feel that torture, theft and rape are good ideas.

Linux camp is badmouthing Windows for years but instead of Windows falling, it made windows more stable and now making it more secure. Ahh too bad for them.

Yeah, Windows now is a BIT more stable, a BIT more secure and a LOT more bloated. And maintains its illegally-gained 90% desktop market monopoly.

Film at 11.

Meanwhile, Linux, the "free, hobby OS that won't be big and professional like GNU and is a cancer programmed by emotionally-challenged communist h4ck0rz in their parents' basements" now has over 25% of the server market, and growing (at a faster rater than Windows).

Edited 2006-12-07 00:59

11.8% in Q3. It was 12% in Q2.

I believe that's revenue share, not market share. Market share is indeed around 25%. Don't confuse the two (either unintentionally or on purpose).

Rapidly approaching zero.

No. Rapidly leveling off at 5%, more than Windows.

You've made your unscientific prediction many times. How about giving it a rest until after Q4 to see who was right, hmm? In the meantime, I'll keep providing my own estimate everytime you mention yours.

I wouldn't waste your breath. Er typing. I doubt you could change NotParker's mind if you gave him a brain transplant.

Or do I mean "implant"?

Linux has a .4% installed base as I've proven.

You haven't proven anything, as I've demonstrated many times. Moreover, you're not even talking about the correct topic! This was about *servers*, NotParker! Play pay attention.

Gartner and IDC, which you yourself claimed were respectable sources, establish Linux market share at around 20-25% for servers and 2-2.5% for desktops. Of course, you only accept their estimates when they serve your agenda, and then claim they are biased towards Linux when they don't...

The ritual stalking of the heretic!

No, simply countering your disinformation, that's all.

Since both Gartner IDC put server sales for Linux at less than 12%, and smaller than that in previous years, that is mathematically impossible.

Gartner and IDC talk about revenue, not installed base. Since many Linux servers installs are not bought copies, but downloaded (and installed on legacy hardware), that is not only possible but very logical.

Post your source Mr. Ritual "Math Challenged" Stalker.

"In servers, IDC predicts Linux’ market share based on unit sales will rise from 24% today to 33% in 2007, compared with 59% for Windows. In a survey of business users by Forrester Research, 52% said they are now replacing Windows servers with Linux. On the desktop side, IDC sees Linux’ share more than doubling, from 3% today to 6% in 2007, while Windows loses a bit of ground."

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=6932

As for desktop, Gartner also points out that 40-80% of Linux installs are replaced by a pirated copy of Windows.

That was only for desktop computers sold pre-installed with Linux in Asia, and you know it. On the other hand, it means that in 20 to 60% of these cases, Linux is kept on the PC...that's not a bad percentage, actually.

But go ahead, post some numbers Mr. Stalker.

I did, but you'll conveniently ignore it, as you do *every time* you are proven wrong.

Oh, and "stalker"? Is that your new insult for me? Poor NotParker, still incapable of having a normal, rational discussion, always resorting to ad hominem attacks...

You are so funny. You cult members are sooo threatened by reality.

I think you're the one feeling threatened here. That would explain why you lash out at those that provide counter-arguments to your FUD.

As long as you keep misrepresenting the same statistics to further your agenda, I'll be there to make sure the truth comes out.

Meanwhile, Linux ... now has over 25% of the server market ...

I read that number here a few times. Where does it come from?

I know a few large enterprises with hundreds of servers. The only place you see Linux is in special-purpose appliance boxes, like specialized firewall machines (IDS and such). I.e., where the vendor supplies and maintains the box.

Moreover, it is not uncommon to meet a windows sysadmin who has inherited a unix box to maintain, and who complains about unix being a PITA to work with.

Now, I'm talking about command prompt unix, not Linux with GNOME/KDE, but the point is, many non-enthusiastic IT personal simply have an aversion to anything unix-ish.

Personally I feel the 25% share number is a _gross_ over estimation.

Moreover, it is not uncommon to meet a windows sysadmin who has inherited a unix box to maintain, and who complains about unix being a PITA to work with.

Well, could that be because he's a *Windows* sysadmins?

Many studies have shown that Linux servers require a lot less maintenance than Windows one. Speaking from experience I can tell that this is true.

many non-enthusiastic IT personal simply have an aversion to anything unix-ish.

That's because they don't know it as well. If they did, they would most likely *prefer* it, as it is a lot easier to maintain once you're familiar with it.

Personally I feel the 25% share number is a _gross_ over estimation.

The overwhelming majority of Web hosting companies use Linux. Most of the Internet runs on Linux.

IDC set server market share at 28% in Jan. 2005. Back then they estimated that it would be at 33% now.

This is how Microsoft takes criticism and act on that. What does Linux community do, they say RTFM, RTF configuration files etc and the classic do it yourself as if every user can compile kernel LMFAO:)

Actually, Microsoft's modus operandi is to make the minimum amount of improvements they can get away with, whilst spreading FUD about competitors' products and increasing the size of their "operating system" by multiples of 100%. Linux, on the other hand, has gone (in the time between Windows ME and Vista) from needing to be edited via configuration files - a perfectly reasonable requirement, and one which makes a lot more sense than the bloated Registry - to being almost totally configurable via GUIs.

With vastly improved hardware support.

And improved user interfaces.

Oh, and the last bit of news is that whilst going through the options can be tedious, compiling the kernel is not hard. The computer does it for you.

Fixing that
requires expertise beyond reach for the typical consumers.

So installing software is "beyond the reach of typical consumers"?

DRM for Linux uncertain, and multimedia will depend on DRM more in the future.

Linux does not want DRM - like the majority of people with more sense than money.

So installing software is "beyond the reach of typical consumers"?

In this case, yes. Consumers usually haven't heard of dvdcss or something that is needed for playing DVD movies. They don't know what to look for, they can't find it. Installing some particular pieces of software is beyond the reach of typical consumers. Correct.

Linux does not want DRM

Couldn't put it better myself. That's why Linux is 1% -3% of desktops. Linux does not want consumers. Linux wants hackers. DRM is very likely to be requirement for
multimedia in near future. Do you expect people to
listen to Stallmans speeches in OGG format, instead of
music ? Get real. No DRM = no multimedia, except pirated.

"They don't know what to look for, they can't find it. Installing some particular pieces of software is beyond the reach of typical consumers. Correct."

I haven't looked in a while but for entry-level distributions you normally find them, well placed. I've seen Ubuntu screenshots of a simple click dialog box, for codecs, mp3, and dvd all in one place. I'm actually quite surprised this hasn't been resolved elsewhere.

Its easier that installing a codec pack

"Couldn't put it better myself. That's why Linux is 1% -3% of desktops. Linux does not want consumers. Linux wants hackers. DRM is very likely to be requirement for
multimedia in near future. Do you expect people to
listen to Stallmans speeches in OGG format, instead of
music ? Get real. No DRM = no multimedia, except pirated."

I'm actually quite shocked at this. Clearly you are not familiar with the web today...people want their DVD players to come with DivX.

DRM is not a Linux issue its not even an OS issue. Its a people like to feel they own stuff. Its a battle not yet fought.

It used to be the likes of Stallman who talked about DRM...its becoming everyone.

In this case, yes. Consumers usually haven't heard of dvdcss or something that is needed for playing DVD movies.

So put an icon on the desktop saying "Get DVD movie software here"?

Linux does not want DRM

Couldn't put it better myself. That's why Linux is 1% -3% of desktops. Linux does not want consumers. Linux wants hackers.

Well, if only "hackers" are not stupid enough to put up with DRM, then thank God I'm a "hacker".

So put an icon on the desktop saying "Get DVD movie software here"?

That is not a bad idea. Most people do not know what they actually need. When I tried to play encrypted DVD on Linux for the first time, couple of years ago, there was just a message about copyrights, and my first impression was that I am not going to be able play DVD's at all.

It was sheer luck that I stumbld on dvdcss.

Put yourself in the position of a person who finds cheap PC with Linux preinstalled and buys it. That is consumer.

DG

"DRM is very likely to be requirement for multimedia in near future."

Only if it wont make it harder (or impossible) for consumers to listen to and view their multimedia the way they want to.

DRM is very likely to be requirement for
multimedia in near future. Do you expect people to
listen to Stallmans speeches in OGG format, instead of
music ? Get real. No DRM = no multimedia, except pirated.

Actually, it is YOU who should get real. Since there are already laws in place to prosecute illegal copying of DVDs and music, etc., no-one needs DRM except control freaks. When I buy music or a DVD, as long as I do nothing illegal with it then whether I play it on my HDDVD player, my normal DVD player, my computer or my washing machine is no-one's business but mine. If putting DRM into products forces people who don't have DRM-capable players to pirate the DRM'd content - thereby increasing, not reducing piracy, which is the technology's supposed intent - then the people who are pushing DRM will have no-one to blame but themselves. No-one.

LMFAO! The law is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Funny, I thought it was scoundrels who broke laws. And now I hear it isn't? Right, I'm off to raid the nearest liquor score. (After all, I don't want to be known as a law-abiding scoundrel).

How realistic do you consider enforcement of these laws to be? Copyright violation occurs in peoples' homes, which is slightly different than a kid holding up a gas station or a liquor store. The FBI isn't going to break down your door when you rip a DVD, CDs, etc. Consequently, intellectual property and content owners have taken the pragmatic initiative of trying to thwart illegal copying through DRM. DRM isn't intended to be foolproof. It's designed to be inconvenient enough for the average person that they won't consider it worth their time to rip a DVD, copy a game, etc. The original poster got it right. Content owners who are interested in evolving media formats are going to use DRM *more*, not less, because they see it as a means of stemming losses due to piracy.

Blah, blah.

It is a well-established principle of common law that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongfully imprisoned. It is for that reason that, whilst with a secret police force it would be possible to crack down on a vast amount of crimes which it is not possible to crack down on without one, democracies don't have them. Furthermore, private police forces are illegal. Therefore, there are two very good reasons why film distributors and so on should not be allowed to establish their own Stasi, even if that Stasi is technological, rather than human, in nature.

Lastly, if as you say DRM is intended "only to be a deterrent to piracy" then it will not, in fact, stem piracy, but it WILL cause inconvenience to customers.

Between inconveniencing and suing your own customers, the way the technology market is being led by Microsoft and others, it's all so very "stupid! stupid! stupid!" it's like a plotline from Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Edited 2006-12-07 18:18

Funny, I thought it was scoundrels who broke laws. And now I hear it isn't? Right, I'm off to raid the nearest liquor score. (After all, I don't want to be known as a law-abiding scoundrel).

Who says you haven't broken the law? I'm reasonably certain that you've broken at least a couple laws today alone.

It is a well-established principle of common law that it is better for a guilty man to go free than for an innocent man to be wrongfully imprisoned. It is for that reason that, whilst with a secret police force it would be possible to crack down on a vast amount of crimes which it is not possible to crack down on without one, democracies don't have them. Furthermore, private police forces are illegal. Therefore, there are two very good reasons why film distributors and so on should not be allowed to establish their own Stasi,

Agree. Nice straw man. I never advocated the use of secret police to break down peoples' doors. I merely used that analogy to point out that enforcement of copyright infringement law (something that you were advocating as an alternative to DRM) simply isn't working.

even if that Stasi is technological, rather than human, in nature.

Totally disagree. If I design a product, then *I* get to decide what it does and how it does it (provided my product doesn't break any laws), not you. If you don't like my product, then get over it, don't buy it, or modify the product to do what you want (with the caveat that you don't break the law in the process -- copyright violation is a clear violation of the law).

Lastly, if as you say DRM is intended "only to be a deterrent to piracy" then it will not, in fact, stem piracy, but it WILL cause inconvenience to customers.

BS, for several reasons. First, from an anecdotal standpoint, virtually nobody that I know has any idea how to rip a DVD. Second, sales of DVDs are BOOMING, which has increased competition for those dollars and, thus, caused prices to decline sharply. Whereas DVDs used to cost $25 (US), many can now be found between $5 to $10. It simply isn't worth peoples' time to pirate a $5 DVD.

Between inconveniencing and suing your own customers, the way the technology market is being led by Microsoft and others, it's all so very "stupid! stupid! stupid!" it's like a plotline from Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Between inconveniencing and suing your own customers, the way the technology market is being led by Microsoft and others, it's all so very "stupid! stupid! stupid!" it's like a plotline from Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Nonsense. For example, customers aren't inconvenienced by DVD encryption at all -- and they've gone out and spent tens of BILLIONS of dollars on DVD players and DVD movies. The only ones who are inconvenienced are those who are trying to illegaly copy the media (ie. freaks and geeks).

I'm reasonably certain that you've broken at least a couple laws today alone.

That's a completely gratuitious accusation, BTW.

First, from an anecdotal standpoint, virtually nobody that I know has any idea how to rip a DVD.

There are tons of programs that do this on Windows. Note: making a backup copy of a DVD is perfectly legal. In fact, the act of copying copyrighted media is *not* illegal - it's not even illegal to download a copy. The only illegal act is unauthorized *redistribution* of copyrighted material.

Whereas DVDs used to cost $25 (US), many can now be found between $5 to $10. It simply isn't worth peoples' time to pirate a $5 DVD.

I don't know where you live, but here new releases are always 20$+. 5$ DVDs are bargain bin items.

Nonsense. For example, customers aren't inconvenienced by DVD encryption at all -- and they've gone out and spent tens of BILLIONS of dollars on DVD players and DVD movies. The only ones who are inconvenienced are those who are trying to illegaly copy the media (ie. freaks and geeks).

False. I am a customer who buys DVDs. I have a collection of about 150, counting TV series and documentaries. I have never copied a DVD in my life. Yet I am penalized for making a legitimate consumer choice, i.e. running Linux instead of Windows or Mac OS X. Granted, the inconvenience is minor, and fixed in less than a minute, but I'm still unfairly singled out.

Meanwhile, the *vast majority* of illegal copying is done by people using Windows...

Totally disagree. If I design a product, then *I* get to decide what it does and how it does it (provided my product doesn't break any laws), not you. If you don't like my product, then get over it, don't buy it, or modify the product to do what you want (with the caveat that you don't break the law in the process -- copyright violation is a clear violation of the law).

I'd be perfectly happy not buying Windows or any other DRM'ed crap. The problem is that you often can't avoid it. And if I buy a product, then *I* get to decide how I use it.

BS, for several reasons. First, from an anecdotal standpoint, virtually nobody that I know has any idea how to rip a DVD.

Speaks volumes about the company you keep. Which in turn speaks volumes about you.

Second, sales of DVDs are BOOMING, which has increased competition for those dollars and, thus, caused prices to decline sharply. Whereas DVDs used to cost $25 (US), many can now be found between $5 to $10. It simply isn't worth peoples' time to pirate a $5 DVD.

I'm not advocating being able to pirate DVD's. But despite your hysterical fanaticism, simply playing DVD's on Linux or other open-source software is as unlike media piracy as your posts are unlike cogent arguments.

Nonsense. For example, customers aren't inconvenienced by DVD encryption at all -- and they've gone out and spent tens of BILLIONS of dollars on DVD players and DVD movies. The only ones who are inconvenienced are those who are trying to illegaly copy the media (ie. freaks and geeks).

What an utter load of stinking bullcrap. Why should I have to sit through adverts that are as long as the movie before I get to the main feature? You can do that if you want to (without DRM), but as for me, no thanks.

Yes, there are laws copying media, but DRM covers downloaded content, too. You are right, if it was only about media copying, DRM would be useless.

DG

Consumers usually haven't heard of dvdcss or something that is needed for playing DVD movies. They don't know what to look for, they can't find it.

Automatix2 is your friend. Ubuntu newbies are all urged to install it, and it may be installed by default in the next version.

DRM is very likely to be requirement for
multimedia in near future.

DRM can already be handled by the Linux kernel. However, DRM faces different legal challenges (as it limits what someone can do with the media, and therefore may infring on fair use rights).

Do you expect people to
listen to Stallmans speeches in OGG format, instead of
music ?

Well, if they're interested in RMS speeches, chances are they'd be open to using an OGG-capable media player. Fortunately, media players are not tied-in to one set of Codecs, and can play a variety of protected and unprotected media.

Get real. No DRM = no multimedia, except pirated.

That's not true. There will always be unprotected media around, and the fact that a growing portion of consumers grows weary of DRM (remember Sony's spyware fiasco) will IMO tend to limit it.

Personally, I think media companies are going the wrong way by trying to lock down information. They should stop treating their customers like thieves (DRM is a nuisance to paying customers, but has proven completely ineffective in slowing down piracy) and instead explore other business models. Fortunately, this idea is starting to gain some ground among media execs...

I'm afraid I can't mod you up. Afraid, because that post deserves it.

Here is another myth. Fortran is used because it is the best programming language available to perform certain specific computing jobs. The right tool for the job. Just as COBOL has yet to be replaced by anything for business computing. Just as Assembler

Absolutely. We're slowly moving from Fortran on HVTIP to other platforms and languages, but for airline mainframe transaction stuff the Fortran language seems to be pretty decent. Of course, we've created our own libraries of external functions over the years so it isn't just a vanilla Fortran we're using, but the core language is still Fortran 77. @FTN in Sperry parlance.