Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 20th Dec 2002 12:41 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "The Open Source community's answer is to ignore Microsoft's incredible technological lead - because it is proprietary and not a standard - and instead focusses on their own cool thing and self-gratifying cool features, because they think they can do better (which is where the ignorance combined with ego comes in)." Join the discussion at Advogato.
Order by: Score:
Is it just me or...
by Splinter on Fri 20th Dec 2002 12:54 UTC

does he really say nothing concrete in a very inflamitory manor?

A very good analysis
by Xavier on Fri 20th Dec 2002 12:58 UTC

Arrogance and outdated are certainly the main characteristic of open-source. And arrogance is a very consensual term for what is in fact a bad blend of ignorance and integrism.

What is pointed out this article is the importance of standard, which have never needed to be, or not to be, open-source. The W3C attitude about paying for standard publication is very significative on this point.

Anyway open-source have a strong advantage, they are, currently..., free as beer. And if your don't need state of the art, Linux is perfectly suited. Just run Celestia, after installing it (only a problem under Linux of course), on Linux and W2K to understand the diffrence between state of art, W2K, and outdated, Linux...

One more time, when you pay 0$, you get the amount of quality your money have purchased.

To finish, thank you Eugenia for posting something from Advogato. Which is a very good site, except maybe from the Linux trolls ;-)))

Lame troll
by Nico on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:05 UTC

One more time, when you pay 0$, you get the amount of quality your money have purchased.

Wow. You're a professionnal troller, aren't you ?

It's lack of organization/agreement between developers what
avoids linux from being way more popular. It's not really lack of software itself.

because they think they can do better
by Aesiamun on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:13 UTC

and just why is it impossible for someone to do something BETTER than microsoft?

I don't understand where the concept of Microsoft = "the best ever and ever will be" came from. I have certainly tried better things than windows and office.

RE: Lame troll
by Anonymous on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:15 UTC

Wow. You're a professionnal troller, aren't you ?

With that sort of quality? Nah, it's an amateur.

I daresay Xavier is one of those weak minded souls who equates the Linux and X combination with Dos and Win3.1

That's said, my dear Nico, of course i'm a professionnal troll. How did you guess it ?

Because i miss the magic sentence : Linux ? It's rock !

How marvelous is so a simple world...

Just be carefull, somebody may think that such simplicity is only reserved to simple-minded ;-)))

Where did you find the equation Microsoft=better ?
by Xavier on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:22 UTC

I don't think, Aesiamun, that exaggerating is necessary.

In fact better is very hard to define, for IT, it's some combinaison of price/performance/feature/ease of use.

Microsoft, as other company of yesterday and tomorrow, may be very good in some departement. But i repeat myself, for 0$, Linux is very well suited for simple usage, and time to time, less simple.


hmmm.
by Robert Renling on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:26 UTC

He doesnt state anything other than the obvious in this "article"
I read it this morning and my first thought after reading it was , why?

simple, lets negate anything remotely joyfull.

well well...

This
by Aesiamun on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:29 UTC

is where I found my conclusion that they think Microsoft is impossible to pass in terms of quality:


"and instead focusses on their own cool thing and self-gratifying cool features, because they think they can do better (which is where the ignorance combined with ego comes in)."

and not everything is in response to your trolls ;)

[i]That's said, my dear Nico, of course i'm a professionnal troll. How did you guess it ?
Because i miss the magic sentence : Linux ? It's rock ! [i]

Mon cher Xavier,

I didn't even mention linux. But what you wrote is clearly stupid. Some free softwares with 0$ cost are crap, as many of commercial softwares. But there ARE also many free softwares of great quality, which beats commercial software hands down (for example, JBoss, Apache). Cost of software isn't a good measure of software quality...
And as said earlier, with such a crap statement, you are in fact far from beeing a "professionnal" troller. Too lame. A good troller would be far more subtile.

So strange
by Aki on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:40 UTC

"... and instead focusses on their own cool thing and self-gratifying cool features, because they think they can do better (which is where the ignorance combined with ego comes in)."

This sounds odd. For the last 12 months, everybody has been speaking about how Open Source is making whatever it can to _copy_ Microsoft and its products and accusing it of forgetting its own initial drive for new things.

And now this: "ignorance", "focus on own cool things" and "self-gratification". Sounds to me somebody isn't too much up to date. Oh well.

Microsoft and Quality
by Matthew Gardiner on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:41 UTC

Microsoft is associated with quality because that is the first company most people hear of when they purchase their first computer.

There is this fiction that if they aren't "running Microsoft software", they're some how behind the "8th ball". It is all about marketing, without marketing, Microsoft would never had grown to the size it is today.

As for "OpenSource Arrogance". First of all:

1) The OpenSource community is a large and diverse community of people, ranging from the extreme "everything should be GPL and proprietary" to the pragmatic that accepts there can be peaceful co-existance between the two developer ideals. How dare some one, such as the half-wit from Advogato come up with pre-emptive conclusions based on nothing but cheap rhetoric and arrogance.

2) The OpenSource community either follows a standard that has been developed by a coalition of companies or developes one themselves, such as OGG Vorbis. Microsoft has a fixation that if it is developed by others, then obviously, it is inferior. The same complex behind Windows NT. Forget the fact that there are openstandards like the UNIX specifications and POSIX, why not just go ahead and re-invent the wheel to satisfy some zealot hatred of other companies.

3) Most OpenSource people aren't as extreme has RMS. If RMS wants to toot his horn, then so be it. He has the right of freedom of speech, which he exercises. People who think that he some how "represents the OSS movement" should truely get their brains examined. It would be like saying that every Microsoft employee agree's with the ideas of management.

Incredible
by Xavier on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:52 UTC

Matthew Gardiner :
"Microsoft is associated with quality"

Where have you find this ? Microsoft is associated with a numerous thing BUT the quality...

They speak themselve of trying to improve this departement.

The only piece of software who reveals a little quality in Microsoft software is Linux. Precisely because Linux is a pure zero quality software, except the price. That's all ;-)))

RE: Microsoft and Quality
by Justin Sane on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:55 UTC

>>1) The OpenSource community is a large and diverse community of people, ranging from the extreme "everything should be GPL and proprietary" to the pragmatic that accepts there can be peaceful co-existance between the two developer ideals.<<

Unfortunatly if you frequent Slashdot, ZDNet, Yahoo, and even OSNews you mainly see the "extreme" people you talk about. Mostly it's the Linux crowd. I've seen many stories where Microsoft isn't even mentioned and the very first message on the board is by some Linux troll badmouthing M$ and preaching Open Source and Linux. If these posts are your only exposure to the OSS crowd, you will think of them as arrogant and childish.

the arrogance of deceptive ?pr? FUDgePacking
by bob on Fri 20th Dec 2002 13:57 UTC

.combined with ill eagle payper liesense hostage ransom scams, thrown together with billyuns of J.'s hardearned dollars "disappearing", in the associated stock markup larceny.

now that's genuine unabashed Godless arrogance.

mod me DOWN eug., IT's all gooed fromnowon.

Apache ? Well, sometimes. But Jboss, please...
by Xavier on Fri 20th Dec 2002 14:04 UTC

One more time, the quality of Apache is to be free, free as beer. Apache cruelly lacks any threading capabilities, just because it is another "Linux minded" software, and Linux have very poor threading feature. But "hacker" promised that in the 2.6 or later kernel, this 20 years old feature of other system will be really implemented in Linux. That's apart, Linux ? It's rock ! The only system warping you in the past, and for 0$. I think we need to create another category of system. Operating system is not rich enough to describe Linux, NS for Nostalgia System will be perfect ;-)))

But please, Jboss is not free, you have to pay ( little dollars ) for the documentation. Anyway Jboss can't be compared with Apache, just because Apache is running...

Why focus on Microsoft at all?
by Anonymous on Fri 20th Dec 2002 14:10 UTC

I don't see why people in the open source community care at all about Microsoft. First off, they don't have to. Microsoft is a business and as such must turn a profit. It competes for those profits against other companies such as Netscape. Because of that, Microsoft needs to be concerned about whether or not their products are competitive with OSS. The day Microsoft fails to turn a profit is the day it dies. The day the FSF fails to turn a profit would be just like any other day. Thus, open source/free software will be around long after MS. The community should realize this and focus on what it does best: provide a valuable, stable, and reliable code base that all users can access and use for their computing. Let the corporations try to compete and turn profits. Whenever one of them gets killed in their game of monopoly, there is always the potential for their code to be donated to the OSS community. That could very well be the fate of Windows also. As technologies and markets change, we will see the long term advantages of the open source model more clearly.

Re: Linux backwards
by Pius on Fri 20th Dec 2002 14:11 UTC

Well, Linux certainly is backwards, but Microsoft also doesn't exactly have a point with an OS which still uses garbled three-letter extensions to determine the content of a file, and volume letters to access drives. Not to mention the root-by-default policy. Face it, MS is neither innovative nor is their OS in any way modern. Oh, and proper multithreading was introduced into mainstream Windows in 1995, that's been seven years ago (not twenty).

Is this sabotage?
by Barry Simms on Fri 20th Dec 2002 14:13 UTC

Eugenia,

Only weeks after you announce you're leaving the editorial board of osnews and now you submitting this crap?

"Linux cost nothing, therefore has no value" Hmm....how much is air again??

Puhlease! Have you suddenly turned you back on the whole "no badmouthing other OS's" -- or have you finally realized that OS discussion should be all about the zealotry?

At least be a little more subtle about the types of articles you submit.....

Re: Microsoft and Quality
by Jud on Fri 20th Dec 2002 14:19 UTC

"Microsoft has a fixation that if it is developed by others, then obviously, it is inferior. The same complex behind Windows NT."

Rather ironic on two counts, at least as I (possibly mis-) understand what you're saying:

1. NT was jointly developed by MS and IBM, marketed by MS as NT/W2K/XP, and by IBM as OS/2 and OS/2 Warp.

2. I've had two crashes in 2 1/2 years running W2K. That's a very refreshing change from Win98, which is probably responsible for more Linux downloads and sales than anything the Free Software Foundation has done. (Not at all intended as any slight to the worthiness of the FSF's efforts.)

BTW, I've got Win2K, Win98 and FreeBSD on my machine, have run QNX, and intend to install Gentoo Linux within a week or two. Each of these OSs, except Win98, is useful to me for accomplishing certain tasks.

Capitalism at it's best (worst)
by taranis on Fri 20th Dec 2002 14:27 UTC

Open source and closed source are both capable of building the better mousetrap. When you don't allow others to see your mousetrap until they buy it, and then refuse them to show it to others, you squelch the concept of innovation.

You may have the better mousetrap, but I may have the better cheese. If we can't share ideas openly, we'll never be able to make the BEST moustrap.

The conflict between open standards and business is that business wants to make money off of the product, open standards wants to make the product available to all for free.

Arrogance and duplicity
by Bannor99 on Fri 20th Dec 2002 14:37 UTC

are Microsoft's hallmarks. Those are two leads that the Open Source community would be hard pressed to equal.

Having read the complete discussion
by Bannor99 on Fri 20th Dec 2002 14:57 UTC

I'm astonished as to why this got posted on OS News. That whole thread is a waste of electrons. Eugenia, I've always thought of you as being quite picky in both your postings and reviews. So I don't get why you paid any notice to a pointless discussion.

What evidence was made to support the "incredible" technological advantage of M$. The funny thing is that for years I'd been reading that the commercial Unices had capabilities that could be found nowhere else and that M$ couldn't match them.
Lately, the common wisdom is that Linux will supplant the selfsame commercial Unices and not severely impact M$ installed base.
Here is the scenario: the "advanced" Unices are going to stand idly by while the "incredibly advanced" M$ will take over the planet and the "arrogant" OpenSourcers will do nothing?
What bullshit. I come to OS News to find quality posting. I can find crap on my own.

Technology lead
by robUx4 on Fri 20th Dec 2002 15:08 UTC

"The Open Source community's answer is to ignore Microsoft's incredible technological lead".

Maybe not for servers (well, NTFS has had stable journaling and meta-data for a long time), but for mulitmedia (my own concern), noone in the OSS world has come with something close to DirectShow. And even though it's not perfect it allows some things that would be hard to do otherwise.

Why is there an open SSL library and no open codec library ?! (with an interface usable on every OS). If you look at mplayer, gstreamer and other players, you'll see that they all want to make their own thing with them own API, and "ignoring the Microsoft lead" is exactly what they all do...

Pulleeez
by teknishn on Fri 20th Dec 2002 15:18 UTC

Dear Lord this was a sorry article. It would have made more sense in say 95-98ish years, but certainly not now. Linux has made enormous gains in ease of use and functionality in the last 2 years unequaled in this industry. Not mention its the fastest growning OS in the server space. Add the MONO project to that and we have a VERY real threat to M$.

What I get tired of hearing is the M$ trolls that havent even used Linux recently or long enough to learn it, sit and bash linux. What a joke! In contrast, most of the linux crowd is very proficiant in windows. I run Linux, windows and Netware at home and work. I recently decided that, for gaming purposes, I was going to switch back to XP from SuSE 8.1. Well, after one day I was ready to flush XP down the toilet. I was right back into linux post haste. Other than some, not all DX gaming, I have yet to find anything windows can do as good or better than linux. All it needs now is more enterprise level application support on the desktop side of things. MONO will make this an easy reality. Crossover from Codeweavers already gives you support for M$ office, lotus notes, quickbooks, several others and soon Adobe photoshop in linux.

One other rant....wtf is up with M$ prices. For love of all that is holy! I buy and pay for my linux distributions. SuSE 7.3 pro cost me 79.99 full, then came 8.0 and 8.1 at $49.99 upgrade prices. The Pro bundle comes with single click install of just about every worthy linux app in existance (2500+ on 7cds) so I really dont have to worry about downloads etc or buying more software. Once installed I am in 100% control of my machine to do with it or set it up as I please. I recently tried to buy a legit copy of XP pro for my wifes machine (cause Home edition is a pile of crap) and M$ wants $300. $149 if youre upgrading from an older version. Then you get the added bonus of WPA and are forced to live with everything the way M$ thinks you should have it. Ok...so now that youve just spent $300 and signed your computer away to M$ what have you got? Jack S--T Now all you have is a computer with OS installed. Whats that...want to write a document or a spreadsheet....not a problem, for a mere $600 more you can get officeXP pro. M$ is one of the richest companies on earth and they still insist on raping us and continue to raise prices. Then there is graphics software, photo software, antivirus, cd burning software, etc etc. So when all is said and done, if you do it legitimately, youre looking at about $1500 to $2000 in software just to get you started. Lets not forget that next year you will get to spend at least 50% of that price all over again for upgrades to the latest versions of said software.

What is arrogance anyway?
by tc on Fri 20th Dec 2002 15:21 UTC

The author states his motivation a few posts down: the Apache-team won't accept his Samba-code. Therefore they are arrogant and stuck-up.

The author looks more like a typical sore loser, reverting to name-calling.

Microsoft's "superior technology" turns out to be the same technology that the author has imitated and reproduced. So in the end, he tries to claim that his own work is superior to that of the Open Source community.

Maybe it is good work. But if it is, he could always fork off Apache to form Inca (native Americans in samba-producing areas), and let users (and Microsoft lawyers) decide if he's right.

I think the author is dead wrong where he claims Microsoft's "incredible" technical lead.

I believe Microsoft and Open Source are definitely in the same ballpark.

It is always important to watch out for turning arrogant, and therefore introverted. But I don't believe that is a dominant open source characteristic; and if the .Net supporters win over the "embrace-extend-extinguish" supporters within Microsoft, it isn't too dominant there either.

Yeah
by stahbird on Fri 20th Dec 2002 15:29 UTC

I guess we should all sit back in gratitude and admiration waiting for Microsoft to come up with great new technology for the rest of us. Maybe I'll buy a copy of "The Road Ahead" to see what they've been up to these past few years.

RE: Microsoft and Quality
by jstn on Fri 20th Dec 2002 15:32 UTC

it's a little thing called FUNDING which most open sourced projects have NONE of... stupid.

-j

MS trolls and Linux Trolls
by Al Pettit on Fri 20th Dec 2002 15:43 UTC

"What I get tired of hearing is the M$ trolls that havent even used Linux recently or long enough to learn it, sit and bash linux."

What I am tired of is linux people making up excuses for their OS's limitations and bashing everyone else.
Yes. Linux is not the perfect free OS that Linux people would have you believe. It's cool and all, but a lot of people will not use it for different reasons. Tell that yo a linux person and you are branded a stupid, mind numb person who gave your soul to MS.

all oses have their problems.
Yea MS sucks in many ways
Yea Linux sucks in many ways
Yea OSX sucks in many ways
Yea BeOS sucks in many ways

Yet I find the linux/MS people to have the biggest mouths and the first to slam everyone else for using another OS.

MS people say Linux people are to cheap, Linux people say everyone is stupid. OSX people defend themselves from both. BeOS people... Well I don't see to much from them lately

Anyway, There is alot of BS from MS/Linux people, but MS people have one a few things going for them.
#1) MS has a lot of $$$ and uses it
#2) There are a lot more MS people

"Apache cruelly lacks any threading capabilities, just because it is another "Linux minded" software, and Linux have very poor threading feature."

Well, it should be "Unix minded".
Anyway, even if you might not want to use a threaded implementation on Linux, you could use it on other platforms.
That's what Apache httpd's MPS are for.

Cheers,
Kevin

Reinventing the Burger
by Anonymous on Fri 20th Dec 2002 15:51 UTC

Was Burger King or Wendy's arrogant to think they could compete with McDonald's? Instead of recognizing that McDonald's had superior marketing and fatshare, they sought to reinvent the wheel, er burger.

Obviously with the success of McDonalds, it must be high quality given the overwhelming number of stores and burgers sold. (Billions and Billions served!)

These people must be crazy to create a burger and let people decide that they want it their way. They'll loose market share because their sauce code is too open, too.

Why do people think the Microsoft way is the only way? Unix people are used to many solutions of varied benefits and drawbacks.


Opensource and arrogance and MS
by Johnathan Bailes on Fri 20th Dec 2002 15:58 UTC

The whole thread is just silly.

1) Opensource has not ignored MS. Sometimes they try to accomodate like with Samba. Sometimes they follow like with Mono. Sometimes they immitate like gnumeric, Evolution or OpenOffice. However, most developers deep into the opensource arena never ignore MS. So when you provide a free alternative based on MS products how are you being Arrogant?

2) MS is not always in the technological lead as other readers point out but they are very keen on identifying features users want and implementing them.

This leads to a misconception of arrogance on the opensource folks. Why? Corporations like Redhat, IBM, ximian and other contribute to projects but they do not run them. The people that run them are usually folks who code this for one reason. They like it. They had an idea of how to do something and they actually -- gasp! -- did something about it. When people scream that their code or idea should be implemented the maintainers actually think of the good of the project and the code first.

The sad part is that this thread once again is going into the M$ sux versus the linux zealots crowd and that is sad.

MS has its uses. It makes a good exchange server, and the secreataries and gamers and business people need systems like MS. File servers are probably best kept on NT with Active Directory and all that even when samba starts supporting that Active this and that stuff.

I like linux for DNS servers. I got two P200 boxes that just chug with DNS and admin from webmin. Any noob administrator can deal with it. I like linux for my web servers. IIS does not cut it and even with Apache 2.0/NT2000 I have had less issues with the linux boxes. I like linux for backup servers because you don't have to dedicate Sun hardware to backup duties. I like Solaris+Oracle for database boxes.

People will probably will have different preferences and choices based on their situation but the difference is being experienced enough to realize that other people have different situations. People have different preferences and it does mean that they are M$ trolls or linux zealots.

Ah Carumba!!!!
by GGoblin on Fri 20th Dec 2002 16:04 UTC

Being a developer on both Windows and *NIX, I can see the advantages of both platforms. More often than not, I am going to use Windows for my front end and *NIX as my backend. Simply because that is where their strengths are.

I don't agree with the a lot of what MS does and find some satisfaction when open source wins out when a company or goverments switches to it. It will eventually cause MS to change their thinking somewhat and get in line with open standards. On the other hand *NIX zealots need to learn Windows users will be put off by "MS is the devil don't use it". The majority of end users are not developers and just want to surf the web, send e-mail and pictures of Johnny to their loved ones. I realize they can do that on *NIX but most users don't want to have to ./configure ... make install... now how do I run it?

I'll put my flame retardent gear on now. I'm off to catch Web Head -- Green One

@Johnathan Bailes
by Aesiamun on Fri 20th Dec 2002 16:06 UTC

Can you explain something? ;)

Corporations like Redhat, IBM, ximian and other contribute to projects but they do not run them..

Does this mean they don't run them, like "I don't run windows, I run linux", or "I don't run windows, Bill Gates does"?


Maybe I'm confused ;)

Anyway I agree with your point, except for NT being the best choice for file serving. I can't use NT server shares with Active Directory because I'm on linux. I can use any share that a linux box puts out though...same with other Unices. Windows can use samba shares...I think a Unix would be a better choice.

RE:@Johnathan Bailes to Aesiamun
by Johnathan Bailes on Fri 20th Dec 2002 16:23 UTC

Like MS runs the project that creates Windows.

Redhat and SuSE etc..etc.. do NOT run the projects that are needed to create a Linux system.

If all the linux companies went out of business tommorrow then linux development would slow to a crawl. However, linux itself would remain intact.

Redhat is a distribution of the linux OS.

Linux is made up of all these programs, services and packages. Redhat owns and runs almost none of them.

The projects, and programs are developed by people.

Some of the people are employees of Redhat, Ximian, IBM and others.

However, the maintainers of the projects do not answer to any of those companies.

Most of the people started the projects in their spare time and do NOT get paid to do them. They code these projects because they want to. Because they think it is fun. Those maintainers run the projects. They make decisions based on what they think the project and code needs.

Not Redhat, or SuSE or Ximian needs.

Samba will support Active directories soon. This will help you. If you are going to put out a file server that will be used by Windows desktops and for the project you need Active directories then Windows is your best choice right now.

Best choice?
by Chris on Fri 20th Dec 2002 16:29 UTC

"Samba will support Active directories soon. This will help you. If you are going to put out a file server that will be used by Windows desktops and for the project you need Active directories then Windows is your best choice right now."

I dunno. I use Mac OS X in a Windows network with no problems.

RE: Best choice?
by Johnathan Bailes on Fri 20th Dec 2002 16:36 UTC

My environment is very unix focued with most development being linux or Solaris based.

I use samba on linux and Solaris for a file server and the Windows clients have no problem seeing it.

Samba does not handle Active Directories right now.

My linux client can get to all the network shares at work. Why? None of them are Active Directory based. No, I do not go all command-line either. I use LinNeighborhood.

I have no idea if Macs support Active Directories on either the client or server side.


> 1. NT was jointly developed by MS and IBM, marketed by
> MS as NT/W2K/XP, and by IBM as OS/2 and OS/2 Warp.

Actually, the products that were sold as "OS/2" bear very little resemblence to those sold as "Windows NT" and its subsequent flavors.

The two share some history and some minor bits of code, but the two diverged *significantly* well before the first IBM release of OS/2 (v2.0) in 1992...

I'm inclined to think this was posted maliciously... I usually enjoy reading OSNews but was there any point at all to referencing this article?

This was trollish/flamebait pure and simple ... if you want to post articles bashing Linux or Open Source or even Windows, go ahead let's just see that they have some meat to them.

hit right on the nail
by tty on Fri 20th Dec 2002 17:00 UTC

when open source guys were arguing which OS is best,
M$ was already doing Desktop domination with Office, etc

when open source guys are arguing if StarOffice is
better than M$ office, mozilla is better than IE,
M$ is in the direction of network domination.

Just consider this: On a 28.8 kps dialup connection
can you run the latest KDE or Gnorme desktop remotely ?
I think it is not possble (your milage may vary), but
it is possible to do a win2k/xp style RDP session.

the reason is that for the most part, open source
gui/desktop are tied to the decade old X, so no matter
how good is your compression tricks, how clever the
LBX proxy, the stupid X still need to shuffle an array
of fonts back and forth several rounds between the
server (like XFree86) and the client (like netscape)
before a working window could be shown.
So apart from a few exceptions (like xterm which use
only one fixed font), X is useless even on a home
grade DSL (capped by the 128k uplink bottle neck).

yeah, more people are turning to linux/open source
for solutions, but is that because open source is
better or is that because people simply want
something for nothing ?????

if M$ shit and open source shit are priced at equal level,
people's choice will be obvious - go to any
P2P network and do a search - WinXP vs linux distro
OfficeXP vs StarOffice.


other interesting points:

1 install apps by using only the mouse

2 make a device driver without recompile the kernel

3 run an OS without the need to use a C compiler


everything does have its place
by teknishn on Fri 20th Dec 2002 17:03 UTC

My personal preferance is for:

Netware on file/print. Yes, they still win all the awards and still do it best in this category. NSS 3.0 filesystem in Netware 6.x has full support for NCP, CIFS, NFS, AFP name spaces so anything can talk to em.

Linux for web, dns, dhcp, firewall, IDS, and most other mission critical network services.

Windows for application serving. Like it or not, M$ owns this territory right now.

Email can be handled by ANY platform really. Due to security and up time issues I prefer to host email on Netware or Linux. Although Netware is much better in terms of security, Linux has all the great and free security/ antispam tools.

In my server spaces here and at home the Netware and Linux boxes are really so solid and boring that they dont even need monitors on em. While the Windows boxes do their job well, I spend a great deal of time dealing with memory leaks, security patches, and Virus updates. I think 2kserver could have been so much better if they made it a real server OS (lean and mean and secure) and not 2kpro with some server bolt ons.

As far as M$ trolls vs. Linux Zealots.....yes they are a pain. In my opinion both are a detrement to their respective platforms. I think the Linux ppl (Im one of them) are frustrated by the fact that most M$ only ppl are closed minded, proprietary, and backed by a monster company that holds a monster monopoly. In my experience, most of the ones that bash linux have no business judging anything but M$ products in the first place. Regardless, the attitude of the Linux Zealots to refuse to accept Windows as having a place is not going to help the effort. Especially when Linux cant host much applications. Most of which are win32. As far as M$ being the devil...Im not going to argue there though. They are a convicted monopolist that doesnt compete in this industry...they destroy. The fact that the Linux movement is enormous and world wide doesnt give M$ a target to paint. Which in my mind, all opinions aside, is great for the market and competition.....and generally fun to watch.

Another poorly done troll!

You can write drivers without a kernel recompile...it's called a module.

Also, you don't need gcc to run the OS.

With redhat and mandrake, debian and many others you can install software with the mouse, no need for keyboard commands.

Where are your complaints?

If...then...else
by Hug0 on Fri 20th Dec 2002 17:06 UTC

If operating systems were characters from seinfeld, i think linux would have to be george because linux zealots seem to be as frustrated as him.
MacOS X would of course be kramer as it is a weird operating system.
Newman would be beos and that leaves seinfeld or elaine for windows xp.

RE: everything does have its place
by Johnathan Bailes on Fri 20th Dec 2002 17:13 UTC

<quote>I agree with everything you say up to the Application serving part.</quote>

It all depends on the application you are serving. Some are best served by Solaris or AIX or Linux or NT. It all depends heavily on the application.

</quote>Email can be handled by ANY platform really. Due to security and up time issues I prefer to host email on Netware or Linux. Although Netware is much better in terms of security, Linux has all the great and free security/ antispam tools. </quote>

Once again, it all depends so heavily on what you need. I have seen Notes servers running on linux, Solaris, NT2000 and AIX. For Exchange there is NT2000. Groupwise the great ignored option of course I say stick with Novell complete solution. As you were saying it all depends so much on what you need and what you got and your circumstances.

ANOTHER MICKEYSOFT KNEEPAD FUDSTER
by flogger on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:13 UTC

There's nothing more repulsive than an ass-kisser licking his lips to the thought of expanding into rimjobs.

Not only is this guy obviously lying out his ass but the lies are so huge (as hitler theorized) that he believes no one will challenge them.

Mickeysoft has no innovation (they just steal from others), has no technology lead (clustering, scalability, uptime) except in blue screens.

Microsoft is shit, and if another viable vendor came along in the x86 arena (apple maybe) people would leave the windoze platform in droves. People I interact with everyday, from secretaries to ceo's, all detest windoze. It's easy to see why since sitting down at a windoze desktop is a supremely frustrating experience. Those cartoons of the guy flipping off his computer and the computer returning the salute are born of the windoze experience. It's not the computer he's angry at, it's windoze.

And now linux distros, like xandros, are actually equal to winxp, and will be better, far better, a year from now. It's mickeysoft that will be playing catchup.

Re: 2 make a device driver without recompile the kernel
by tty on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:21 UTC

> Another poorly done troll!

hehe, hard to find a linux board without trolls
all over it 8-))))

>You can write drivers without a kernel recompile...it's >called a module.

I used to make a living in writing this "module"s, so..
My point is that without the whole kernel src
and using only kernel headers, it is hard to
do a driver.

> Also, you don't need gcc to run the OS.

What about package with only src code ?

> With redhat and mandrake, debian and many others you can > install software with the mouse, no need for keyboard commands.

What if I choose mwm as my window manager ?
do I get icons/shortcuts with only mouse clicks ?

> Where are your complaints?

why do you think I have complaints ?
I enjoy linux, as much as I enjoy windows,
I simply pick the better part of both worlds.

Really ? They try to equal s*** ?
by Xavier on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:22 UTC

flogger :
"Microsoft is shit(...) the guy flipping off his computer and the computer returning the salute are born of the windoze experience"

Well, why not ? This is an opinion.

"(...) And now linux distros, like xandros, are actually equal to winxp"

But here, this is becoming very strange. Do you really want to mean that Linux try to equal shit ?

For sure, this is not a great idea ;-)))

Samba View
by redtux on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:23 UTC

I know this is basically a troll, but I would love to hear Jeremy Allisons (co-lead developer with Andrew Tridgell on Samba)tales on this

He got it all wrong
by rajan r on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:23 UTC

Perhaps the most arrongant group is Free Software developers, not open source developers as a whole. Take BSD developers for example, while they have some snobbish controversial ones, they are all more pragmatic in comparison to GNU developers. Far less snobbish. Far less arrogant.

Don't pin all open source developers as arrogant, because a minority aren't. The majority is just influenced by a highly successful Marxist philosophy.

Re: Incredible
by rajan r on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:28 UTC

Xavier, in my times of using Linux, I find it in one way or another have better quality than Windows. If you just install Mandrake or Red Hat, you would think it is a piece of junk. The reason? They use bleeding egde software that isn't tried and true, together with other bleeding edge software. Thus creating a less quality feel. But some distributions, specifically Lycoris and Xandros, keep up a very high standard of quality that might one day surpass Microsoft. My hacked-up Mandrake 9.0 box with almost everything custom behaves better than Windows XP. However, Mdk 9.0 out of the box is full of problems.

Same ol same ol
by Bastardo on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:30 UTC

The arrogance and fragmentation of the community is why Linux doesn’t have much of the desktop market. Why do we need KDE and GNOME. Why not just focus on one and make it work. People often argue that “choice” is important but what good is it when you have to choose between a bunch of half broken things.

If people want OSS to be taken seriously they need to drop all the arrogance and start building solutions that address market need. Apache is an excellent example of this kind of thinking it is a fantastic piece of software. But what I want to know is why is it that there are about 40 different OSS POP3 mail servers out there, each with their own little nuisances and minor feature differences, but not one good solid OSS groupware package which will compete feature for feature with something like Exchange or Lotus Notes.

what I think
by c on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:30 UTC

Doubt I'll add anything to this discussion but the comments have brought up an interesting point. I believe the one way for the open source ideology to succeed is for the developers and community in general to try to teach others and help others contribute more than they do now. We should go out of our way and be creative to try to make learning on Linux and playing with Linux fun. If you can make developement fun for the community you'll get more developers and better software. I bet the average teenager geek can code circles around the average sys admin. So keep it simple and make it fun and we have a chance, no matter how the community acts or how much the software costs.

<quote>I used to make a living in writing this "module"s, so..
My point is that without the whole kernel src
and using only kernel headers, it is hard to
do a driver.</quote>

However, most major drivers including all the ones available from vendors come in rpm format so you don't have to have a C compiler or the frickin' source. Pre-compiled kernel mods that install into your /lib/modules and even update your modules.conf for goodness sake.

<quote>What about package with only src code ?</quote>

Like what? I use apt for rpm to get most everything I need in straight up rpm format. Smack that together with synaptic I end not having to compile and at the same time having a gui interface to software installation. The only limitation is the bandwidth and yes it takes a while to download lots of stuff.

Honestly, if it is only available in source code then it seriously beta anyway. Like I have said before, I wish developers would not make their source code available on a website but only by request or some hidden ftp site. Why?

So, trolls would have no source code available to complain about not being able to compile. If the program is in usable shape it is available in rpm format somewhere.

If you want to complain about format and stuff complain that it takes a system with apt on it to negotiate in any way the maze of dependencies. That arguement at least has teeth because the big boys like Redhat do not include the apt solution with the distro.


<quote>What if I choose mwm as my window manager ?
do I get icons/shortcuts with only mouse clicks ?</quote>

It all depends on whether or not the distro maker supports mwm. If I use Litestep on Windows some of the themes do not generate menus without manual intervention since I am in essence not using the Start menu hierachy. If you don't use the windows desktop it is not like you can expect MS to support your dippy *Step theme. Why should Redhat or Mandrake support mwm? If the distro comes with mwm then it should support the behavior, yes. Otherwise, your complaint does not apply.

This is why I like the fact that by default Redhat 8 comes with one gui-desktop installed and that is Gnome. You have to go out and conciously choose to install KDE or anything else. If you expect RH to support blackbox or something else forget it and that is good.

It is the classic two-face arguement. Half the people complain there are no standards and the distros ought to pick a desktop or interface and stick with it.

The other half of the trolls scream and holler that there is no clean support across every single possible dipstick tiny window manager known to man and there should be better inter-operability.

> The arrogance and fragmentation of the community is why
> Linux doesn’t have much of the desktop market.

One man's "arrogance" is another man's pragmatism.

Keep in mind that much open-source software is designed and written to address a personal need, not a desire to win a more generalized market share.

> Why do we need KDE and GNOME. Why not just focus on one
> and make it work.

Which one? Who makes the choice? And who enforces that choice once it is made?

Red Hat is moving towards a unified desktop presentation, and look at the flak they've gotten. It might be a good move or not (hard to say), but such decisions have to be made within the confines of the Linux community -- they cannot be dictated.

> People often argue that “choice” is important but what
> good is it when you have to choose between a bunch of
> half broken things.

Not much different from the Microsoft world in that regard, is it? :-)

Trolling
by Simba on Fri 20th Dec 2002 18:55 UTC

"One more time, when you pay 0$, you get the amount of quality your money have purchased.

Wow. You're a professionnal troller, aren't you ?"

I love how open source zealots would rather just accuse people of trolling instead of address the alegations made. But I guess I should expect that from a lot of the open source community by now.

Bottom line is the article is largely correct. Open source has not produced anything innovative. All it has done is clone existing software and ideas.

And in many cases, yes OSS is way behind closed source software in the technology department. For example, the Linux kernel is light years behind the Solaris kernel. Example. KOffice is light years behind MS Office. (And don't tell me OpenOffice. The only reason it is as good as it is is because it was a gift from SUN that was already well developed commercial software.) GIMP, although useful, is light years behind PhotoShop.

I mean really... Outside of a few common applications like mail software and web servers, is there any open souce software that is anything more than a poorly done and semi-functional clone of a commercial product? Not really.

let's focus on the real issues here, not "arrogance"
by appleforever on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:03 UTC

Who cares about who is arrogant, or bad or good. The issue is not this namecalling and ethical crap

Bottom line, standards are important in computing: APIs, file formats, communication protocols. The MS business plan was, is, continues to be - we own the frickin' standard. Buy our stuff or don't have a personal computer that works with anything. That is good for MS shareholders. MS is just doing exactly what any business would do in their shoes.

Of course having a standard - even a one company one - is tremendously valuable and MS gets credit for having done this in the early days of the PC. Lots of companies made money and saved money because of what MS did.

But the problem is there is a better, long-term solution to "One Company to Rule Them All." It's called open standards, standards controlled by technical bodies, standards controlled by anyone and anything other than ONE FRICKEN COMPANY. So that multiple products and platforms - even proprietary ones like OS X and Windows -- can function together and communicate. Unix and its various flavors and the Internet and OSS are the model for this - nobody owns it.

MS is like the Aunt that comes and stays with the family while Mom and Dad are sick or something and then she won't go home. She makes the mistake of thinking her good deeds entitle her to free rent forever.

> Open source has not produced anything innovative. All it
> has done is clone existing software and ideas.

How many commercial single-floppy firewall products can you name?

One could argue that the DEVELOPMENT PROCESS that some open source software uses is innovative -- read the paper _The Cathedral and the Bazaar_ for more information.

> I mean really... Outside of a few common applications
> like mail software and web servers, is there any open
> souce software that is anything more than a poorly done
> and semi-functional clone of a commercial product?

Mozilla? VNC? Samba? EMACS? Perl?

How about FreeBSD?

Tao of OSes
by J on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:11 UTC

"The 'this' is also 'that'. The 'that' is also 'this' ... That the 'that' and the 'this' cease to be opposites is the very essence of Tao. Only this essence, an axis as it where, is the centre fo the circle responding to the endless changes."

Add to that...
by Aesiamun on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:12 UTC

Bind, Samba, CUPS, OpenSSH (far surpasses it's commercial cousin), PHP, Python, Eclipse...

And many more.

so, MS copied something before OSS
by appleforever on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:12 UTC

Yes, it does seem that MS copied the GUI, VMS (or whatever DEC thing they ripped off for NT), etc., etc. FIRST. Wow, that's really great, they copied before OSS copied. That's a real "technological" achievement.

One of the funniest things about OSS to me is precisely this. MS's whole modus operandi (taken from the old IBM playbook) is offer something very standard, not leading edge, and win in the market on things other than "being better." They have NEVER been "better." It was always "good enough," (just barely), and then win based on other things like marketing, predatory pricing, etc.

Along comes Linux and OSS and at least initially the goal is not to make something better, just something as good and free. Just like MS, copy and good enough - except free and not controlled by one company.

Re: Trolling
by Kevin on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:12 UTC

"I mean really... Outside of a few common applications like mail software and web servers, is there any open souce software that is anything more than a poorly done and semi-functional clone of a commercial product? Not really."

Well, which no opensource desktop system has a network- and protocol transparent IO architecture like KIO?

Cheers,
Kevin

You are being used......
by Nad S on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:16 UTC

....all of you who are joining into this argument, are really just being used by Eugenia to 'get back' at the owners of this site, IMHO.

So, please feel free to continue the flames, but understand at least that you are pawns in someone elses game. She set you up and is laughing at what she's created now.


Would any of you, in your right mind think that this article was actually submitted because she honestly thought it would be worth discussing?????


Where's the innovation?
by Simba on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:16 UTC

"Mozilla?"

Sorry. It's nothing more than a gift from Netscape. Not innovative.

Samba?

A clone of many commercial products that existed for years before SAMBA was even concieved. SAMBA hardly introduced file and print sharing between Windows and UNIX.

EMACS?

And bloated editor that includes everything except the kitchen sink? What's so great about that?

Perl?

So what? It's a scripting language (and some would say not a very good once since it encourages lousy programming). Nothing new here.

OpenSSH

Still a clone. nothing invovative here.

PHP

A clone of ASP based on the C language. Nothing innovative about embedded scripting languages.

Do you see the point? There is nothing inovative about any of these. They are copies of already existing ideas.


How about the fact...
by Aesiamun on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:19 UTC

That they are all free...gifts to use and change to make better...

What has your beloved MS every given you besides bluescreens?

Microsoft is based on other people's software...

DOS? purchased from someone else
Windows? MacOS
Excel? Lotus123

Besides the fact that they aren't original...they cost more than they are worth.

The Mono project
by Jason Becker on Fri 20th Dec 2002 19:51 UTC

I just wanted to reiterate what others have already said. The Mono project completely demolishes that totally biased and hopelessly naive argument.

http://www.go-mono.com/index.html

Present and Future
by Nathan on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:00 UTC

I switched to Linux from Windows about a year ago for three reasons; first, I'm a student interested in software development. That's synonimous with being poor and in need of decent tools. Linux is great as a developer's platform, whereas Windows can't shed its candy coating, which makes it harder to learn about computers. Second, there's much more flexible liscencing with Linux stuff.And finally, most important of all, I don't believe anyone for a single second who says Linux today is better than Windows. That's just wrong. But at its rate of development compared to MS's, I think it's safe to assume it'll be the best in the biz within a couple of years, and I'm trying to get a head start so that when Linux / OSS / free software becomes more powerful, I can be comfortable using it right off the bat. I'm working on inferior software with the understanding that it's a good sized investment. If ya don't think OSS is gonna pass MS within a few years, compare IE with Mozilla!

Innovatin wtf.
by blah on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:08 UTC

I've seen an awful lot of posts complaining about a lack of innovation in OpenSource software, and an engineer am confused.

Innovation is a funny thing, it means very different things to different people.

for me, all I want from an OS is:

Games/Applications that do not crash or cause memory leaks. I want drivers to be available for my hardware, the day that I buy them and I want them to work. I don't want to key in anything other than my user name and password on installing my OS. I love the ability to add/remove/modify software, especially the OS. I want the ability to add/remove/modify EVERYTHING--I'm an engineer and as such, my arrogance tells me that I can always make something better than a large corporation looking to cut costs (though obviously not cheaper, in terms of time & money.)

Innovation, bah. To me Win95 B/C were innovations when compared to Win95A, because 90% of my driver problems were fixed. Win95B/C IS A COPY OF THE MAC OS--that makes it NOT INNOVATIVE in terms of "the future of computing." whatever the hell moving target that is. Win 2k, & Win Me were 2 steps backwards (for me) because they broke compatibility with some software & hardware. If they released some support, even slow but working emulation support for these games (especially the 5star games,) I would still be using 2k.

in the past month I've installed Gentoo, Red Hat, Mandrake, Attempted BeOS (hardware incompatibilites prevented it form working,) Windows XP, Windows 2k. I'm new to linux, but have used PCs since DOS 5 (DOSSHELL.) Recently I stopped by a Macintosh store to look at their high end dual 1.25GHZ machines w/ OS X.


Please note that I have never read a windows manual. I hate manuals.


1) Of these, OS X looked the nice and was easiest to use (though the fact that EVERY SINGLE THING YOU DO MUST BE DONE EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WINDOWS makes things a little difficult to learn [like playing baseball with a lefty glove.])

2) XP/2K were easiest to install (though I can't get it to work on an i440BX system with a P3 Tualatin CPU.) They are both fairly easy to use (except for networking--for some reason windows likes to reset certain configurations over and over.) Also, I am an adult and feel that I know what's best for me. I don't like that fact that I can't choose ANYTHING other than removing support for handicapped keyboards. They also run modern Direct X games at full speed. (A big plus.)

3) Gentoo was a bit of a pain to install (at 2 hours a day [i'm very busy,] I'm on my 5th day & haven't been able to install it yet (though I'm on the last step, setting up (/boot HDA1 etc.) on a celeron 333MHz i810E board with a 40Gig drive & 288MB RAM. Compiling took like a day, and just updating apps took like 6 hours (the merge thing.) Bootstrap.sh took a long time too. I know it's a slow system but seriously, this OS would GREATLY benefit from an installation script or something similar. Being completely new to linux, I was able to figure out basic command line comands. If I didn't print out the x86 installation guide off their website, I would have NO WAY to install Gentoo. I'll find out how it works in about another day when I have more time.

4) I used Mandrake 9.0 for about 2 weeks using Ice, KDE & Gnome. I really liked ALL 3, though I liked ICE the most. I have & had no idea how to install software on this OS. I download LGeneral, figured out how to unTar it. Then what? I tried looking around, no luck. The software Mandrake comes with is nice though! The OS ran VERY SMOOTH. Operations that would take some time to do were done in the background, not hogging up all my resources (it truly felt like multi-tasking wasn't just a marketing term anymore as in windows.) I was VERY impressed with it--though I didn't get to fully use it because I really need a tutorial for installing software & CVS.

5) I'm very interested in APT GET & Gentoo's portage system, sounds pretty good, hopefully I'll figure out without too much trouble.

6) BeOS Max edition froze in booting from the CD, so I wasn't able to install it (i even tried safe mode, but the mouse pointer would appear, then the system would reboot.) There needs to be some work on supporting older hardware.


7) The main reason I am even looking at Linux is that I REALLY DON'T LIKE DUAL BOOTING. I think it's stupid and unnecessary. Breaking support for older software really annoys me. Breaking support for older hardware annoys me more. I look forward to using Wine/Winex or Bochs to run my old favorite games. My only alternative is Windows Me. Me boots nice n quick, but has WAAAAAAAY too many memory leaks & quirks (like not being able to make a DOS boot disk.)

My whole point to this is: What may not be innovative for you is certainly innovative for me. You want an innovative experience, then buy a Touch screen monitor, or use the mouse that you "think" to make it move. I like better mousetraps, especially the kind that don't snap on you when you're installing them. I like the kind that do what their supposed to do, always.

MS innovation
by Hug0 on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:13 UTC

what about directx? and please don't tell me hardware accelerated xfree is better.

Though, open-source is highly innovative
by Xavier on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:14 UTC

But certainly not where you wait for it : software. Just raise your head to the command line, and read the first characters : http... pure open-source but far for gpl, as are tcp-ip or ethernet.

The article from Advogato is right, open-source SOFTWARE developpers are mainly arrogant, and always outdated.

Open-source, one more time far from gpl, is strong in two domains :
1/ where then is no money
2/ where there is too much money to be bearable by one company

Basically the 2/ is very often standard specification, thank you Vinton Cerf ;-)

The 1/ is "pre-software" idea, getting out from university research, object computing, IA and so on ( Rank Xerox lab for the GUI, Bells lab for Unix ). As soon as a market exists for an idea, open-source software become instantly outdated compared with the commercial one.

That said, the general idea behind GNU stays very interesting, because it succeed in transforming IT on a common resource, as are "natural" language, English or Chinese for sample. Not a bad result, and really usefull ;-)





RE: Where's the innovation?
by Johnathan Bailes on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:17 UTC

Neither side is really innovating at this point.

What the hell is MS doing that Sun or someone else before them were not already doing?

Not a lot.

Some of the greatest innovations of opensource are getting long in the tooth and some already have alternatives.

BIND

INN

APACHE -- if there was no decent web server available at a decent price then their would be no WWW.

FTP

TCP/IP stack.

linux kernel -- it ain't unix so don't even bothering the unix-clone crap. No decent kernel to run GNU utilities on before this.


The key is that the opensource folks are still playing catch up considering the fact that the OS itself is a lot younger than the Windows project. Free software and ideas made the Internet age. Free utilities run on every commercial Unix server I know of because it is the first thing most sysadmins do is grab their favorite gnu utilities. Apache runs the web.

The key is seeing the next vista.

I don't see much innovation coming from the monopoly. It never does. Monopolies do not innovate. R&D at Apple is down. I do not see it there. Perhaps when the OSS people get over the idea that they necessarily have to keep playing catch up, they will understand that the only thing to do next is to innovate. The way that Deniss Ritchie, Ken Thompson and Bill Joy did before them.

Site Blocked
by Tux on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:23 UTC

lol I'm not sure what is on that site exactly, but I'm at school at the moment, and when attempting to view the article I'm getting:

www.advogato.org

"HTTP Error

Status: 403 Forbidden

Description: Organizational policies prohibit access to this page."

look at the facts
by dhuv on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:24 UTC

This is not true at all. Microsoft came out with C# and some people though there was a lot of good things about it. Thats why they created Mono the open source implementation of it. The thing that people dont notice is this. Both Microsoft and open source software have been taking things from each other from the beginning. Look at the network utilities that newer versions of windows is starting to offer. Microsoft sees how handy they are to unix administrators and decide to rip them off freebsd and put them into their own os for their admins. So it has and always will go both ways. Also Microsoft probably will come out with an implementation of something first, this is because geeks dont release something thats very buggy, marketing on the other hand does.

re: Present and Future
by J on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:27 UTC

That's synonimous with being poor and in need of decent tools. Linux is great as a developer's platform, whereas Windows can't shed its candy coating, which makes it harder to learn about computers.

Borland offers free command line tools for windows. If you want to learn about computers download a C64 emulator and learn some 8-bit assembly.

What a worthless article.
by David Bruce on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:28 UTC

As far as I can tell, the author just threw out a lot of flamebait and told the readers to have at it. There wasn't a single bit of news in the article, just some inflammatory opinions. It doesn't belong on OSNews.

Okay, I admit that is also just an opinion ;-)

RE: look at the facts
by Johnathan Bailes on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:32 UTC

Very true!

MS took the network utilities and pretty much TCP/IP stack from BSD/Unix (Bill Joy's code).

Still, Miguel takes the Mono idea, Gnumeric is based on Excel, OpenOffice is a clone of MSOffice etc..etc..Evolution is clone of Outlook.

Apple stole so many of the GUI ideas from Palo Alto labs.

It is all bullshit. Anytime, someone innovates in the most minor of matters someone will be right there to copy it, reverse engineer it, and put it out on a different OS.

Re: OS/2 and Windows NT are *NOT* the same...
by Jud on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:40 UTC

Richard Steiner says:

"The two [OS/2 and NT] share some history and some minor bits of code, but the two diverged *significantly* well before the first IBM release of OS/2 (v2.0) in 1992..."

Their development has certainly diverged in many respects, but they share, for example, a filesystem (called "NTFS" for New Technology File System by MS and "HPFS" for High Performance File System by IBM).

I'll leave it to you whether you consider a common filesystem to be a "minor bit of code."

Jud

M$ Innovation
by teknishn on Fri 20th Dec 2002 20:41 UTC

"what about directx? and please don't tell me hardware accelerated xfree is better."

xfree isnt a game platform...but SDL is. SDL, while still in its infancy, has already totally proved it can compete with DirectX. Unreal Tournament2003 is a great example. Give it time to grow and itll be as good as directX easily.

Everyone needs to stop and realize just how much OSS has advanced in the last 2 years. Its advancing WAY faster than M$ or any other type of software is. OSS is already closing in on, meeting, or even beating Windows2000 and WindowsXP in terms of technical capability,functionality and ease of installation and use. The next version of windows (Longhorn) isnt slated until 2005 and, if history means anything here, it will probably slide even further. At the current rate OSS is advancing, by that time it will be wiping the floor with M$. Project MONO will be rocking and, with it, porting M$ applications to Linux will be a breeze as well as linux app development in general. Its funny, but M$ highly touted .NET (paving the way for MONO) will probably be the biggest boon to OSS and Linux to date.

Regardless of what happens though, we all need to keep open minds and use the tools best suited for the job.....and freedom and choice are good things.

RE: Microsoft ripping off FreeBSD
by Gil Bates on Fri 20th Dec 2002 21:48 UTC

"MS took the network utilities and pretty much TCP/IP stack from BSD/Unix (Bill Joy's code)."

So true, and furthermore, MSFT's hefty Services for Unix/Interix add-on product is based 80-90% on straight BSD code. How about that?

"Lunix? It's crock!"

About tcp/ip and MS
by Hug0 on Fri 20th Dec 2002 21:53 UTC

I thought MS bought their tcp/ip stack from trumpet software i think

Along with talking right things about Linux and Microsoft, you are doing same as many Windows users: you know Linux and don't know/want to know other OS'es.

(Free/Net/Open)BSD are. FreeBSD is very powerful server and (yes, you can believe me or not) _desktop_ OS, strict and reasonable designed. I know that in reply to my message some trolls will start trolling: a) "BSD is dying"; b) BSD is for servers. Neither is correct. Just go to ftp.freebsd.org, get an iso image, burn it onto CD, read The Handbook and install and use FreeBSD as either server or desktop.

--
Guy, who run FreeBSD on both servers and desktop machines.

re: Innovation
by Simba on Fri 20th Dec 2002 22:19 UTC

Everything you listed except Apache was developed under academic research, which I tend to seperate from OSS as we are now talking about it. And even Apache is questionable since it is heavily based on NCSA HTTPd, which was developed under academic research.

But all that aside, Apache isn't even that great of a Web server. It's main redeeming quaility is that it doesn't cost anything. But performance wise, it isn't all that great compared to say, Zeus or something.

"linux kernel -- it ain't unix so don't even bothering the unix-clone crap. No decent kernel to run GNU utilities on before this."

Oh come on. Don't try to tell me it isn't a UNIX clone. It obviously is. The only reason "it ain't unix" is because they would get sued if they called it that.

And what of the GNU utilities? They are just clones of UNIX utilities. There's nothing special about them.

re: BSD
by Simba on Fri 20th Dec 2002 22:21 UTC

"I know that in reply to my message some trolls will start trolling: a) "BSD is dying"; b) BSD is for servers. Neither is correct."

No, that is not correct. But what IS correct is that all the BSD innovation occured when BSD was still a research project at UCB. So even this isn't a very good example of OSS innovation.

YES
by someone who is annoyed on Fri 20th Dec 2002 22:47 UTC

i agree with this man. you open source people pat yourselfs on the back for figureing something out that microsoft took 5 minutes to do in 1996, stop your whiny little bitching and get to work if you are at all serious about this.

advogato: portuguese for "mediocrity"
by PJM on Fri 20th Dec 2002 23:52 UTC

This was an extraordinarily poorly written and poorly thought out little blog entry. Why bother posting it to osnews.

RE: Simba
by Iconoclast on Sat 21st Dec 2002 00:08 UTC

I love how open source zealots would rather just accuse people of trolling instead of address the alegations made. But I guess I should expect that from a lot of the open source community by now.

So what, pray tell, about anything that Xavier ever posts about Linux is not a troll? It is very difficult to discuss something intelligently with somebody who a) has a large chip on their shoulder, and b) is highly irrational and incorrect?

Bottom line is the article is largely correct. Open source has not produced anything innovative. All it has done is clone existing software and ideas.

Unlike Microsoft who is always innovating. Let's see:
Word Clone of WordPerfect
Excel Clone of Lotus
Access Clone of Paradox
Windows Clone of MacOS
XBox Clone of every other game console every conceived
SQLServer Clone of many other relational databases
ActiveDirectory Poor clone of NDS
C# Clone of C/C++ and Java
WindowsXP Clone of the Teletubbies

Need I go on? Since every product produced by every company nowdays is a clone of something, can we please get off this stupid "Microsoft is innovative and OSS isn't innovative so it's bad" drivel?

I mean really... Outside of a few common applications like mail software and web servers, is there any open souce software that is anything more than a poorly done and semi-functional clone of a commercial product? Not really.

Perl, Python, Ruby, CDParanoia, Zope, JBoss, many of the games, KDE, fetchmail, procmail, Bogofilter, Cinelerra, Mozilla, etc, etc, etc.

RE: Simba again
by Iconoclast on Sat 21st Dec 2002 00:21 UTC

I don't mean to pick on your posts, but this is a continuation of the last one.

"Mozilla?"

Sorry. It's nothing more than a gift from Netscape. Not innovative.


Have you actually used the version of Netscape that was given to the Mozilla team and then used the current version of Mozilla? I would say quite a bit of innovation has occured.

Samba?

A clone of many commercial products that existed for years before SAMBA was even concieved. SAMBA hardly introduced file and print sharing between Windows and UNIX.


See my comment on cloned software in my last post. All software is cloned nowdays; even Microsoft's. It doesn't have any bearing on the discussion so please get over it. It is a non-issue.

EMACS?

And bloated editor that includes everything except the kitchen sink? What's so great about that?


I think EMACS sucks and I never use it, however, considering the bloated mess that is VisualStudio, which even includes a kitchen sink, I don't think bloat can be considered as a disqualifying factor.

Perl?

So what? It's a scripting language (and some would say not a very good once since it encourages lousy programming). Nothing new here.


Actually, there is quite a bit that is new and is not found in the Microsoft world (except for in ports of Perl). Perl is superior to any technology that Microsoft has produced at parsing and working with strings. Also, Perl doesn't encourage bad programming, but encourages people to use it by being flexible. If you're a C programmer you can code perl C-Style. If you prefer a different language, perl can acommodate you as well.

OpenSSH

Still a clone. nothing invovative here.


You must hate Windows and other Microsoft products, which are all clones.

PHP

A clone of ASP based on the C language. Nothing innovative about embedded scripting languages.


So, ASP is a clone as well.

Do you see the point? There is nothing inovative about any of these. They are copies of already existing ideas.

Funny, it is exactly the same with all Microsoft products as well. So I plead again, can we please get off of this "clone" focus and discuss something that is relevant?

MS IS FOR THE MASSES
by MR WINDOWS on Sat 21st Dec 2002 02:05 UTC

Windows is for the mass of humanity who wants to use a computer. They want to install programs using an auto-run CD. They want to install printers and scanners, + digital camera's with the double-click of a mouse button. They want to surf the internet and download music, burn CD's, and play POOL on Yahoo without having to install a plug-in for their web browser in order to do it. Why is Mozilla so great if it won't play pool on Yahoo? Why is Linux capable of being as easy to use as Windows, yet it is so fragmented by hundreds of distributions that they all compete with themselves instead of the real competition? Microsoft will always be the greatest OS ever. Simply by the fact that 90% of the worlds computers run Windows. The only thing keeping Linux from challenging MS is the ARROGANCE of the various linux distributers. United we stand? Not Mandrake, Suse, UL, Deb, Redhat,Lycoris, Elx, Peanut, Libranet,Icepack, Lindows or any other.Together they would be overwhelming, apart, they are insignificant. The more Linux distro's there are, the more Microsoft gloats.

RE MS IS FOR THE MASSES
by Iconoclast on Sat 21st Dec 2002 02:46 UTC

No need to shout.

Windows is for the mass of humanity who wants to use a computer. They want to install programs using an auto-run CD. They want to install printers and scanners, + digital camera's with the double-click of a mouse button. They want to surf the internet and download music, burn CD's...

So it's for the average?

Although you can do all that stuff under Linux, if Windows is what you want then use it. I don't recall anyone saying you can't.

However, since you brought it up. Linux users want to have stability and control over their system. They want to automatically grab email off their ISPs server and sort it into folders after passing it through spam filters. They want to run their own web and mail servers. They want to have a solid development platform. Or in a nutshell, they want to do more with their computers and have more control over them.

As I've said before, I use Windows and Linux. I don't understand the self limiting mentality of looking at multiple products and becoming all religous over one and becoming an overzealous evangelist against the others.

...and play POOL on Yahoo without having to install a plug-in for their web browser in order to do it.

You have to download Flash and Shockwave in Windows and IE the same as you do in any other OS that supports them if that's what you're referring to.

Why is Mozilla so great if it won't play pool on Yahoo?

Either it can, or the pool site uses very poor HTML or a proprietary IE plugin. I would tell you, but I'm not willing to sign up for one of their accounts.

Why is Linux capable of being as easy to use as Windows, yet it is so fragmented by hundreds of distributions that they all compete with themselves instead of the real competition?

For exactly the same reasons Microsoft is going to fragment WindowsXP. By offering customers a customized version of an OS, one that suits their needs, you make a better environment for your customers to work in, thus making them happier.

Microsoft will always be the greatest OS ever.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha...that was good. I wasn't aware it had achieved a measure of greatness yet let alone greatest status.

Simply by the fact that 90% of the worlds computers run Windows.

So, by that logic, are people in the U.S. who speak fluent English greater than those that don't since more than 90% of the U.S. speaks English? I think not.

The only thing keeping Linux from challenging MS is the ARROGANCE of the various linux distributers.

No it isn't. The only thing keeping Linux from challenging MS is end users, just as they were what kept OS/2 from challenging DOS and the Windows 3.1 shell. Most users have been conditioned to accept Microsoft unconditionally, and it will take a lot to change that.

United we stand? Not Mandrake, Suse, UL, Deb, Redhat,Lycoris, Elx, Peanut, Libranet,Icepack, Lindows or any other.

Actually, SuSE and UL are united since they are one in the same thing.

Together they would be overwhelming

No they wouldn't for the user reason listed above.

apart, they are insignificant.

To you perhaps.

The more Linux distro's there are, the more Microsoft gloats.

Having worked there before, I can say with confidence that MS isn't gloating.

No innovation huh?
by Anonymous on Sat 21st Dec 2002 02:46 UTC

Try checking out openmosix.sourceforge.net sometime.

RE: No innovation huh?
by Iconoclast on Sat 21st Dec 2002 02:54 UTC

OpenMosix is really cool, as is Moshe Bar. However, this will not convince the Linux pundits because it isn't related to playing games online, writing a Word document, downloading music, or brown tonguing Bill and Steve in some way.

I'm not saying that anti-Linux Windows users are dumb in any way, I'm just saying the level they operate their computer at is different than the level a Linux user operates their computer at. It's like trying to explain to a hamster how to drive a car. You can't since you and the hamster are operating on completely different levels. The hamster will never understand.

Just so nobody takes offense, my comparison is regarding computer usage habits and not intelligence.

@Iconoclast
by Johnathan Bailes on Sat 21st Dec 2002 04:31 UTC

It is true iconoclast. I am tired of trying to say that all OSes have their places and no one is really innovating in either the private for profit or the OSS sectors. Hopefully the R&D labs funded by the private sector or the university labs will crank some big new changes out soon.

I am tired of trying to answer the trolls in a reasonable manner.

OSS, Mac and Windows folks have not made any huge innovations in years. That is half the damn problem with the software industry. There is the big monopoly and then there is everyone else that spends all their damn time worrying about the big monopoly.

No instead the trolls focus on my comments on old innovations. fine. To hell with it.. I am going to bed.

The next time I get a web project up that allows searching on information about any server in our organization on multiple categories with a relational database backend and get all up and running in three days and no cost to my employer while still doing my other daily duties -- I will think about how linux, apache, postgres and php all suck as technologies and how I should have done it with Windows solutions. You are right they are not unix people and they won't understand. At least I understand they have a right to want to do things their way.

Why there are so many folks who turn every discussion into an OS pissing match is beyond me?


...
by rajan r on Sat 21st Dec 2002 04:51 UTC

Bastardo: The arrogance and fragmentation of the community is why Linux doesn’t have much of the desktop market. Why do we need KDE and GNOME.

Without GNOME, KDE wouldn't be GPL-compatible. Without GNOME, KDE wouldn't have half as much features as they do now. Without GNOME, KDE 2 wouldn't have been as ambious as it was. Merging the two is impossible. The different ways used by GNOME and KDE developers, the technical differences, the different visions and goals. I rather keep them separate but compatible.

Red Hat is moving towards a unified desktop presentation, and look at the flak they've gotten.

Most of the vocal critism came about the changes with kdelibs and Qt, not the look. The look coupled with a thinking that RH is making KDE look and feel like GNOME was the last draw. KDE was pretty much irrational, but then again, RH had never been especially nice to KDE either.

Simba: For example, the Linux kernel is light years behind the Solaris kernel.

I beg to differ. The only reason why Solaris is better is because of the maturity and the SMP code. Things that no longer be considered an advantage when the kernel gets NUMA and grows with age. But in many ways, especially the overall design, I think the Linux kernel is way better than the Solaris kernel.

Simba: Example. KOffice is light years behind MS Office.

It may be lightyears away in terms of features, but I think it is rather innovative. Look how fast it moves from one height to another with so little developers. Then look on how the applications actually integrate.

Besides, I would like to note, KOffice doesn't specifically clone any product. In fact KWord is more influenced by FrameMaker than MS Word.

Richard Steiner: Mozilla? VNC? Samba? EMACS? Perl?

I would like to note most of the manpower behind Mozilla is Netscape employees, while Samba is a clone.

appleforever: Yes, it does seem that MS copied the GUI, VMS (or whatever DEC thing they ripped off for NT), etc

As for Microsoft copying the GUI, why oes every Machead brings this up. Every other desktop OS copied the GUI, except maybe Apple which gave Xerox stock options in exchange for the idea.

Plus, as for NT< while the whole world was either cloning DOS or UNIX, Microsoft decided to clone what would be best for them, VMS. They didn't purposely clone VMS, their research team head once work at DEC.

appleforever: MS's whole modus operandi (taken from the old IBM playbook) is offer something very standard, not leading edge, and win in the market on things other than "being better."

And we all wonder why nobody could beat Microsoft so far. It is easy, not many understand it. Microsoft doesn't just use something very standard. They only implement features when they know their customers wants them. They are smart, they don't waste money on some cool-whiz idea and then nobody really uses it.

Simba: And bloated editor that includes everything except the kitchen sink? What's so great about that?

If you can call this editor bloated, then you can call things like Office and Windows bloated. Because of the features. I only used EMACS for about a month, and using the features, it was hard to move to Kate (but I did anywa because of the integration with KDevelop).

Simba: Still a clone. nothing invovative here.

Actually, if you check it out, OpenSSH had already surpass its commercial cousin.

A clone of ASP based on the C language. Nothing innovative about embedded scripting languages.

I tried to learn PHP and ASP once, while PHP can accept ASP scripts, pure PHP is very different than ASP. Plus, PHP is around the same age as ASP, so I wouldn't say PHP cloned ASP.

Hug0: what about directx? and please don't tell me hardware accelerated xfree is better.

hardware accelerated xfree is a competiting product to GDI+ not DX. DX's competitors are like SDL, OpenDX, OpenGL, etc. Besides, early versions of DirectX were a clone of IBM's own product (i forgot the name)

I don't see much innovation coming from the monopoly.

Neither would I if I didn't use a magnifiying glass. Microsoft did this way before they even got a monopoly. They only do something innovative if they know there would be a positive market response. That's why they leave it to their competitors to test the market.

dhuv: Microsoft sees how handy they are to unix administrators and decide to rip them off freebsd and put them into their own os for their admins.

Nope, they may have clone it from FreeBSD, but I doubt the code is taken from FreeBSD. Mainly because both OS is very different technically. (Besides, as far as I know, network administration in .NET Server and FreeBSD is very different).

Hug0: I thought MS bought their tcp/ip stack from trumpet software i think

I doubt it, Trumpet Software is in a very different market than Windows. Check this out: http://www.trumpet.com.au/products.html

Simba: But performance wise, it isn't all that great compared to say, Zeus or something.

I have no saw one recent (meaning less than a year old) benchmark that says Apache is slower than Zeus.

Simba: But what IS correct is that all the BSD innovation occured when BSD was still a research project at UCB. So even this isn't a very good example of OSS innovation.

At this point, I found out that you have a very warp idea of OSS. OSS was invented for research and development. Was used by things like BSD and Apache. You are confusing it with Fee Software. Very different. Free Software doesn't care about research and development, but rather conquering the world with a communist philosophy.

Ironoclast: Word Clone of WordPerfect

Actually, Word was a clone of WordStar, that's why WP and Word is so different then and now.

Ironoclast: Windows Clone of MacOS

Early versions of Windows (i.e. 1.0, maybe 2.0), yes. But later on, they were also highly influenced by other UIs, specifically from Amiga, OS/2 Presentation Manager, OS/2 Warp, etc. The reason people think Windows is a clone of Mac OS is that Apple sued Microsoft for using a copyrighted metaphor.

Ironoclast: XBox Clone of every other game console every conceived

Actually, I would say a clone of a PC, with a console feel.

Ironoclast: WindowsXP Clone of the Teletubbies

That one was funny :-)

Ironoclast: Have you actually used the version of Netscape that was given to the Mozilla team and then used the current version of Mozilla? I would say quite a bit of innovation has occured.

Guess where most of the innovations come from? Netscape employees. Netscape's distribution of Mozilla cannot just add in features like Mozilla. Remember, it is a commercial product.

YES! very true! very true! very true!
by Anonymous on Sat 21st Dec 2002 06:19 UTC

Where truth is! There innovation is!
only harmful ppl lies or can't says anything that helpful!


all by myself

Jesus.
by Miles Robinson on Sat 21st Dec 2002 07:26 UTC

This article is a complete 100% troll. I'll save myself from both Windows and *nix users alike and not even bother feeding it, thus bringing the flames down upon me.

You only have to read the synopsis for crying out loud. "and instead focusses on their own cool thing and self-gratifying cool features, because they think they can do better (which is where the ignorance combined with ego comes in)." Shoot me now.

Please
by Anonymous on Sat 21st Dec 2002 09:15 UTC

Could we have one microsoft thread without half the posters shortening Microsoft to M$? I think we can get the jist of your hatred of microsoft from the substance of your post, thank you very much.

Re:Anonymous (IP: ---.218.39.244.dslextreme.com)
by Pat on Sat 21st Dec 2002 10:42 UTC

I couldn't agree more. I imagine they would have a heart attack if suddenly everyone started calling Open Source 0$. It's childish, and its just something to hide behind with the actual arguments are quite limited (imho).

This is what I picture everytime I hear someone use M$:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2002-7-22&res=l
I stab at thee! ;)

Pat

KOffice vs. MS Office
by David Bruce on Sat 21st Dec 2002 10:51 UTC

"Example. KOffice is light years behind MS Office."

A few months ago I saw an article about the KOffice team, and it included a picture of _all_five_or_six_of_them_ sitting around a coffee table. Seriously, what these guys have done hacking in their spare time is astonishing. MS Office has been the effort of hundreds or maybe even thousands of programmers working for over fifteen years.

For anyone who compares MS Office with KOffice, remember that the difference in development effort spent is at least 1000 to one, and the difference in money invested in development is even more disproportional (divide by zero errors, anyone?) IMHO, both KOffice and its developers are great.

Re: KOffice vs. MS Office
by rajan r on Sat 21st Dec 2002 14:02 UTC

Actually, the main reason behind the reason why KOffice took so fast is that a lot of technology, like KParts, were already there. Plus the fact that they already have a clear picture of what they want KOffice to end out like. Not only that, because it is a closely knit team, unlike in Microsoft, a person may do more.

Personally, if I had the money, I would hire them all to work full-time.

RE: About tcp/ip and MS
by William Clifford on Sat 21st Dec 2002 14:28 UTC

I thought MS bought their tcp/ip stack from trumpet software i think

Well the BSD liscense allows people to incorporate code into a propriatary product. Possibly that's what trumpet did and when MS bought them they didn't realize what exactly they were getting. I could see them being somewhat bitter about this...

Re: PLEASE
by teknishn on Sat 21st Dec 2002 17:34 UTC

Childish my ass.....Microsoft = M$ PERIOD. 1) its a lot quicker to type than spelling out the whole word and 2) Any company that is a convicted monopolist, has billions upon billions of cash, and still thinks $900+ for an OS and office suite is a fair price, and is constantly finding new ways to charge business' and consumers more money automatically gets the S replaced with a $


On a side note....with regards to what OSS software is as good or better than Windows counterpart....we cant forget MPlayer. MPlayer just destroys any other media player on any platform. Why is it the best? Cause it can play EVERYTHING...you name it, it can play it. Its also has a very small footprint and is very fast.

Re: Please
by Pat on Sat 21st Dec 2002 18:41 UTC

1) its a lot quicker to type than spelling out the whole word and

I hope you're joking. Your argument would be a valid justifaction for calling Microsoft MS, not M$. M$ is still the childish/immature/idiotic/whatever way to refer to the company. Abbreviations have nothing to do with it. Seems like your understanding of logic is quite flawed...

I also don't feel like getting into the technical details, and you don't seem too interested in the truth anyway, but it is not illegal to have a monopoly, and as such MS (<--) has not been convicted of such. Maybe you should go back and re-read your Slashdot article.

Stating the obvious
by JJ on Sat 21st Dec 2002 19:23 UTC

"One more time, when you pay 0$, you get the amount of quality your money have purchased."

Well more than half the SW I ever bought is from companies that are long gone. The rest might still be here in one form or another, but rapid changes can leave me feeling pretty abandoned sooner or later no matter how much I paid.

re: Simba && BSD
by Alexandr Kovalenko on Sat 21st Dec 2002 19:42 UTC

> No, that is not correct. But what IS correct is that all
> the BSD innovation occured when BSD was still a research
> project at UCB. So even this isn't a very good example
> of OSS innovation.

Do not agree, just to note: SMPng, KSE, snapshot support for filesystem (not transactions), GEOM (which is abstraction layer for accessing to storage devices: i.e.: you have some very wierd device which can store data and anouther, different wierd device which can store data. If you have drivers for both (I mean hardware drivers), you can merge them via GEOM using appropriate "plugin" to make RAID0 array, for example, or make RAID array from NFS-served storage and external firewire device and USB flash drive, it doesn't matter what is physical layer).

Here you can find detailed description:
http://people.freebsd.org/~phk/Geom/

again, how many of the MS defenders have Windows padded resumes?
by appleforever on Sat 21st Dec 2002 20:06 UTC

Just wondering

RE: Please
by teknishn on Sat 21st Dec 2002 20:31 UTC

M$ is and always will be M$. Thats the way it is, if you want to whine about it fine.

"I also don't feel like getting into the technical details, and you don't seem too interested in the truth anyway, but it is not illegal to have a monopoly, and as such MS (<--) has not been convicted of such"

Who says Im not interested in the truth? Im certainly not interested in it from you since you obviously havent followed the case very well. Federal Court ruled that Microsoft......excuse me...M$..ILLEGALLY maintained their monopoly. Since it was established that they BROKE the law with NO APPEAL, the only thing at issue with the recent appelette court was the remedies. And even those are being appealed by Virginia and Massachusetts. Shall we go on....lets talk about why the other states dropped out of the action. Oh ya M$ bought them off. This was widely publicized by several major affiliates recently. I believe the deal was like 7 to 9 million per state to drop out of the appeal of CKs decision.

Regardless, M$ WAS convicted of illegally maintaining their monopoly.

re: Iconoclast
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:09 UTC

"Have you actually used the version of Netscape that was given to the Mozilla team and then used the current version of Mozilla? I would say quite a bit of innovation has occured."

I've used it (mostly on Windows. But on FreeBSD some). I wasn't all that impressed with it, and the Java support is buggy. I did file a bug report in Bugzilla, but I don't think anything has been done about it yet. (Not a big deal. The Java bugs are more of an annoyance than anything else. Not serious.)

"See my comment on cloned software in my last post. All software is cloned nowdays; even Microsoft's. It doesn't have any bearing on the discussion so please get over it. It is a non-issue."

It's an issue when all you are doing is copying software and not making any improvements on it. There is still inovation in software. For example, Sun's dynamically patchable kernel is pretty inovative.

"I think EMACS sucks and I never use it, however, considering the bloated mess that is VisualStudio, which even includes a kitchen sink, I don't think bloat can be considered as a disqualifying factor."

Well, granted this is opinion here, but I think EMACS sucks. And it goes completely against the UNIX philosophy. As far as VideoStudeo, yes, it sucks too. Give me VIM for my programming editor and I am happy.

"Perl doesn't encourage bad programming, but encourages people to use it by being flexible. If you're a C programmer you can code perl C-Style. If you prefer a different language, perl can acommodate you as well."

Perl does encourage bad programming. Even experienced perl programmers will admit that they often have a hard time figuring out what their own code does when they have to revist it a year later. Perl allows too many shortcuts and stuff that are little used and give you no clue what they do just by looking at the code. With Perl it is far to easy to say "I don't need to comment this because it's obvious what it does." But a year later, it isn't so obvious anymore.

Compare that with say... Python... A language where you can say "I don't need to comment this because it's obvious what it does." and 9 times out of 10, you are right. It is obvious what it does and it is easy to figure it out again when you revisit it a year later.

"Funny, it is exactly the same with all Microsoft products as well. So I plead again, can we please get off of this "clone" focus and discuss something that is relevant?"

I think it is very relevant because OSS software, and particularily the GPL, discourages inovation in software because people can't capitalize on their ideas.






re: openmosix
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:11 UTC

"Try checking out openmosix.sourceforge.net sometime."

Sorry, MOSIX was developed by Hebrew University as an academic research project in supercomputing. It was another gift horse given to the OSS community.

BSD and SMP
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:15 UTC

"Do not agree, just to note: SMPng"

Lets remember that FreeBSD didn't get decent SMP support until the BSD/OS code was merged in, which of course, was not developed in an OSS environment.

re: rajan r
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:22 UTC

"I have no saw one recent (meaning less than a year old) benchmark that says Apache is slower than Zeus."

Apache 2 fixed this problem to a certain extent, but not completely.

Apache 1.x was slow by nature because its single threaded programmming caused it to constantly fork. Forking a new process is time consuming.

Apache was hampered even more when running on Linux because Linux has a relatively lame process scheduler. Improvements were made in kernel 2.4, but it is still relatively lame.

"I beg to differ. The only reason why Solaris is better is because of the maturity and the SMP code."

The Solaris kernel device driver mechanism is also superior. As is the fact that it can be dynamically patched on the fly. There is no Linux kernel where you can do that. And the SMP support is a pretty big thing on server platforms. Also, Solaris has a better process scheduler.

"I tried to learn PHP and ASP once, while PHP can accept ASP scripts, pure PHP is very different than ASP."

Remember that you don't have to write your ASP scripts in Visual Basic. That is just the default language. But you can also write them in Java, or any other language which you have support for. I believe IIS has J-Script suppor by default. You just have to specify in the ASP header that you are using J-Script instead of VB.

re: MSOffice / KOffice
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:25 UTC

"Seriously, what these guys have done hacking in their spare time is astonishing."

That doesn't change the fact that it is light years behind MS Office. And to the average person, it isn't very useful. For one, it can't work with Word documents. For anyone who has to colaborate, that is essential. Like it or not, Word is an industry standard and any other word processor that wants to seriously compete needs to have Word support.

StarOffice's word support, on the other hand, is nearly perfect. It even supports revision tracking.

a good point
by teknishn on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:31 UTC

"I think it is very relevant because OSS software, and particularily the GPL, discourages inovation in software because people can't capitalize on their ideas."

This is an excellent point from a developers point of view. Although Im very happy with the software OSS provides for me, Im really looking forward to the day .NET and Mono are the basis of most windows and linux apps. When that happens, it will be much much easier for ppl and companies to capitalize on their innovations by building great software that is easy to run on/port to any platform. Developers will, for the first time be able to have a nearly identical codebase for their project that will run on windows, linux or unix.

Although its way early in the game, here is an early example of whats in store for developers with (.NET, Mono, C#):

http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS2017249197.html


Re: BSD && SMP
by Alexandr Kovalenko on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:36 UTC

> > Do not agree, just to note: SMPng
> Lets remember that FreeBSD didn't get decent SMP support
> until the BSD/OS code was merged in, which of course, was
> not developed in an OSS environment.

SMPng is rewritten implementation of SMP obtained from BSD/OS 5.0.

Please refer to:
http://www.freebsd.org/smp/

Alexandr Kovalenko
by phil on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:48 UTC

Do not agree, just to note: SMPng, KSE, snapshot support for filesystem (not transactions), GEOM (which is abstraction layer for accessing to storage devices

None of those are innovative in the sense that they are something new and original.

SMPng: fine grained locking, woo. Just like virtually every other modern operating system.

KSE: woo, kernel threads. About time.

Sanpshot support: woo, something every other LVM toting OS supports.

GEOM: woo, a proper block layer. /me stares at his Linux based HDD-NFS RAID1 setup.

I'm sure you're stoked that FreeBSD is crawling out of the precambian, but other operating systems proprietary and otherwise have already been there and done that.

Arrogance
by Lee Nooks on Sat 21st Dec 2002 21:54 UTC

>> "Ignorance with ego"

Thru the years I learned some things about human nature. One is that Murphy´s laws apply: the expert ones are those who look less savvy. A corollary is that calling others ignorant reveals ignorance of the accuser.

About ego -- well, frankly, my dear... Do you expect us Linux users to get docile and pay Microsoft without questioning? Or maybe the idea is that hipocrisy game of "tolerated, if not promoted, piracy" of MS products?

Nein, danke. Even when free software solutions are worse than their MS equivalents, copy proprietary products annoy my soul -- so Microsoft will be "no game" until the day they offer free products for Linux (like Internet Explorer).
Even them they´ll have a hard time, as many programs (Mozilla, Galeon, Opera, Konqueror, among others) already kick IE´s lame ass in lightness, speed, security, features, and overall looks... ;-)

Microsoft has lead in the same sense gasoline has lead.

Free or open source software is unleaded.

And, besides, using a MS product will make me look idiotic. Even more!

re: phil
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 22:01 UTC

Obvious flame bait, but I am going to bite it anyway...

"I'm sure you're stoked that FreeBSD is crawling out of the precambian, but other operating systems proprietary and otherwise have already been there and done that."

Oh really? Is that why FreeBSD benchmarks up to 30% faster than Linux at serving up HTTP requests? Is that why FreeBSD's process scheduler blows Linux's scheduler away? Is that why FreeBSD manages memory better than Linux. And perhaps most telling of all, is that why Warner Brothers chose FreeBSD to render special effects for The Matrix, giving the reason that the Linux software they were using performed better under FreeBSD's Linux ABI layer than it did under native Linux? Come on.... When FreeBSD can run Linux software better than Linux itself can run it, there is a problem here.

re: re:phil
by teknishn on Sat 21st Dec 2002 22:13 UTC

"Oh really? Is that why FreeBSD benchmarks up to 30% faster than Linux at serving up HTTP requests? Is that why FreeBSD's process scheduler blows Linux's scheduler away? Is that why FreeBSD manages memory better than Linux. And perhaps most telling of all, is that why Warner Brothers chose FreeBSD to render special effects for The Matrix, giving the reason that the Linux software they were using performed better under FreeBSD's Linux ABI layer than it did under native Linux? Come on.... When FreeBSD can run Linux software better than Linux itself can run it, there is a problem here"

Nearly all of the above issues will be a much different story next year when the 2.6 kernel comes out...rememeber Linux is still the new kid on the block. Despite that, it is rapidly replacing Unix in the market. As far as the Matrix rendering, yawn. Linux has been and will be used to render several movies. Off the top of my head I can think of Titanic and the new StarTrek: Nemesis movie that just came out. Im sure there are several others too.

Dont get me wrong, Ive got nothing against FreeBSD, but Linux is the future.

re:Simba
by phil on Sat 21st Dec 2002 22:43 UTC

Is that why FreeBSD benchmarks up to 30% faster than Linux at serving up HTTP requests?

It does? I'm having trouble imaganing under what load, given that it's bio and buffer subsystems are fairly poor and it completely lacks a multithreaded network stack.

Is that why FreeBSD's process scheduler blows Linux's scheduler away?

I really don't think it does. Maybe you can provide us with some relevant benchmarks? FreeBSD's processor scheduler is very simplistic, below the rather dumb stock Linux 2.4 one in many ways. Most certainly a couple of orders of magnitude below Ingos' rather nice O(1) scheduler which most distros are shipping with now. FreeBSD 4 even lacks kernel threads for goodness sake.

Is that why FreeBSD manages memory better than Linux.

FreeBSD's memory management is rather good in low end situations, I'll give you that. Anything out of the ordinary and it's a different story... remember that Linux 2.4 isn't an unstable, newly introduced kernel anymore. It's stable, tested and performant.

Furthermore, the VM in 2.6, like so much in 2.6, is simply top of the class.

And perhaps most telling of all, is that why Warner Brothers chose FreeBSD to render special effects for The Matrix, giving the reason that the Linux software they were using performed better under FreeBSD's Linux ABI layer than it did under native Linux?

Sure, in 1999! Let me repeat: 1999! Since then we've seen Linux clusters adopted by practically every major movie house and Linux clusters appearing in the T500 list.

Kernel 2.6
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 23:01 UTC

"Nearly all of the above issues will be a much different story next year when the 2.6 kernel comes out..."

This is called vaporware. I don't care what kernel 2.6 WILL do. What can Linux do for me now?

re: More Linux
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 23:12 UTC

"It does? I'm having trouble imaganing under what load, given that it's bio and buffer subsystems are fairly poor and it completely lacks a multithreaded network stack."

Under extremely high loads. That's where Linux becomes unstable and where its lame process scheduler starts to bog down.

"FreeBSD's memory management is rather good in low end situations, I'll give you that. Anything out of the ordinary and it's a different story... remember that Linux 2.4 isn't an unstable, newly introduced kernel anymore. It's stable, tested and performant."

I've seen FreeBSD servers handle loads that cause 2.4 Linux to crash and burn. Linux is still unstable with very high loads.



re: More unsubstantiated opinion
by phil on Sat 21st Dec 2002 23:23 UTC

Under extremely high loads. That's where Linux becomes unstable and where its lame process scheduler starts to bog down.

and

I've seen FreeBSD servers handle loads that cause 2.4 Linux to crash and burn. Linux is still unstable with very high loads.

Nice. I've seen FreeBSD fall over in a catastrophic deadlock when a process simply malloced too much memory. I've attempted to port sophisticated multithreaded apps to FreeBSD only to be thwarted by the incredibly piss poor thread support.

For every anecdote you have, I can provide a counter. I had, obviously mistakenly, assumed that you had rigorous benchmarks to unerpin your claims.

re: phil
by Simba on Sat 21st Dec 2002 23:54 UTC

"Nice. I've seen FreeBSD fall over in a catastrophic deadlock when a process simply malloced too much memory. I've attempted to port sophisticated multithreaded apps to FreeBSD only to be thwarted by the incredibly piss poor thread support."

Granted FreeBSD's thread support sucked until 5.0.

But I wonder if you know how to properly tune FreeBSD? Admitidly, FreeBSD sucks out of the box. Even SysAdmin didn't know how to tune FreeBSD, which is why they ran such a horrible article. SysAdmin didn't even know enough to enable soft updates on the file system.

As far as things being unsubstantiated, I didn't see you back up your claim that FreeBSD is just now coming out of the cambrian era.

re: simba
by phil on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 01:15 UTC

Granted FreeBSD's thread support sucked until 5.0.

The hypocrisy is strong in this one!

This is called vaporware. I don't care what kernel 2.6 WILL do. What can Linux do for me now?

So, we can't talk about the features in 2.6, but you can talk about the features in 5.0

@_@

I didn't see you back up your claim that FreeBSD is just now coming out of the cambrian era.

I think I did; all of those features are already present in other operating systems, including Linux, and have been for ages. Only a complete cretin would claim that FreeBSD 4.x - the current production version - isn't lacking in all manner of modern features.

FreeBSD is better?
by Lee Nooks on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 01:38 UTC

Fine. Accepts heavier loads than Linux? Great!

While I would like to see some numbers -- *when the need for such loads come up* -- I have no hidden agenda preventing me to recommend FreeBSD to customers.

A few moments ago I searched for "pchealth" in Google and IE executed an illegal operation (I´m at some relatives´ house now). This is totally unexplainable in straightforward terms. It´s like that butterfly moving its wings and causing a storm thousands of kilometers away.

This is a typical example of "technological lead".

RE Simba
by Iconoclast on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 02:29 UTC

I've used it (mostly on Windows. But on FreeBSD some). I wasn't all that impressed with it...

Just curious. What's not to be impressed with. It is more secure than IE, It supports tabbed browsing. It has a decent spam filter. And so on and so on.

It's an issue when all you are doing is copying software and not making any improvements on it.

Such as what. For example, I think ogg vorbis in a huge improvement over MP3. I think that OpenSSH in a huge improvement over its closed source counterpart. In my opinion Zope and OpenACS are an improvement over any of the content management systems I've used under Windows. And the list can go on and on.

Perl does encourage bad programming.

Perl is an inanimate and intangible thing. It cannot sway developers one way or another regarding programming skills. I think this statement is as funny as Sun claiming Java encouraged good programming. Well guess what. There is a hell of a lot more to programming than syntax, and Java doesn't help a lousy programmer become a good program regardless of what Sun says. The same is true in the opposite direction with Perl.

If you can't tell what your software does a year later, then your a lazy programmer who doesn't comment code.

Perl allows too many shortcuts and stuff that are little used and give you no clue what they do just by looking at the code.

That's what comments are for. If you don't use them that's your fault.

Compare that with say... Python...

Python is a very cool language.

I think it is very relevant because OSS software, and particularily the GPL, discourages inovation in software because people can't capitalize on their ideas.

Ogg Vorbis, Zope...but I repeat myself...again.

Re phil: linux 2.6 && FreeBSD 5.0
by Alexandr Kovalenko on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 04:02 UTC

So, we can't talk about the features in 2.6, but you can talk about the features in 5.0

FreeBSD 5.0 does exist for now ;)
5.0-RC2 released. And 5.0-RELEASE will be ~January 10th, 2003

Surprised? http://www.freebsd.org/releng/ will help you ;)

Re: phil: kernel 2.6 blah blah
by teknishn on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 06:50 UTC

"This is called vaporware. I don't care what kernel 2.6 WILL do. What can Linux do for me now?"

"FreeBSD 5.0 does exist for now ;)
5.0-RC2 released. And 5.0-RELEASE will be ~January 10th, 2003"

Vaporware my ass, its no more vaporware than BSD 5. Kernel 2.6 is available right now too (under the 2.5.xx development tag) just as BSD 5 RC2 is. http://www.kernel.org To call somthing vaporware that has been in development for well over a year, is in feature lock, readily available, and close to an official release doesnt make any sense. Regardless.....2.4.xx kernels r0><0rs

Its pretty sad that you dont care what any future enhancements may bring, but if you must be that way then fine. As far as "What can linux do for me now"....whatever you want. I was simply making a point that 2.6 will do all that the 2.4 kernels can do only much much faster with a lot more features and improvements.

TechLead?
by JT on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 13:22 UTC

The fact is that discussions (nearly) useless becausa TechLead or not, M$ has the money... stop.

Maybe OpenSource is copying in many ways from M$... The main reason is only to fill the Gap between universal standards existing through many OSes and M$ own standards trying to destroy OS intercomunication (and competion). Extremely obvious. M$ is a company and it will try all can to eliminate competition with all the weapons it its possess (many!).

On the other side M$ with all the minds hired in the last 20 years has copied (implemented? integrated) more from other platforms/OSes than all other together copied from them. From multitasking/threading (existing on game machines like Amiga 10 years before) to Active directories (BeOS?), and so on, and still didn't catch up in some features like datatyping, localisation, simple and unified interapplication scripting for ALL applications on the platform, and, and and....

RE Simba
by JT on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 13:30 UTC

Just curious. What's not to be impressed with. It is more secure than IE, It supports tabbed browsing. It has a decent spam filter. And so on and so on.

IE has the most technological advanced SPAM server integrated in it :-)

re: phil
by Simba on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 16:22 UTC

"So, we can't talk about the features in 2.6, but you can talk about the features in 5.0"

5.0 is due out in less than a month and the RC2 is already available. When is kernel 2.6 due out? Not for a hell of a long time yet.

"I think I did; all of those features are already present in other operating systems, including Linux, and have been for ages. Only a complete cretin would claim that FreeBSD 4.x - the current production version - isn't lacking in all manner of modern features."

As if Linux versions prior to 2.4 weren't? I mean come on. Linux didn't even have a decent filesystem. ext2fs was crap. And it was dangerous on servers with high transaction load.

re: IconoClast
by Simba on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 16:27 UTC

"Just curious. What's not to be impressed with. It is more secure than IE, It supports tabbed browsing. It has a decent spam filter. And so on and so on."

It's Java support is buggy, it doesn't render complex pages correctly, and its still fairly crash prone on Windows.

"Perl is an inanimate and intangible thing. It cannot sway developers one way or another regarding programming skills."

Even Eric Raymond, a well known Perl advocate, admitted after trying Python that Perl encourages bad programming, and that someomes he couldn't decypher his own Perl code when he revisted it a year later.

And god forbid you would have to maintain an application written in Perl by another programmer.

"There is a hell of a lot more to programming than syntax, and Java doesn't help a lousy programmer become a good program regardless of what Sun says."

Of course there is. But syntax determines to a great extent how maintainable your code is, especially by others.

re: Phil
by Simba on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 16:31 UTC

"I've seen FreeBSD fall over in a catastrophic deadlock when a process simply malloced too much memory. I've attempted to port sophisticated multithreaded apps to FreeBSD only to be thwarted by the incredibly piss poor thread support."

BTW, I've seen Linux lock up tight because of a buggy paging system. I've seen it do this under even virtually no load.

re: Simba
by phil on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 16:49 UTC

As if Linux versions prior to 2.4 weren't? I mean come on. Linux didn't even have a decent filesystem. ext2fs was crap. And it was dangerous on servers with high transaction load.

2.4 has been in production for two years now. Comparing a current production release of one OS to a previous generation production release of another OS just smacks of desperation.

FreeBSD is only now catching up to the features Linux has had for two years or more. Furthermore, 5 is not production ready, and is unlikely to be for a while yet (yes, I've got four machines running it in the lab). Read the FreeBSD 5.0 EAG.

BTW, I've seen Linux lock up tight because of a buggy paging system. I've seen it do this under even virtually no load.

Nobody cares about your anecdotes.



The article
by Jay on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 18:11 UTC

Why are all of you arguing? The very short article that spawned this thread made one point, a point that could be debated.

We know that Microsoft is like a shark, never sleeping or resting, always on the hunt. That is not meant as a bash - when you're number one, you have to do that.

If there is arrogance in the OSS movement, it is the type that must be there. If you are programming or working for OSS in some other capacity, you have to believe that it at least has the potential to be the best. If you did not believe that, then there would be no point in being involved - it would be an act of futility. When participating in something like OSS, one has to have a psychological impetus to keep going, to keep moving ahead.

If a person looks at Microsoft and its Roman like armies or programmers and business tactics, and you want to change this situation, you have to get yourself into a certain state of mind - you have to be a believer. If that seems like arrogance, then so be it. It is better than giving up and surrendering. Diversity in computing is essential and must be there. For OSS to keep moving ahead, those who work in it and support it have to have some 'tude.

re: phil
by Simba on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 20:34 UTC

"FreeBSD is only now catching up to the features Linux has had for two years or more. Furthermore, 5 is not production ready, and is unlikely to be for a while yet (yes, I've got four machines running it in the lab). Read the FreeBSD 5.0 EAG."

Shows how much you know about FreeBSD. RC-2 is available right now, and the official release will be available on January 17th.

And the reverse is also true. Linux is just now catching up to the stability and performance of FreeBSD for server use. That game can be played both ways.

re: anecdotes
by Simba on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 20:36 UTC

"BTW, I've seen Linux lock up tight because of a buggy paging system. I've seen it do this under even virtually no load.

Nobody cares about your anecdotes."

Nobody care's about yours either. So your malloc example on FreeBSD is no better than my example about how Linux can't even manage a swap file correctly.

re: Simba
by phil on Sun 22nd Dec 2002 22:46 UTC

Shows how much you know about FreeBSD. RC-2 is available right now, and the official release will be available on January 17th.

Read the FreeBSD 5.0 EAG

It basically says, "5.0 is not going to be as stable or even performant as 4.x. For situations where this matters, we recommend you stick with 4.x until 5.2 or so".

Show how much you know about FreeBSD. Zealotry without the facts - gotta love it.

Linux is just now catching up to the stability and performance of FreeBSD for server use. That game can be played both ways.

Says you. Anecdotal rubbish once again...

Nobody care's about yours either. So your malloc example on FreeBSD is no better than my example about how Linux can't even manage a swap file correctly.

Wow, give the gimp a cookie.

This is exactly why I said:

For every anecdote you have, I can provide a counter. I had, obviously mistakenly, assumed that you had rigorous benchmarks to unerpin your claims.

Fancy that! I wasn't trying to pass my anecdotes off as fact. You were.

Re: Simba
by Anonymous on Mon 23rd Dec 2002 01:01 UTC

"""Well, granted this is opinion here, but I think EMACS sucks. And it goes completely against the UNIX philosophy."""
How is that? It's composed of a bunch of little reusable lisp utilities that get autoloaded when needed.

What about the BeOS community?
by Nate on Mon 23rd Dec 2002 05:30 UTC

The article mentions the critical technologies that Microsoft has and that are greatly innovative. There was a company once that produced an OS (BeOS) that STILL beets Windows XP performance when it comes to handling media. If you don't believe me, download the personal edition and try it (www.bebits.com). It was the first personal computing OS to have a 64-bit journaled FS live incredible live queries, an integrated translation kit, and so on. MS does not match many of its features, and the API is OUTSTANDINGLY easy to use and incredibly powerful. Granted, it does have problems (networking...). My point is that this company (40 employees, at the largest), created revolutionary software. After having programmed under the Win32 API, having used MS technologies for the last 8 years, and having watched their technical progress, I have to say that it is competition like the open-source community (and little companies that deliver superb products) that is the reason for any of MS's technological advances. If it were not for this, I highly doubt Windows would be what it is today. So, be thankful there is an "arrogant" open-source community that a) doesn't agree with the greedy and unjust business practices that MS uses and b) that has enough of a brain in them to know that most MS technologies so far have been way below what they could and should have been.

re: Phil
by Simba on Mon 23rd Dec 2002 17:38 UTC

"It basically says, "5.0 is not going to be as stable or even performant as 4.x. For situations where this matters, we recommend you stick with 4.x until 5.2 or so""

They always say that. So what is your point? They never recommened that people upgrade right away with a major version jump.

"Says you. Anecdotal rubbish once again..."

Is that why virtually all of the longest uptime servers are a BSD variant? And not a single Linux server made the list?

And you didn't provide any evidence for your claims either. You are the one that first made the claim that FreeBSD is just now getting out the stoneage, and you chose a couple of examples and failed to even mention that there are many areas where FreeBSD is way ahead of Linux.

And as far as mulithreading on FreeBSD, I love your logic... Let's blame the OS for the fact that you don't know how to write a multithreaded app for FreeBSD. Makes a lot of sense.

I run many multithreaded apps on FreeBSD with no problems at all. I have written multithreaded apps for FreeBSD that run just fine.



Re: Emacs
by Simba on Mon 23rd Dec 2002 17:40 UTC

"How is that? It's composed of a bunch of little reusable lisp utilities that get autoloaded when needed."

Autoloaded when needed... heh... Is that why the Emacs binary uses so much memory?

Besides, why would I want an editor/file manager/calendar/email client/web browser/whatever the hell else Emacs can do? To me, Emacs is a a good example of "jack of all trades, master of none." It does a lot of things, but it doesn't do any of them very well.

The basis for writing the article will become clear later next year.

In the mean-time, please consider this: that when ordinary business users need to use a computer, they automatically think (apart from "unreliable") "Microsoft".

Therefore, to break the domination of Microsoft, the answer is to BECOME Microsoft. After you have a fully microsoft compliant suite of tools and software, you can start to enhance and improve, and any attempt to "do better" will simply widen the gap between Open Source and Microsoft, not bridge it.

The longer Open Source leaves DCE/RPC and Microsoft DCE/RPC-based applications to Microsoft's domination, the longer Microsoft has to use them as a strategic base to FURTHER widen the gap.

and the wider the gap gets, the less chance that the ordinary business user will be able to really choose between microsoft and open source systems without taking a significant risk, and you know exactly which way ordinary business users will swing when presented with risk and unknown.

> "The two [OS/2 and NT] share some history and some minor > bits of code, but the two diverged *significantly* well > before the first IBM release of OS/2 (v2.0) in 1992..."
>
> Their development has certainly diverged in many
> respects, but they share, for example, a filesystem
> (called "NTFS" for New Technology File System by MS
> and "HPFS" for High Performance File System by IBM).
>
> I'll leave it to you whether you consider a common
> filesystem to be a "minor bit of code."

While NTFS and HPFS share some general implementation concepts, the two are not at all compatible in physical structure, and calling them different implementations of a "common filesystem" is a bit of a stretch.

Besides, Linux can read/write HPFS partitions, and yet it and OS/2 are totally dissimilar in almost all other respects.

In addition, OS/2 2.x/3.x/4.x and WinNT have *completely* different kernels, the GUI API's are different (Win32 vs. PM), OS/2 has the SOM-based WorkPlace Shell as well as REXX integration for both GUI and shell while Windows NT has a silly brain-dead shell, OS/2 has WinOS2 and MVDM subsystems which are totally unlike anything on NT or its derivatives, and OS/2 uses a completely different device driver model.

You might as well claim that Linux, Windows XP, OS/2, and BeOS are the same because they all support the FAT16 filesystem...

Re: A chance to do better, with time running out
by kerframil on Sun 29th Dec 2002 04:55 UTC

I agree that the DCE/RPC issue is very important. I've just kicked out Windows 2000 server in favour of Linux and Samba and it's working great for me (with Windows 2000 clients). It's been liberating in many respects, and there are certainly things I can do which I couldn't before. But it does have its limitations and I can imagine the issues if mine was a larger enterprise to manage. For example, I'd like to see good tools to make LDAP much easier to manage and implement as an basis for authentication and management for some of the great available open-source software (qmail, samba etc), and in a way where it can be an AD server too, including system policy support for 2000/XP. The only tools I know of that are close to fulfilling that are Samba-TNG (which I haven't yet tried) and Gosa which is promising, but at present, imperfect.

I know it's really easy to say it, and a darn site harder for an open-source development team to deliver it - but that would be a hell of boost for *nix to eat into the Windows server market share, and it would be a good standpoint for further growth.

And as for *nix on the desktop, I'd really like to see a gtk2 port of a leaner OpenOffice and this idea of having a groupware app hinging on the XML/RPC backend of phpGroupWare sounds very interesting too (imagine a plugin for Evolution). I'd also like to see the gtk2 toolkit get a bit more *responsive* (Qt and Win32 GDI are still ahead there IMHO), although I'm definitely in the Gnome camp and I think RedHat are right to push it.