<< If Microsoft is so great, why do they keep stealing ideas from others? >>
Hmm... where did linux get most of it ideas.... OH YEAH THEY "STOLE" IT FROM VMS!
Anyway the guy who made vms now works for microsoft....
<< If Microsoft is so great, why do they keep stealing ideas from others? >>
Hmm... where did linux get most of it ideas.... OH YEAH THEY "STOLE" IT FROM VMS!
Anyway the guy who made vms now works for microsoft....
One thing i dislike about linux is that it is opensource, that is another topic...but you are going to hear it anyway. The following artice was written by a friend mine, i sums up my belifs about opensource.
http://www.devfarm.com/cgi/read_editorial.asp?id=6
10-07-2000 benv@devfarm.com Open Source - BAD
Wow... the "Open Source Movement" sure has mobilized. So I visited opensource.org today. You often hear how much linux rules and open source rules and everything else sucks on the sights you have to go to get the news (slashdot anyone?). It does a great job of getting you to question you self value because you make money writing code. So let me take you in my hand for a little exploration. My state of mind when going through the opensource.org site was that of a coder completely willing to switch to open-source if he could just figure out how to get paid doing it and could be convinced it was a good thing to do. The title of this editorial is a nice spoiler for you.
"Open-source software is an idea whose time has finally come."
Dear lord someone save me from the sales pitch. "finally come?"
"For twenty years it has been building momentum in the technical cultures that built the Internet and the World Wide Web."
.. And there go my bull$h1t detectors. Twenty years. That'd put me at 6. I was learning COBOL. Pong was pretty recent and TI-99/4A's hadn't hit the market yet. There was no technical culture yet. There was no internet yet. There weren't any bbs's yet. I'm being sold something. Oh what the hell I'll indulge and poke in at their 'history' page. Nope, no dates earlier than June of 1997 documented there.
Oh there, I finally dug up something from MS strangely enough backing up almost 20 years. In 1983 Stallman created FSF (Free Software Foundation) with the goal of creating a free *nix. That qualifies. I won't shoot em for the 20 year comment now.
"Now it's breaking out into the commercial world, and that's changing all the rules. Are you ready?"
Well thats a relief. I hate rules.
After reading that wonderful sales pitch I hunt for some beef. Let's start with a definition. I heard everybody's got some toiler paper and a definition for open source. Ahah! Criteria v1.7.
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
Wow. I can write some software, call it open, sell it to someone, they can slap a sticker onto the box with their name on it, and resell it without sharing any of those profits with me? Yup. Thats exactly what that says. How is this good for me again? Oh yeah, if I suck at writing software I can go steal someone elses hard work and sell it as my own.
"2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed."
This appeals to the idealist in me. The realist knows that in the business world people screw each other. And while I am never on the 'screwing' side I spend a fair amount of time keeping my butt out of the 'screwed' side. There's nothing that one of my competitors would like better than to take the object libraries I use to write some seriously robust vc++ code faster than they can write the same code in VB, hire a couple of c++ guys straight outta anywhere low-pay, and start really competing with me. Yeah, the one would be okay if most people were half-decent human beings.
"3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
Shocking, you mean the guy exercising the freedom to take my software might actually write some code?
"4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code.
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software."
Ah. Yes. I see where that would suck. Nice to see the author getting a little protection. Ego wasn't what I had in mind protecting but what the hell. In other words this tidy little paragraph says that I can restrict some schmuck from taking my code, adding some crap code, and claiming I wrote the crap. I'm still a little fuzzy at enforcement for any of this buy lets move on...
"5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License.
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties."
There's a little warm and fuzzy to prove that the authors of these restrictions have a heart.
"8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product. The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution"
A little legal CYA. Again, I'm pretty curious about how legally upholdable any of this is.
"9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software."
Here here! Let's not be oppressive.
Allright I'm ready to move on to the arguments for open-source. I'll start with the intro.
"The basic idea behind open source is very simple. When programmers on the Internet can read, redistribute, and modify the source for a piece of software, it evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs"
People can degrade it, take your customers, people make bugs.
"We in the open-source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits."
Waa. Only a very few programmers can see source? Give me a break. Write it yourself, debug it, hell go work for the company and check out the source if you're _that_ interested. How about _buying_ a license to the source? Thats novel.
Time to read the 'Techie/hackers case'.
"Internet and Unix hackers, as a rule, already understand the technical case for open source quite well. It's a central part of our engineering tradition, part of our working method almost by instinct. It's how we made the Internet work."
LOL. So I assume these guys are pals with Al Gore. He invented it and they made it work.
"A lot of hackers who already know that open-source is better than closed are reluctant to push the idea because they're afraid they might lose their paying jobs. Fortunately, there are excellent reasons to believe that this fear is groundless."
To argue that we won't starve they go on to point out that there are 3 companies that hire open-source programmers; Red Hat, Cygnus, and Caldera (pack the bags honey). Beyond that we can give away our software and charge for support (add more bugs, make more money) or sell t-shirts with our software logo on it. Uh... no.
They reference "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" at least twice on this page so maybe I'll head over there when I'm done reading their stuff. I'll take you, the reader, with me if I do.
Let's move on to the 'business persons case'.
"The open-source model has a lot to offer the business world. It's a way to build open standards as actual software, rather than paper documents. It's a way that many companies and individuals can collaborate on a product that none of them could achieve alone. It's the rapid bug-fixes and the changes that the user asks for, done to the user's own schedule.
The open-source model also means increased security; because code is in the public view it will be exposed to extreme scrutiny, with problems being found and fixed instead of being kept secret until the wrong person discovers them. And last but not least, it's a way that the little guys can get together and have a good chance at beating a monopoly.
Of all these benefits, the most fundamental is increased reliability. And if that's too abstract for you, you should think about how closed sources make the Year 2000 problem worse and why they might very well kill your business."
Um... guys. You haven't successfully snuck by the fact that every one of their competitors will get a nice close up and personal look at how they do business if they can review all of the software they do their business with. You may want to think of a new spin term for sanctioned industrial espionage.
"Open-source software is peer-reviewed software; it is more reliable than closed, proprietary software."
Well now thats pretty offensive. If its not open-source it must not be peer-reviewed. Bullshit. I have peer coders inside _and_ outside my company review all of my source and my software is closed. You're implying that closed software doesn't get reviewed. You are essentially lying. This higher reliability is evidenced by the fact that open-source netscape SUCKS and can't even conform to HTML standards?
"The Payoff for Software Producers"
Hell I don't even need to read this section. Its a snap. If your software isn't as good as your competitor's just take their code, call it yours, and sell it. Their developers will be looking for jobs in a week.
"Beyond all the reliability and quality gains we've discussed elsewhere, the open-source model has one overwhelming advantage for the software customer: you aren't a prisoner."
Oh thats great. Lets get those analogies a rolling. Their a prisoner if they use my closed software.
"Because you can get access to source, you can survive the collapse of your vendor. You're no longer totally at the mercy of unfixed bugs. You're not shackled to every strategic decision your vendor makes. And if your vendor's support fees become exorbitant, you can buy support from elsewhere."
Sigh. Vendor's go out of business all the time. Sometimes because their strategic decisions don't match the will of the purchasing community. Sometimes because someone else sells their product cheaper, or free (gasp) even. The consumer always survives.
"For this reason alone, every software customer should absolutely demand open source and refuse to deal with software vendors who close and shroud their code. It's a matter of controlling your own destiny."
Destiny? This is SOFTWARE we're talking about isn't it? Someone's been sucking down too many self-importance pills. So they'd like you to demand open source and refuse to deal with vendor's if they don't agree. How open-minded of them.
(And yes, we'll say the M-word...don't you want to be out from under Microsoft's thumb?)"
Ah there's that biggotry. Lemme just say.. I wish I could order cable-tv from someone other than AT&T. I wish I could pay someone other than AmerenUE for my electric. I wish I could pay someone other than St. Charles Gas Co. for my gas. I wish I could pay someone other than SWBell for my local service. If I want something other than MS products I just look on the shelf to the right and to the left of the MS product and pick it up. Oh wait, I can't do that... they've got a monopoly. Whatever.
I'll tell you what customers. You want protection? Demand that _you_ get license to the source code to the applications that are developed for you. You pay for the right to have someone else support and or upgrade it in the future if they like. The developer will not object. Trust me, I'd be flattered if someone offered to pay for the source license.
more later.. definitely more later. its the MS vs. the world... I have much more to say but its 3:11am... my body says 'no'
http://www.devfarm.com/cgi/read_editorial.asp?id=6
10-07-2000 benv@devfarm.com Open Source - BAD
Wow... the "Open Source Movement" sure has mobilized. So I visited opensource.org today. You often hear how much linux rules and open source rules and everything else sucks on the sights you have to go to get the news (slashdot anyone?). It does a great job of getting you to question you self value because you make money writing code. So let me take you in my hand for a little exploration. My state of mind when going through the opensource.org site was that of a coder completely willing to switch to open-source if he could just figure out how to get paid doing it and could be convinced it was a good thing to do. The title of this editorial is a nice spoiler for you.
"Open-source software is an idea whose time has finally come."
Dear lord someone save me from the sales pitch. "finally come?"
"For twenty years it has been building momentum in the technical cultures that built the Internet and the World Wide Web."
.. And there go my bull$h1t detectors. Twenty years. That'd put me at 6. I was learning COBOL. Pong was pretty recent and TI-99/4A's hadn't hit the market yet. There was no technical culture yet. There was no internet yet. There weren't any bbs's yet. I'm being sold something. Oh what the hell I'll indulge and poke in at their 'history' page. Nope, no dates earlier than June of 1997 documented there.
Oh there, I finally dug up something from MS strangely enough backing up almost 20 years. In 1983 Stallman created FSF (Free Software Foundation) with the goal of creating a free *nix. That qualifies. I won't shoot em for the 20 year comment now.
"Now it's breaking out into the commercial world, and that's changing all the rules. Are you ready?"
Well thats a relief. I hate rules.
After reading that wonderful sales pitch I hunt for some beef. Let's start with a definition. I heard everybody's got some toiler paper and a definition for open source. Ahah! Criteria v1.7.
"Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution
The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
Wow. I can write some software, call it open, sell it to someone, they can slap a sticker onto the box with their name on it, and resell it without sharing any of those profits with me? Yup. Thats exactly what that says. How is this good for me again? Oh yeah, if I suck at writing software I can go steal someone elses hard work and sell it as my own.
"2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost -- preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed."
This appeals to the idealist in me. The realist knows that in the business world people screw each other. And while I am never on the 'screwing' side I spend a fair amount of time keeping my butt out of the 'screwed' side. There's nothing that one of my competitors would like better than to take the object libraries I use to write some seriously robust vc++ code faster than they can write the same code in VB, hire a couple of c++ guys straight outta anywhere low-pay, and start really competing with me. Yeah, the one would be okay if most people were half-decent human beings.
"3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software."
Shocking, you mean the guy exercising the freedom to take my software might actually write some code?
"4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code.
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software."
Ah. Yes. I see where that would suck. Nice to see the author getting a little protection. Ego wasn't what I had in mind protecting but what the hell. In other words this tidy little paragraph says that I can restrict some schmuck from taking my code, adding some crap code, and claiming I wrote the crap. I'm still a little fuzzy at enforcement for any of this buy lets move on...
"5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups.
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor.
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License.
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties."
There's a little warm and fuzzy to prove that the authors of these restrictions have a heart.
"8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product. The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution"
A little legal CYA. Again, I'm pretty curious about how legally upholdable any of this is.
"9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software."
Here here! Let's not be oppressive.
Allright I'm ready to move on to the arguments for open-source. I'll start with the intro.
"The basic idea behind open source is very simple. When programmers on the Internet can read, redistribute, and modify the source for a piece of software, it evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs"
People can degrade it, take your customers, people make bugs.
"We in the open-source community have learned that this rapid evolutionary process produces better software than the traditional closed model, in which only a very few programmers can see source and everybody else must blindly use an opaque block of bits."
Waa. Only a very few programmers can see source? Give me a break. Write it yourself, debug it, hell go work for the company and check out the source if you're _that_ interested. How about _buying_ a license to the source? Thats novel.
Time to read the 'Techie/hackers case'.
"Internet and Unix hackers, as a rule, already understand the technical case for open source quite well. It's a central part of our engineering tradition, part of our working method almost by instinct. It's how we made the Internet work."
LOL. So I assume these guys are pals with Al Gore. He invented it and they made it work.
"A lot of hackers who already know that open-source is better than closed are reluctant to push the idea because they're afraid they might lose their paying jobs. Fortunately, there are excellent reasons to believe that this fear is groundless."
To argue that we won't starve they go on to point out that there are 3 companies that hire open-source programmers; Red Hat, Cygnus, and Caldera (pack the bags honey). Beyond that we can give away our software and charge for support (add more bugs, make more money) or sell t-shirts with our software logo on it. Uh... no.
They reference "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" at least twice on this page so maybe I'll head over there when I'm done reading their stuff. I'll take you, the reader, with me if I do.
Let's move on to the 'business persons case'.
"The open-source model has a lot to offer the business world. It's a way to build open standards as actual software, rather than paper documents. It's a way that many companies and individuals can collaborate on a product that none of them could achieve alone. It's the rapid bug-fixes and the changes that the user asks for, done to the user's own schedule.
The open-source model also means increased security; because code is in the public view it will be exposed to extreme scrutiny, with problems being found and fixed instead of being kept secret until the wrong person discovers them. And last but not least, it's a way that the little guys can get together and have a good chance at beating a monopoly.
Of all these benefits, the most fundamental is increased reliability. And if that's too abstract for you, you should think about how closed sources make the Year 2000 problem worse and why they might very well kill your business."
Um... guys. You haven't successfully snuck by the fact that every one of their competitors will get a nice close up and personal look at how they do business if they can review all of the software they do their business with. You may want to think of a new spin term for sanctioned industrial espionage.
"Open-source software is peer-reviewed software; it is more reliable than closed, proprietary software."
Well now thats pretty offensive. If its not open-source it must not be peer-reviewed. Bullshit. I have peer coders inside _and_ outside my company review all of my source and my software is closed. You're implying that closed software doesn't get reviewed. You are essentially lying. This higher reliability is evidenced by the fact that open-source netscape SUCKS and can't even conform to HTML standards?
"The Payoff for Software Producers"
Hell I don't even need to read this section. Its a snap. If your software isn't as good as your competitor's just take their code, call it yours, and sell it. Their developers will be looking for jobs in a week.
"Beyond all the reliability and quality gains we've discussed elsewhere, the open-source model has one overwhelming advantage for the software customer: you aren't a prisoner."
Oh thats great. Lets get those analogies a rolling. Their a prisoner if they use my closed software.
"Because you can get access to source, you can survive the collapse of your vendor. You're no longer totally at the mercy of unfixed bugs. You're not shackled to every strategic decision your vendor makes. And if your vendor's support fees become exorbitant, you can buy support from elsewhere."
Sigh. Vendor's go out of business all the time. Sometimes because their strategic decisions don't match the will of the purchasing community. Sometimes because someone else sells their product cheaper, or free (gasp) even. The consumer always survives.
"For this reason alone, every software customer should absolutely demand open source and refuse to deal with software vendors who close and shroud their code. It's a matter of controlling your own destiny."
Destiny? This is SOFTWARE we're talking about isn't it? Someone's been sucking down too many self-importance pills. So they'd like you to demand open source and refuse to deal with vendor's if they don't agree. How open-minded of them.
(And yes, we'll say the M-word...don't you want to be out from under Microsoft's thumb?)"
Ah there's that biggotry. Lemme just say.. I wish I could order cable-tv from someone other than AT&T. I wish I could pay someone other than AmerenUE for my electric. I wish I could pay someone other than St. Charles Gas Co. for my gas. I wish I could pay someone other than SWBell for my local service. If I want something other than MS products I just look on the shelf to the right and to the left of the MS product and pick it up. Oh wait, I can't do that... they've got a monopoly. Whatever.
I'll tell you what customers. You want protection? Demand that _you_ get license to the source code to the applications that are developed for you. You pay for the right to have someone else support and or upgrade it in the future if they like. The developer will not object. Trust me, I'd be flattered if someone offered to pay for the source license.
more later.. definitely more later. its the MS vs. the world... I have much more to say but its 3:11am... my body says 'no'
<< Trust me, I'd be flattered if someone offered to pay for the source license. >>
Excellent point. Thats like saying, "Wow, I LOVE your code, and plan to implement it everyway possible and use it to mold it to my personal needs.
With the majority of the Internet Backbone and the majority of webservers being run on flavors of Unix or directly on Linux - I'll hold that statement as the synopsis for my speaking.
Ammessh, you sound like you've had a bad run in with a Linux install; why the hatred?
I run it all the time. No problems other than my newbie ignorance.
Microsoft makes great software for webnets but it's cumbersome application structure is not something that you really need for the performance vs. price vs. scalability vs. compatibility equation. MS is just not on the spot configurable like the Linux systems are. If I need to add something to my webservers modules or add another specialized service to my server I can do it with a bit of SECURE programming and compiling it myself. I do not see the logic in loading a 500meg program and sets of utilities just to gain access to one feature, a product that more than likely HAS SECURITY HOLES in it. The beauty of a well configured Linux system is, that you know your operation system you are not relying on what the dominate o/s company is telling you that you need to run. Think security. Half the people running an MS system probably cannot identify more than 30% of the programs the server is running, this margin does not exist for the experienced Linux user.
Currently Linux does it quicker, with less hardware demand, and with more stability.
For small business deciding on which system to choose they need to decide between a foundation from the giant or the manuverabilty of the up and coming derivative of the originator.
My 2k!
Ammessh, you sound like you've had a bad run in with a Linux install; why the hatred?
I run it all the time. No problems other than my newbie ignorance.Microsoft makes great software for webnets but it's cumbersome application structure is not something that you really need for the performance vs. price vs. scalability vs. compatibility equation. MS is just not on the spot configurable like the Linux systems are. If I need to add something to my webservers modules or add another specialized service to my server I can do it with a bit of SECURE programming and compiling it myself. I do not see the logic in loading a 500meg program and sets of utilities just to gain access to one feature, a product that more than likely HAS SECURITY HOLES in it. The beauty of a well configured Linux system is, that you know your operation system you are not relying on what the dominate o/s company is telling you that you need to run. Think security. Half the people running an MS system probably cannot identify more than 30% of the programs the server is running, this margin does not exist for the experienced Linux user.
Currently Linux does it quicker, with less hardware demand, and with more stability.
For small business deciding on which system to choose they need to decide between a foundation from the giant or the manuverabilty of the up and coming derivative of the originator.
My 2k!
<< Ill root your *nix box before you can even lay a finger on my advanced server box. >>
I'll give you the ip of my weakest server, my redhat box, you let me know when you have it rooted
Wow captian that was a hell of a post, I'll be honest I'm on lunch and only read like half of it. I dont see the gripe with open source, I think its great. You've got a pet project and want to see it become a useful piece of software, whats wrong with getting some help in making that succeed. Sure its perhaps a dumb idea to open source a program that you spent a year creating, that why you don't. If its your code do what you want with it, but I don't see what the problem is with having linux be open source. That doesn't mean that everything you write for it is open source too.
Open source != Free (as in freedom and beer). Just ask Zuni. You can go pay for an open source FuseTalk license.
I've had no problem with linux software wise. I've used unix/linux alot in the past. I've come to the conclusion that MS Windows 2000 is better.
<< Half the people running an MS system probably cannot identify more than 30% of the programs the server is running, this margin does not exist for the experienced Linux user. >>
can't compare unexperienced MS users to experienced linux users. Windows 2000 can be made secure, it's not by default because if it was newbies would get upset because they don't understand things like so say file permissions "why can't i delete this file" Microsoft does not like getting 4000 calls for minor tech support problems... well at least microsoft supports their products...
as for stable and windows 2000, never had any problems. A friend of mine had a beta copy of windows 2000 running on a moderatly used server and it ran for eight months before he took it down. After taking it down he realized it was beta copy.
<< Half the people running an MS system probably cannot identify more than 30% of the programs the server is running, this margin does not exist for the experienced Linux user. >>
can't compare unexperienced MS users to experienced linux users. Windows 2000 can be made secure, it's not by default because if it was newbies would get upset because they don't understand things like so say file permissions "why can't i delete this file" Microsoft does not like getting 4000 calls for minor tech support problems... well at least microsoft supports their products...
as for stable and windows 2000, never had any problems. A friend of mine had a beta copy of windows 2000 running on a moderatly used server and it ran for eight months before he took it down. After taking it down he realized it was beta copy.
the main problem that i have with opensource is that the people that mainly use Linux are large companies with millions of dollars. (Linux is not a desktop OS and never will be) I don't think it is a great idea for me to write free software for some CEO that makea 10 million dollars a year. This is what I find funny about OSS, most of the people that write OSS are anti-large corpration types and the software they write benefits those large corpations.
<< the main problem that i have with opensource is that the people that mainly use Linux are large companies with millions of dollars. (Linux is not a desktop OS and never will be) I don't think it is a great idea for me to write free software for some CEO that makea 10 million dollars a year. This is what I find funny about OSS, most of the people that write OSS are anti-large corpration types and the software they write benefits those large corpations. >>
Actually I don't think the big companies run Linux. They'd run something they paid for like SCO or Solaris because of the comfort they get in KNOWING they have support.
I agree that Linux is not a desktop OS today, but I don't really care. I use it for my server needs, and run Win9x on my desktop. My Linux server takes care of itself mostly, and I occasionally need to ssh in for maintenance otherwise it emails the logs automatically.
OSS is NOT anti-large corporation. Why would the linux kernel focus so much on building enterprise level features such as JFS, clustering, etc? On the contrary the OSS community wants to provide accessibility to everyone. Period. Give the software out for free. Let people play with it an modify it. Let people choose what they want to run and how they want to run it.
As for the licensing, read the Halloween docs I refer to above. There are different licenses that give a lot of flexibility to what can be done with the source code.
I believe that the chaos of the OSS community does allow for a social Darwin mechanism to evolve. The best software comes out on top, but is continually being pushed by other OSS competition.
<< Amen Ameesh!
--
News flash: IIS isn't only server software being admined by boobs for small web sites. >>
its admined by boobs for Large websites
<< Half the people running an MS system probably cannot identify more than 30% of the programs the server is running, this margin does not exist for the experienced Linux user. >>
can't compare unexperienced MS users to experienced linux users. Windows 2000 can be made secure, it's not by default because if it was newbies would get upset because they don't understand things like so say file permissions "why can't i delete this file" Microsoft does not like getting 4000 calls for minor tech support problems... well at least microsoft supports their products...
Captain, this highlights my point towards system responsibility and security of the system. A MS sysadmin can easily stick to the plug n? play? n? forget about it. He plugs it in follows a few prompts and lo and behold he?s got intra/internet connectivity for his users. But his ignorance and heavy reliance on plug and play has left huge security holes. Untrained MS sysadmins are not as systems liable as the very same Linux user who sets up a network from scratch, Building a network from the ground up gives more knowledge than pnp?s any day.
Solaris distros get some support, quite a few server vendors will offer support it they have pre-loaded a system with Redhat atop of their server software
can't compare unexperienced MS users to experienced linux users. Windows 2000 can be made secure, it's not by default because if it was newbies would get upset because they don't understand things like so say file permissions "why can't i delete this file" Microsoft does not like getting 4000 calls for minor tech support problems... well at least microsoft supports their products...
Captain, this highlights my point towards system responsibility and security of the system. A MS sysadmin can easily stick to the plug n? play? n? forget about it. He plugs it in follows a few prompts and lo and behold he?s got intra/internet connectivity for his users. But his ignorance and heavy reliance on plug and play has left huge security holes. Untrained MS sysadmins are not as systems liable as the very same Linux user who sets up a network from scratch, Building a network from the ground up gives more knowledge than pnp?s any day.
Solaris distros get some support, quite a few server vendors will offer support it they have pre-loaded a system with Redhat atop of their server software
for those who are worried about Linux heading in the 'wrong' direction, I think you are incorrect. it is heading in the correct direction for those who use it, and for those who are somewhat computer savvy, yet who don't understand everything. I don't think Linux will ever be the OS for the dumbmasses that MS has been able to create, nor do I want it to be.
I like the ability to configure many little things (though I've barely scratched the surface), not have to go hunting through the GUI to find an application to run to change an option, or find out that I can't change the option..
I like the ability to configure many little things (though I've barely scratched the surface), not have to go hunting through the GUI to find an application to run to change an option, or find out that I can't change the option..
IJump
Diamond Member
- Feb 12, 2001
- 4,640
- 11
- 76
I've administered SCO Unix, Red Hat, other flavors of *nix, WinNT, and Win2000. This is my view:
If you like writing, debugging, and fussing with the gritty details of an OS and writing or modifying everything for yourself, open source *nix is for you. Write it and you know exactly what it is doing.
If you are like most of the professional world (notice I did not say IT professional), Windows is for you. Businesses do not always have to time to spend waiting for a custom peice of *nix code to be written, buy it off the shelf, install it, and the time saved will pay for itself.
We can argue about stability, performance, etc. all day long. Numbers can lie, spin can be applied, both can be made to win. If people want the ease of use on installation, they can take Windows. If they want to mess with the OS and make it do exactly what they want, they can have *nix. That is what it boils down to.
If you like writing, debugging, and fussing with the gritty details of an OS and writing or modifying everything for yourself, open source *nix is for you. Write it and you know exactly what it is doing.
If you are like most of the professional world (notice I did not say IT professional), Windows is for you. Businesses do not always have to time to spend waiting for a custom peice of *nix code to be written, buy it off the shelf, install it, and the time saved will pay for itself.
We can argue about stability, performance, etc. all day long. Numbers can lie, spin can be applied, both can be made to win. If people want the ease of use on installation, they can take Windows. If they want to mess with the OS and make it do exactly what they want, they can have *nix. That is what it boils down to.
I am not saying that all large companys use OSS alot use MS windows as well. It the fact that a large company can take code that i have written and i never see a cent. Apple using the BSD core anyone. As if OSS being anti-large corp., the idea of OSS was to give an altenative to ms but the people written the software are anti-large corp, I know a lot of them.... I used to be one.
<< If you like writing, debugging, and fussing with the gritty details of an OS and writing or modifying everything for yourself, open source *nix is for you. Write it and you know exactly what it is doing. >>
What are you talking about Windows is a just as easy. Just because MS 2000 is closed-source does not make it hard to debug. MS OS's are for most part documented, unlike linux. Quickfact: if you print out MSDN you would get a stack of paper six feet thick!
<<this is a stupid remark, why dont we talk about linux and its software as it is: a stripped down easy to write piece of code, it is very stable but doesnt provide the flexibility or the robustness of more complex server software like IIS
Any programmer worth a grain of salt can read and hack linux code cause it is sooo simple but when you move into more robust OS's and software patience and intelligence is needed, im sick of all these retard sys admins who think they are tough $hit because they can setup a unix box. complexity brings utility and thats why windows will always hold 90%+ of the market, period. linux is a piece of unsupported junk who cares if it can dish out simple http requests quickly. Opera is a fast browesr i'd like to see you use opera and linux all the time....>>
hahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaha. sorry i'll stop
peace
sean
hahahaahahahahaha
Any programmer worth a grain of salt can read and hack linux code cause it is sooo simple but when you move into more robust OS's and software patience and intelligence is needed, im sick of all these retard sys admins who think they are tough $hit because they can setup a unix box. complexity brings utility and thats why windows will always hold 90%+ of the market, period. linux is a piece of unsupported junk who cares if it can dish out simple http requests quickly. Opera is a fast browesr i'd like to see you use opera and linux all the time....>>
hahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaha. sorry i'll stop
peace
sean
hahahaahahahahaha
<< Captain, this highlights my point towards system responsibility and security of the system. A MS sysadmin can easily stick to the plug n? play? n? forget about it. He plugs it in follows a few prompts and lo and behold he?s got intra/internet connectivity for his users. But his ignorance and heavy reliance on plug and play has left huge security holes. Untrained MS sysadmins are not as systems liable as the very same Linux user who sets up a network from scratch, Building a network from the ground up gives more knowledge than pnp?s any day. >>
No, you helped me make my point, what you are saying is that MS 2000 is weak because of its users NOT because of any flaws in the OS. MS 2000 requires training and so does Linux.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that a plug and play dummied down to the user o/s that's top heavy and a resource hog with inherent security holes cannot compare to...hang on. Let's just leave it at what I am getting at rather than what I am implying. I strongly believe the Linux is the way to go in networking, but that is for me and the computer configuration that I find best for my needs and or the needs of my clientle and applications . It runs cleaner, faster and is built on networking.
A user or sysadmin presented with the choice of a {a) a plug in play system (which is an unknown pandoras box for security reasons) or (b) the hard work of the "other system" (secured build from the ground up as you have to know the system); is ultimately the one to make this decision.
Large co's cross platform anyway.
I am saying that a plug and play dummied down to the user o/s that's top heavy and a resource hog with inherent security holes cannot compare to...hang on. Let's just leave it at what I am getting at rather than what I am implying. I strongly believe the Linux is the way to go in networking, but that is for me and the computer configuration that I find best for my needs and or the needs of my clientle and applications . It runs cleaner, faster and is built on networking.A user or sysadmin presented with the choice of a {a) a plug in play system (which is an unknown pandoras box for security reasons) or (b) the hard work of the "other system" (secured build from the ground up as you have to know the system); is ultimately the one to make this decision.
Large co's cross platform anyway.
<< this is a stupid remark, why dont we talk about linux and its software as it is: a stripped down easy to write piece of code, it is very stable but doesnt provide the flexibility or the robustness of more complex server software like IIS >> >>
Complicated is better. Crappy, unorganized, buggy code is the way to go. To hell with this "easy to write" stuff.
<< why windows will always hold 90%+ of the market, period >>
Maybe the Destop market. Anyone with a brain, who needs a server to perform, uses apache on a *nix system. Dont believe me? The Facts. Out of 27 million servers, I would say this is a good representation of where people stand.
Nuff said.
Here's the entire scoop on windows vs. *nix and why win is so popular
nix = powerful, suberbly scalable/flexible, super stable, actually knows what a network is
windows (any flavor) = easy to use, easy to develop for, runs reasonably well, scales OK...just don't ask too much of it, wouldn't know a network if it bit it on da nose.
and there you have it. As far as operating systems go what is the superior OS? *nix of course. which one will people use? - windows of course...so much easier. And personally I can't blame any of them.
Which OS do I prefer to use...well depends on who's gonna manage it and what you want to do.
cheers! keep in mind it ain't about power, its about ease of use. that is why microsoft is so successful.
spidey
<---IT boob of 15 years
nix = powerful, suberbly scalable/flexible, super stable, actually knows what a network is
windows (any flavor) = easy to use, easy to develop for, runs reasonably well, scales OK...just don't ask too much of it, wouldn't know a network if it bit it on da nose.
and there you have it. As far as operating systems go what is the superior OS? *nix of course. which one will people use? - windows of course...so much easier. And personally I can't blame any of them.
Which OS do I prefer to use...well depends on who's gonna manage it and what you want to do.
cheers! keep in mind it ain't about power, its about ease of use. that is why microsoft is so successful.
spidey
<---IT boob of 15 years
<< windows (any flavor) = easy to use, easy to develop for, runs reasonably well, scales OK...just don't ask too much of it, wouldn't know a network if it bit it on da nose. >>
Easy to develop for? You shouldn't make such statements. Linux may be free, but for me, time is money, and I don't have time to trudge through thousands of lines of horribly written code just because some pretentious programmer thinks he/she's too l33t to document. My job is to build solutions, not chase some superficial fantasy that somehow an abstruse OS means it's superior.
And Ameesh hit it right on the nose. When my clients ask me how I can better the performance of a given system, I tell them the easiest way is to start removing functionality (I'm facetious when I say this of course). To compare Linux to Windows is laughable.
<< No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that a plug and play dummied down to the user o/s that's top heavy and a resource hog with inherent security holes cannot compare to...hang on. Let's just leave it at what I am getting at rather than what I am implying. I strongly believe the Linux is the way to go in networking, but that is for me and the computer configuration that I find best for my needs and or the needs of my clientle and applications. It runs cleaner, faster and is built on networking. >>
Linux has a certain pnp element to it also. Remember that Redhat security problem, (they are many) it had some remote admin feature that was enabled by default with a DEFAULT PASSWORD. So if it was not disabled anyone could walk into your system. Just because you build a network from the ground up that does not mean you can make it more secure. People still manage to setup the software wrong. Or don't change the default settings. A for the OS being top heavy depends on if you use it. Win2k as resource hog: NO! If you do your homework Linux has much higher system requirements...
dang, this has stirred up almost as much contraversy as one of my Gun control threads .
I honestly believe that each system has it's place, but you cannot deny that Apache is one of the most popular web servers out there, and it is one of the most stable. I see this as a challenge to MS, it forces them to make their products better, and mor stable. I am not going to bash MS, because of it, many people have jobs in this world.
The way i see it, MS is a good desktop environment, and Linux should be making it's presence known even more as a rock stable server and wevb server.
. I honestly believe that each system has it's place, but you cannot deny that Apache is one of the most popular web servers out there, and it is one of the most stable. I see this as a challenge to MS, it forces them to make their products better, and mor stable. I am not going to bash MS, because of it, many people have jobs in this world.
The way i see it, MS is a good desktop environment, and Linux should be making it's presence known even more as a rock stable server and wevb server.
If you do your homework Linux has much higher system requirements...
No homework, it's Friday lets just have beers! Enjoy your weekend.
No homework, it's Friday lets just have beers! Enjoy your weekend.
<< MS OS's are for most part documented, unlike linux. Quickfact: if you print out MSDN you would get a stack of paper six feet thick! >>
Wrong. Linux has the most documentation of any OS. If you dont believe me try doing searches for the HOWTO's.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter