CNN on Microsoft and Linux 210
noise writes "Article that details Microsoft's continuing anti-Linux campaign up through Ed Muth's comments last week. There are some nice OS and web server usage statistics, as well as some information on the difficulties that MS will likely have with the 64-bit version of NT. "
Another good Petreley article (Score:1)
Already past Windows? (Score:1)
-ac
P.S.: Hey, lamerators! Moderate This!
Still has a long way to go (Score:1)
No it won't. I don't know where this idea that "the more difficult it is, the better a technical person will like it" comes from, because it isn't true. The better is works the better a technical person will like it. There is a big difference.
A 3 cylinder convertible that gets 3 mpg with a spiffy paint job and mag wheels isn't what most of are looking for. Form follows function. This is the hallmark of all good design.
Linux Crashed on Me (Score:1)
-disappointed AC
Several Points (Score:2)
Don't kid yourself (Score:3)
Furthermore this story is a bit off-base, as his stories often are. Is Linux considered "splintered" because it comes in 64-bit flavours? Of course not, so why should Windows be? And surely the ability of some future Win64 to emulate 32 bit code should not be counted as detrimental.
Also, counting the numbers of machines running various Web servers and operating systems and attached to the Internet can't be extrapolated to, say, what IT people like to use generally. So let's not get carried away.
Anyway, what I'd really like to know is how many big NT sites use it because they receive "incentives" from Microsoft in cash and kind. At least, four years ago this was happening at some companies I was close to.
roc+sd@cs.cmu.edu
Still has a long way to go (Score:4)
Much of the article was looking at NT the server, though. When running a server (as opposed to running a client that happens to talk to the server), the base assumption is that the machine is run by a professional computer operator, such as a sysadmin. From the sysadmin's perspective, a Unix or Linux server tends to be _much_ friendlier than an NT server. Most of this comes from the fact that the GUI is not wed to the backend as it is on Windows.
For one thing, the server is friendly enough to talk to you at _your_ console, not _its_ console. If I'm running a dozen NT boxes and have to do something to all of them, I have to log into a dozen consoles. To do the same job on Unix, I use X to "beam" windows to my machine from all of them.
Another "ease of use" advantage in the server world is scriptability. Most anything you can do on a Unix machine, you can do by manipulating text, whether it's manipulating data streams or configuration files. Since text generation is a simple task, this means that you can build your own macros and UIs to do tasks specific to your installation. When talking to an NT application, you have to click the buttons in their preferred order.
At the low end of the scale, desktops for casual users, Microsoft holds the upper hand for ease of use. At the high end of the scale, servers, Unix beats NT. The turning point is probably close to where the power users sit, depending on one's definition of power user.
Still has a long way to go (Score:1)
My darling wife remarked just the other day, "Ya know, I haven't heard you screaming at your computer in about a year. What's up with that?" I got rid of Windows about a year ago. I feel much better now, thank you.
Sun doesn't depend on MS (Score:1)
Ah, but Sun is probably just as dependant on MS products as MS Hotmail is on Sun products.
It isn't.
Love that Article (Score:1)
It's very rare when I read something that is that inspirational. Makes me wanna go recompile somethin' (like a kernel maybe?).
Another good Petreley article (Score:1)
I really liked the content. Moreover, I was impressed in its being informative, factual, and written by an informed writer. It was great until I saw the author's name. [This in not a slam at Nick! ] It's just depressing that so few journalists seem to be both well informed and willing to state facts over "Copy, Paste, & Spin" type school of journalism.
Nice Windows Desktop -> Linux Migration (Score:2)
I partially agree with you, but I'd like to share an experience we had in our office converting a machine over from Win95 to Linux.
We have a group of employees that don't work in the office and just come and go at different times in the day. We had one win95 machine for about 10 of these employees to come in on break and check their email and surf the web.
With win95 the machine was always crashing, and we had many problems with win95 not being multi-user.
Eventually we moved the machine into Linux and set up each person with their own username, password and Windowmaker desktop. Yes, we didn't even bother with KDE or GNOME (well we did have GNOME installed for one of the power users, but he actually requested that we remove it and just leave Windowmaker). We setup a button for Netscape, a button for an xterm and a button for an office app we occasionally use. We'll probably add one more button to let them use WordPerfect.
The largely computer illiterate users couldn't be happier! We set them up with a Windowmaker theme of their choice and showed them how to log into the school server and check their email with pine. We haven't had a single problem with this setup. Most of them probably really don't understand that they are even using a Unix varient. They just click on one or two buttons and get the things done that they need to do, and they know they won't crash the machine or break anything accidently.
This may not be a typical office experience, but it shows how easy it was to migrate users that weren't familiar with computers at all. I suspect if they had been like many Win95 users they would have complained bitterly because the system doesn't work exactly like Windows does.
I think many people forget that Windows was hard to train people on as well. In fact, I have a hard time sitting in front of a Mac machine. It is definately not intuitive to me. It took me quite some time to figure out how to eject the floppy disk! What common sense was I supposed to use to determine that to eject the disk I drag the icon into the trash can?
Linux wasn't intuitive for me to learn, but now that I have learned it, it's no harder than anything else I've done with computers.
Microsoft definately had a clue when they were still competing with Word Perfect. It let you map the Word Perfect keybindings to the new Word ones as well as giving the user help throughout to help them migrate. It's just as easy to do the same thing in reverse, and I hope it will be done!
Linux Crashed on Me (Score:1)
There's marketshare and there's mindshare... (Score:1)
Linux has already captured the market that matters: Geek desktops.
Everyone who is anyone is running Linux at home (at least in "test" mode). These people determine the future of the industry.
I'd like to see the following poll run (unbiased):
A I am a programmer/tech/sysadmin and I use Linux
B I am a programmer/tech/sysadmin and I don't use Linux
C I am not a programmer/tech/sysadmin and I use Linux
D I am not a programmer/tech/sysadmin and I don't use Linux
I suspect you will see D > A > B > C > 0
re: Mwahahahahaha (Score:1)
Sorry couldnt resist it. So who do you believe? Microsoft, or.........er........Microsoft. Good article (not just because it supports Linux).
The best point is that it reminds you that one minute Microsoft views Linux as a worthy competitor, and then it proclaims Linux as something you shouldnt bother with.
Oh well, I enjoyed it
numbers are funny. (Score:1)
yes: 1337
The survey did not cover everyone. (Score:1)
Damn good read (Score:1)
The fact that it was on CNN.com is even more amazing.
Someone should stand ourside an MCSE training class and hand out this article to all the people going in
ease of use for your moms computer (Score:1)
everything they want in the "apple" menu. thats
what i did for my compleatly computer illiterate
roomate. no problems. you can even setuid a script
for ppp. it shuts down cleanly when the modem is
turned off. my opinion, but you can make an
easier interface with unix/X than with NT.
of course, installing new software is different matter, but with you doing that, you can look for
potential problems with anything requested before
you install it.
killer app (Score:1)
felt compelled to switch because they found some killer app that just doesn't run on windows quite yet...."
id still prefer being able to choose my OS independantly of choosing applications.
Wonderful - kudos to Nick (Score:1)
DrZiplok == FreeBSD zealot (Score:1)
(If you just can't believe Microsoft runs Hotmail on Unix, see the
recent Bull Software press release, "Bull awarded major contract from
Microsoft for system management software," which states that:
The initial order is for OpenMaster to manage the hundreds of servers
and network connections of Hotmail, the world's leading e-mail
service, which currently provides worldwide e-mail services to more
than 35 million users.
OpenMaster runs on and manages AIX and Solaris, not Windows NT.)
That is it. Maybe hotmail didn't originally run on FreeBSD. Hotmail's site doesn't say *anything* about AIX or Solaris or FreeBSD, and he only cites one source which doesn't mention any *BSD. Maybe this wasn't the topic of the article anyway. He doesn't rule out the possibility, because he says that "hotmail runs on Unix", more than one, and doesn't list them all.
I'm sorry to rant off-topic, but the backlash against Linux from the *BSD crowd around here is really starting to piss me off. I don't use *BSD, but I am somewhat impressed at what they've managed to do, since they have a Linux emulator which apparently runs well, and are also generally renowned for stability. However, it's just another Unix, and not an incredibly popular one at that. Linux is popular, Solaris is well-known but inferior, *BSD is still good, but generally works and rots in a corner. Why? Maybe their development model doesn't work as well with a free community. Maybe if the kernel development were less tight-knit, you'd see more interest, or maybe if it were GPL'ed, instead of stolen by any commercial interest and then re-released proprietarily (read: Apple, for one
Someone mentioned earlier about how Solaris ran on x86 hardware when we had a small flamewar about server/operating systems, and I had a *one-line* post about how Linux also runs on SPARC hardware. What response did I get?
Not on all hardware and not very well, don't let your religion pull the wool over your eyes.--I didn't say that Linux was GOD, I just mentioned that it ran on the same friggin' hardware. I could have mentioned that it was also faster, in, say, kernel latency, or cheaper, or runs on *better hardware* (this UltraSPARC has a friggin' IDE drive in it, it's still expensive, and it doesn't run as well as my K6/300 which has crappier hardware and runs Linux) because that is a *documented fact*, but I didn't, and the bastard read into my post that *didn't* have any hidden meaning. (but I wish it had now...)
...if you want a definitive answer to your question, write to the author, don't whine to us, and I hope he slams you as hard as any of us can for acting like a moron and assuming things that you don't know.
Um (Score:1)
Sure, it's open. My point was that it's *so* open that anyone can use the code, for any purpose, and make it proprietary, like MacOS X. But that isn't even a big deal, compared to the attitude of their users who post (stupid stuff) on slashdot. They don't need support like that...
On the machines I use, Solaris is inferior to Linux. I've never used a machine running Solaris with more than one processor, nor am I prepared to pay for one. At my university, we use Solaris and NT for desktops. The Solaris machines range from Sparc 4 to Ultra 10, and I've used Sparc 1+, Sun 4, and Sun 3 machines. (they ran SunOS, but... well, close enough for my purposes)
If I replaced any of the NT boxes with Linux, it would be a beautiful machine. All-SCSI hardware, PII-400s, at least 128MB of RAM in each of them. The SPARCs are friggin UltraSPARC 300's with floppy drives (no CDROM), IDE harddrives, and an equivalent amount of RAM. They are, of course, still faster than the NT machines for most tasks, and don't waste as much memory, but aren't what I call efficient, either. Blame RISC architecture or shoddy hardware, but they also cost about as much as the NT boxes. The actual processor speed, by the way, is about equivalent to my K6/300 running Linux, so I got a machine that's, say, 4 times cheaper and runs things at the same (or better!) speed.
I don't think Solaris boxes could beat Linux boxes from a price/performance point of view, (which is what I care about) and although Solaris boxes may do SMP better (that's what I've heard, I haven't tested it) I'm sure they are very expensive, and Linux clusters very well. (64-processor SMP == 16 boxes clustered with 4-processor SMP, assuming you have enough bandwidth. Which is most of what people do, POVray, web servers, everything except for the most high-end and esoteric simulations. And some people still do that on Linux for the price/performance ratio!
...and my argument against Sun hardware is: you get what you pay for. You can run Linux on the same hardware, and even get the same parts for an x86 machine or an Alpha... Some of the SPARCs here use IDE harddrives, heck, I used a PowerMac that did too, one time. So the PC hardware is crappy argument doesn't work, especially since Linux runs on most hardware *and* processors.
(unlike Solaris, NT, AIX, etc, etc. This is actually one area where the *BSD's also do better than the commercial equivalents, too. I could just do without their supporters, if I want that, I'll read User Friendly.
DrZiplok == FreeBSD zealot (Score:1)
Similarly, gcc is only updated by the same tight-knit group of people, and released when they think they're done. The Linux kernel, and egcs, on the other hand, release many incremental community releases, for peer review, and I find this more friendly and open.
I didn't really want to make this part of my discussion a licensing issue, because it really isn't. However, I don't like the FreeBSD license for, say, an operating system, because I hate to see a good free operating system bastardized by Apple, Microsoft, or anyone else who can't program, can market, and makes everything they touch turn proprietary. That is what the GPL defends against. I figure if someone else wants to use my code and not share, then they can just write it themselves.
So did you have any opinions on, or disputes with, any of the facts I mentioned? I would actually find that interesting.
Warm Fuzzies... (Score:1)
'Course it could be the pot of coffee I just finished.
Petreley == Linux bigot (Score:1)
No 64 bit Windows NT? No problem. (Score:3)
Windows has separate code bases, Linux has one (Score:1)
On the other hand, Linux is pretty much all one code base and those parts that aren't are being merged actively.
Um (Score:1)
Furthermore, Solaris is *INFERIOR* to Linux? Are you basing that on a technical assumption? Please, explain.
Solaris has options for high (B1) security, 64-processor SMP, failover clusters, and best of all, its source code is freely available to look at (and modify for personal use).
From a technical perspective, when dealing with a high-end server (over 4 processors), it is difficult to argue in favour of Linux.
my bad (Score:1)
that was referring to the new licences for many of Sun's products that would allow
*anyone* to download them for non-commerical use. This includes the Java Developer Kit,
Java Workshop, Jini, one of Sun's UNIX applications.
I had assumed Solaris 7 was included under this "newer" licence.
I guess I was wrong.
GNOME 1.0 + Netscape = Winblows (Score:1)
I wonder if there's any chance at all of persuading IBM to release the source code for the OS/2 Workplace Shell... I gather that it's really rather nice. Substitute Rexx with Guile, keep the object model, add metadata in the filesystem in the same way as GNOME, and presto. No harm in feeding the changes back into the OS/2 version -- that'd maybe make it worth IBM's while?
--
W.A.S.T.E.
Regional Fiddlybits (Score:1)
"Lie, lie, lie
deny, deny, deny
grovel, grovel, grovel"
--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)
Still has a long way to go (Score:1)
Don't kid yourself (Score:1)
VERY nice article.. (Score:1)
"one of Linux's most ardent supporters" not bogus (Score:1)
Yes, I realize that he was using humor, I saw it comming before I read any of the quoted text. Yes, I even found it humorous.
My point, however, is I don't think using the hyprocracy, and possible purgery, of MicroSoft is a good way of promoting Linux. MicroSoft is irrelevant. Getting into a mud-slinging match with them doesn't help us. Destroying MicroSoft wasn't what motivated most of the free software developers, and letting Linux advocates try and turn things into that isn't A Good Thing.
Anti-MS FUD (Score:2)
Still, I found the article to have a lot of anti-MS FUD in it, which was disappointing. Linux doesn't need to spread FUD to "win." MicroSoft is something that should be ignored, not beaten up upon.
For example, for the author to claim he is quoting "one of Linux's most ardent supports", when he is quoting a MS executive's trial testimony is bogus. MicroSoft doesn't support Linux, although they do want to say that someone could be considered a competitor to them. Yes, MicroSoft is being bogus also, but what MicroSoft does is irrelevant and can't excuse what Linux supporters do.
As for Linux not having a "long term road map", that is true. Linus recently said that he wasn't sure what was going to go into v2.3, and what will actually end up in it is anyones guess. I don't think this is a problem, but to turn around and effectively say "Yeah, but MicroSoft doesn't have one either!!11!!!" is lame.
As far as the "cost per transation" goes, MicroSoft is right that the price of Linux is meaningless. Anyone who has done real large scale roll-outs knows that the vast majority of the costs involves the labor and training expenses. While you can argue fairly strongly that Linux can have a much smaller labor expense to create a server/system, the training is not as easy to dismiss. Linux has real weaknesses, as well as real strengths. The price, when it comes down to it, is not that big of an issue.
The area of 64-bit support is also something that Linux may be "better than WinNT", but that isn't saying much. There is a lot of Linux software that doesn't run correctly on Alphas/Sparcs. There isn't even very many distributions that can claim to support these 64-bit machines.
While it is possible for MicroSoft to mess up their 64-bit support, I find it somewhat unlikely. The problems with going from 16-bit segments to a flat 32-bit model are much different than going from a flat 32-bit model to a flat 64-bit model.
All in all, I found reading this article to be much like a one-night-fling. Yeah, it was a lot of fun, but I kind feel "dirty" afterwords. There was just too much anti-MicroSoft stuff, and not enough "this is why you should use Linux". What little of the later there was, it was mostly done by tearing down MS.
Bill must be crying right now (Score:1)
What does that mean? (Score:1)
What does that mean? (Score:1)
(lets try this again). Does that mean you can't run Microsoft Office, Microsoft Explorer, Microsoft Bob?
Cause I've found plenty of things to run on Unix.
Interesting article (Score:2)
It would seem that any large body with a lot at stake (let's use a politician and his/her government as an example) will gamble by saying things that aren't necessarily true (or NOT saying things that are true), in the hopes that the heat will be turned off and things will go back to normal. Some examples from recent history include President Clinton's escapade with Lewinsky, and Premier Clark's [government's] numerous scandals (the ferries, the casino, etc). Until they know there's no turning back, they'll swear that black is white.
Such is the case with Microsoft. While they believed they were still on pretty solid ground they could quietly overlook any shortcomings of their own OS, and form arguments (that may or may not be convincing) to see them coming out on top. They could deny that Linux was a threat because, as far as they were concerned, there was no evidence to support that idea.
A breaking point came where they could no longer deny what was really going on, and unless they were to acknowledge what everybody could see was happening (That Linux does "challenge the industry leader"), they'd look rather silly.
Of course, your guess as to what comes of this is as good as mine. Many Politicians who fib manage to stay (or get back) in office; maybe Microsoft will as well.
But, my vote has been with Linux since kernel 1.2.x, and i'm not changing anytime soon.
It would be mostly red (Score:1)
On my way... (Score:1)
I don't work for sun, but... (Score:1)
Her answer? Applix.
So I very much doubt that Sun are as dependent on MS stuff as has been suggested. MS Office is certainly not a company-wide standard.
RE: Here is what Sunbelt actually said. (Score:1)
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Anti-MS FUD (Score:1)
And here I thought it was only our company.
kashani
Still has a long way to go (Score:1)
Well, actually I did put it on my mom's computer, I put it on all PC's at home. While it's true that it's quite a change for newbies to get used to it, it's entirely possible. My whole family is using Linux since I got rid of Windoze, it forced them to learn a bit, which is a good thing. Microsoft keeps people computer-illiterate whereas Unix creates tech-savvy users...
Of course my mother isn't a guru, she's using KDE, only knows a couple of Shell commands (startx, fetchmail, top) and has no idea about internals - but that's my job, a sys-admin's task, and I'm certainly glad she can't kill the system by making a mistake.
So Linux is a valuable choice for family computers as long as there's a knowledgeable administrator available. A stand-alone home computer for newbies might be a problem, though. That could be solved by a special distro that is especially tailored to "powerless-users" (so to speak).
Linux Crashed on Me Too (Score:1)
I haven't seen this with RedHat, but then, RedHat doesn't have the same crontab scripts. I had some theories on the cause, but none have panned out so far. I'm hoping the 2.2.4 kernel fixes things, but if not, I'll try to find the root of the problem and post the results to the appropriate places.
Of course if anyone else has seen anything similar, I'd love to hear about it...
Hopefully not so long (Score:1)
>
> Furthermore, it's still quite a ways from being
> something that I would want to put on my mom's
> computer.
I agree completely. I love Linux, but I have to use MS for work. There is no question about the advantages of Linux over Windows, but for the non-technical person out there, Windows is still easier to use. Although one may argue that these people should be using Macs instead of PCs, since they are even more idiot friendly (to use your own terminology
I'm not so sure if it will take 2 to 3 years before Linux reaches the level of "idiot friendliness" as Windows. With the momentum that the OS has gained, its development is bound to start taking a few leaps forward, and this is the main aspect that Linux developers should be concentrating the most if we have any hopes of seeing grandma buying computers with little penguin stickers on it.
Ps: Great screen name BTW
Later,
--
Joao
Read the fine print. (Score:1)
"Warning:this stuff certainly is beta right now"
Hopefully not so long (Score:1)
Yet, the point of my message, which you apparently missed, was that the day Ms. Average Mom will go out there and purchase her very own Linux machine may be closer than the 2 or 3 years suggested in the message prior to mine.
Later.
Confusions On Server Clustering (Score:1)
The example was of IBM's demonstration of a 17 server Linux cluster running as fast as a Cray. This claim is based on the results of the Povray benchmark, which is in no way related to normal server operations. The Povray benchmark, for those who don't know, is a benchmark based on 3D scene rendering abilities of a machine. The program that was run has been designed using parrallel programming techniques which are necessary in a Beowulf cluster. This has very little to do with your run-of-the-mill server operations that the article seems to gear towards.
As of yet there do not appear to be any significant applications (databases, webservers, etc) that have been developed to harness the capabilities of a Beowulf cluster. From a recent mailing on the Beowulf mailing list, it appears that Oracle is working on making a Beowulf capable database, but that is purely rumor.
All the above is basede on my recent observation, feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.
So why do we need a roadmap? (Score:1)
For what kernels do, I think the 2.2.x series does what it does very well. I can't think of anything at all that needs to be added to it. (More drivers will always be required)
I am looking forward to XFree86 4.0, and a stable Gnome though.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
That's it boys and girls, it's over. (Score:1)
Now, who wants to go for a beer?
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Confusions On Server Clustering (Score:1)
You mean my Beowulf cluster won't handle my workgroup's file and print services the way my Cray can?
D'oh!
I don't recall the article saying anything about "normal server operations", just comparisons to overall computing power.
--
As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.
Here's what happened to my OS/2 kick (Score:1)
OS/2 is a closed system owned by IBM. IBM's interests do not lie in keeping it current as a desktop OS. My interests, and those of other OS/2 users don't matter. We don't have the source. It would be cool if IBM said,"We don't want this, you take it," but that's not going to happen any time soon...
I want an OS with a future. OS/2 is great now, but in 5 years, it'll be keeping my TRS-80's company in the closet.
First the esrvers, then the world! (Score:2)
Now, however, it's time to win the desktop. Between KDE, GNOME, and WINE development, I personally see Linux at taking a serious chunk of Windows desktop market share in two years, and maybe breaking the 50% mark in three years. What you do folks think, reasonable?
Um (Score:1)
Really? I found this page for the Solaris SPARC and Intel Source code Program [sun.com], but if you follow the Download the agreement [sun.com] link under "Licensing Agreement", you find it says "Please note that we cannot accept applications from non-educational institutions nor from individual students."
So to what other program are you referring to when you say "its source code is freely available to look at (and modify for personal use)."? Given that you didn't qualify that as "freely available to educational institutions", you clearly weren't referring to that program, unless I missed something else that indicates that you can get the source even if you're not an educational institution.
Community Source License - doesn't include Solaris (Score:1)
Exxxxcellent... (Score:1)
---FUD (TRUE?) Here is what I know.. (Score:1)
I guy I worked with at another company (not my current employer..) told me MSN.COM's server farm was managed by a friend's company - I think Digital. I was told they had about 1800 NT Servers each loaded to the gills with RAM, but owing to the unpredicatable nature they were never all running at one time, which is probably true since it takes 12 minutes to fully reboot my dual-processor NT box. They even installed *automated* reboot scripts to make stability more predictable. How's THAT for "enterprise-ready"? . Disclaimer: I make no guarantees as to the authenticity of above statements as it is heresay from another individual. I am only reporting as I heard this. So I couldn't say it's "REALLY TRUE" as I don't work for them. I believe it though...
>I know MS NT is bad, but MS guys scheduling reboots is kind of like Microsoft admiting that their servers are unstable.
Oh, you mean like Hotmail outages when their management was too afraid to tell Bill his little OS couldn't run the webmail service, even with an unlimited hardware budget?
Or do you mean how Microsoft's "Terrabyte server" served nothing but roadmaps because it couldn't handle complex data?
1800 NT servers is pretty amazing. We had a 3 or 4 Solaris + Alpha (UNIX) boxes that handled more load than MSN's little NT wasteland server farm. It doesn't make financial sense to run something that way, until you consider how much internal clout MS Sales/Marketing has and the fear of saying NO.
Just in case any AC snips at my
Still has a long way to go (Score:1)
BeOS has a long way to go as far as working with standard PC hardware, especially CD-ROMs and internal modems!
Hehe... it's true! (Score:1)
Confusions On Server Clustering (Score:1)
I agree, his statements about Windows NT not matching Linux on clusters is probably incorrect. Beowulf, as I understand it, is simply made up of a collection of systems running some message passing software over a tightly coupled local area network (100mbit, gigabit, etc). Not counting stability, cost, performance, and availability concerns, there is no fundamental technical reason why Windows NT (or Windows 95, FreeBSD, MacOS, BeOS, etc, etc) could not be made to do the same thing. Really all that is needed is good NIC drivers, a port of the MPI code, and a fairly efficient IP stack to handle the throughput. However the fact that IBM (or anyone else) could put together one of these clusters so easily is important, IMHO. It would probably take a lot longer to do with a non-OSS platform.
Also, database systems (and probably web servers too) do not really apply in this case as they typically use their own message passing schemes, which have no need for the "Beowulf"-specific middleware layer.
I don't work for sun, but... (Score:1)
not surprising really.
Nick Petreley (Score:1)
Thwack!
The ball gets blasted out of the ballpark. And as you trot around the bases, you holler at the pitcher:
"Way to try and put that FUD past me, Eddie-boy!"
Nice article, Nick.
He just ripping off stuff Al Gore did years ago (Score:1)
Secondly, Steve Jobs isn't ahead of anything. His carrer is nothing more than a long sad string of aborted efforts.
If you thought those were good ... (Score:3)
Really good stuff if you have the time to read it
Go to the Link to the survey (Score:1)
They already accounted for that. When more and more Linux machines joined in the poll they stopped tabulating the results and took only the first 2000 results.
This ballot was not stuffed.
If you don't believe me, click on the link to the survey on hte article, and read the paragraphs in the beginning where they explain that everything was going smoothly, then the slashdot effect kicked in, so they only took the first 2000 results.
I'd have to say... (Score:1)
I think the Free Software movement has more of a marketing department than MS does. They only got an interview printed in PC Week, an obviously pro-M$ publication.
We got a great rebuttal printed in CNN, a much more mainstream publication, thanks to Nick Petreley.
I say, let M$ bring on the FUD. We can fend them off much better than they can fend us off, because we also have the truth behind us.
Actually... (Score:3)
Actually, if you go here:
http://www.sunbelt-software.com/0399_ 2000.htm [sunbelt-software.com]
You can see that when they noticed that the statistics were getting skewed towards Linux, they stopped using those statistics. Only the first 2000 responses were used. These responses were made before word of the survey got out to the Linux crowd.
There's no ballot stuffing here.
This article is damning.... (Score:4)
No 64 bit Windows NT? No problem. (Score:1)
So whatever happened to Merced - the PA-RISC and Intel joint effort that was supposed to dominate the 64 bit chip market? I recall the hub-bub when it first went into supposed development over a year ago. HP observed MS's exceedingly slow pace developing a 64 bit OS, and decided to spring their own HP-UX 11.0 outta the box.
But then, IMHO, HP-UX 11.0 is still under development and has a long way to go before it can replace 10.20. 64bit is going to be a long way off in that camp as well.
Already past Windows? NOT EVEN CLOSE! (Score:1)
Which brings up something that's been bothering me for a year or so now: Why would anyone want a DVD drive for movies on their computer? If you want to watch movies, get a DVD player for your 27"+ TV, not your 17" monitor... I for one can't imagine sitting at a desk in front of a computer watching a movie. Am I the only one who thinks DVD movies on a computer is a dumb idea? (Okay, on a laptop, it's almost sensible, since you could hook it up to a TV easily if it had composite output, or maybe watch movies on an airplane or something...)
Now, using DVD for data storage, I can see...
Freshmeat effect, accounted for too. (Score:1)
I'm glad they stepped in to ensure that they were sampling their target population - it makes the pro-linux results look even better
"one of Linux's most ardent supporters" not bogus (Score:1)
You read the quote, and it does sound very pro-linux, kinda like something a linux geek here would write when refuting the "no software" FUD.
Then the author reveals that it was an MS exec, giving testimony in the DOJ case. The significance of that is not lost on the reader, who realizes that the testimony was *not* that of an 'ardent supporter', but an exec trying to make linux seem like competition in front of the court, and in the process refutes his own company's FUD.
Wham! Irony.
Then the point becomes clear - you can't trust what the mouth of MS says, since it changes like a chameleon from pro-linux when being prosecuted, to anti-linux when trying to keep IT managers from dropping NT like a pissed-off rattlesnake.
Though the reader will also realize that the statements made before the DOJ about linux software are in fact true.
Conclusion: Ed Muth is wrong. (that is, after all, what the artical was supposed to be about)
Still has a long way to go (Score:1)
BTW, anyone out there want a couple feet of snow? We've got lots to spare.
Still has a long way to go (Score:5)
I agree with you that Linux is a ways away from being what I would put on my mother's computer either, but consider it's roots.
As we all know, Linux is a variant of UNIX, which was originally written by developers for other developers. Computers weren't household appliances. They didn't need to be "idiot friendly", they needed to be "professional friendly". And, due to hardware constraints, it had to be a lean and mean.
Windows on the other hand, traces it's lineage back to the inception of the PC, and QDOS. PCs, in contrast to workstations, had to be more "idiot friendly" than UNIX, because they were not targeted exclusively at the professional.
Now, if we bring this forward to the inception of NT, we find that Microsoft has seen the writting on the wall when it comes to the "PC" market. They can see that they have saturated the home market. In order to continue making the unbelievable amounts of revenue they have been sustaining, they need to A) Force the people who have bought their product in the past to upgrade to a new version, and/or B) Move into the server market, where the big bucks are. Microsoft decided to do both. (Hence NT, and eventually, the 9x line)
Meanwhile, the commercial UNIXes were happy as clams in a pond. They WERE the server market. There were many variants available, and the competition kept things fresh, but there was little reason to make UNIX "idiot friendly". NT (and more importantly, NT's marketing) caught them off guard. All of a sudden, NT was on it's road to becoming the big game in town, and the various UNIX vendors began loosing that ever so important market share.
Now, we bring this forward to present day. Many companies who standardized on NT have knowingly, or unknowingly been forced to bring back UNIX. Linux is rising in popularity and, for the first time, there IS a reason to make it "idiot friendly", if only to end Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC market.
The bad news is, Microsoft has been making "user-friendly" OSes complete with user candy for quite some time now. Arguably, they're pretty good at it.
The flip side of the coin is that UNIX/Linux has been doing networking for quite some time now. And I think we'll all agree, it's pretty damn good at it.
So what we have is two seperate systems, built for completely disparate environmnents encroaching on each other's living space. (Imagine a whale being forced to walk on land and an elephant being forced to swim.) And at this point, they either evolve, or you end up with a lot of beached whales and drowned elephants.
It comes down to a question of how well each can adapt to their new environment. Can NT become more reliable, scalable, and robust? Can UNIX become more user friendly, intuitive, and simple?
Linux, being open source has a distinct advantage. It can (and has) evolve very quickly. Look at where Linux was in terms of use-ability a year ago, compared to now. Then, look at NT in terms of stability, and performance a year ago, compared to now.
So, while Linux still has a long way to go, I'd much rather wait for it to become more user-friendly than I would for NT to become more scalable.
These are interesting times. Enjoy them.
I don't work for sun... (Score:1)
You think ol' Scott McNealy fires up Outlook to send out his companywide messages? Heh. Yeah, right. This is SUN we're talking about! The first company to make personal *NIX workstations practical.
Now I'm curious, though. Anyone who does work for sun want to comment?
Warm Fuzzies... (Score:1)
I ran a pretty intense ftp server for a while and when I had it running NT, it would crap out all the time. I took the same exact hardware over to linux and it just kept chugging along. Pretty nifty shit.
Oh, and with that pot of coffee, watch out or you may also get the warm tricklies running down your leg!
---------------------------------------
The art of flying is throwing yourself at the ground...
Bob.... (Score:1)
I just fear the day that Microsoft comes out with MS-Linux
---------------------------------------
The art of flying is throwing yourself at the ground...
Here's the URL. (Score:1)
Here is what Sunbelt actually said. (Score:5)
Well, it wasn't. Here is the intro to the survey results from Sunbelt:
Sunbelt March99 Survey Results
over 1999 NT users
And now, the answers to the survey questions! Before anything else,
thanks for your many thousands of survey answers. This is a hot
topic for sure!!
First though, some background data. This survey was meant to
get an idea how things are looked at BY the NT community, FOR
the NT community. Well, that was somewhat naive I have to admit
. The questions were created while looking at discussions
between NT system administrators and were definitely written
from that viewpoint. Some claim that they were biased. There may
be some truth in that if you look at it from the Linux POV.
Sunbelt does not claim any kind of scientific validity. This
survey is a snapshot and not a random sample at all. It is not
objective but that was not the idea in the first place.
BUT, I guess if you step into a war you should expect some bullets
flying around, and I did get some flak from people. Most of these
people are both running NT and Linux and know them well. Personally
I know NT but have not much experience with Linux. We have a few
'closet' Linux users in Sunbelt though, both in sales and Tech .
Anyway, what happened is that we sent the invitation to do the
survey, and very quickly got thousands of responses back. We
followed in real-time what the results were, every 500 responses
or so. Extremely surprising numbers to start with. But even more
strange after the first few hours. Numbers started suddenly to
change and become slanted toward more Linux than before. Very odd
from a statistical perspective I remember from my stats course
in college.
Now, it so happens that the software we use to do the survey
queries the browser that was used to fill out the survey. So
we know what O/S it is running on, and the IP address it comes
from. The Linux user community had gotten word about the survey
and was getting into gear to show that Linux had support.
So anyway, we took the first 2000 survey results and did our
analysis on those. These were from predominantly NT users with
some people answering from a Linux machine. That will give some
idea about the current state of Linux use and the results are
revealing.
/snip/
And here is my own favorite set of statistics, about the supposed
advantages/disadvantages of Linux:
How important are these perceived Linux Benefits?
Scale= Very Important / Important / Of Less Importance
Linux is free
775.00 / 523.00 / 542.00
Stability
1584.00 / 195.00 / 58.00
Not Microsoft
340.00 / 290.00 / 1178.00
Better performance
1356.00 / 381.00 / 89.00
Open Software
1148.00 / 459.00 / 225.00
Other
619.00 / 294.00 / 294.00
How important are these perceived Linux drawbacks?
(Same scale)
Lack of Applications
463.00 / 449.00 / 882.00
Not Mission Critical yet
314.00 / 333.00 / 1099.00
Lack of Third Party utilities
324.00 / 352.00 / 1084.00
Different distributions / GUI's
261.00 / 299.00 / 1197.00
Lack of standardization
386.00 / 315.00 / 1060.00
Open Software
257.00 / 281.00 / 1214.00
Lack of Tech Support
324.00 / 312.00 / 1119.00
Too 'Bleeding Edge'
129.00 / 256.00 / 1347.00
Steep Learning Curve
238.00 / 401.00 / 1116.00
Hardware incompatibilities
371.00 / 404.00 / 985.00
User unfriendly
270.00 / 385.00 / 1101.00
Already past Windows? NOT EVEN CLOSE! (Score:1)
Whoa! That was a tough one!
logan
Still has a long way to go (Score:1)
I've never really encountered a Windows setup that didn't totally deteriorate at some point in time to the point that the user has to come ask someone like me for help -- and this is _without_ the user doing anything but typical installation or uninstallation of software using the typical packaging systems you find on Windows. Even if Windows is setup professionally and fine-tuned for the hardware it is installed upon by the same professionals, unless you never touch the machine you're going to be deluged with GPFs, ambiguous error messages ("At least one device failed", etc.), and odd quirks that are often just completly insurmountable (short of restoring the hard drive image to what it was when you first received it). The most common "troubleshooting" task involved in Windows support is the oh so troublesome "reinstall." Does the application crash every time you run it? If you can't find a hack to fix it, all you can do is reinstall. If the OS itself manages to fail in this manner (and it does and will), you've got an entire OS to reinstall. That's what you consider useable?
True, this is not Microsoft's fault alone -- there are dozens, if not thousands of software developers who are spewing out applications that are as bad or worse than the OS itself, and there's nothing you or I can do about it. This is not what I consider ease of use. This is not what I would want to subject my mother to when I give her a computer. True, Linux apps generally lack the glitz and occasionally the interoperability that Windows apps have, but which OS is more _useable_?
logan
---FUD (TRUE?) (Score:1)
> Pentium Pro NT servers on a *scheduled*
> reboot regimen (24 hours I think).
Is this REALLY TRUE? I find it remarkably hard to believe. I mean, I know MS NT is bad, but MS guys scheduling reboots is kind of like Microsoft admiting that their servers are unstable.
I've heard about a US Post Office NT server that had to be rebooted once per hour. I also find this difficult to believe, but the story teller I believe, and the source I trust.
Great Article (Score:3)
It's clear he has a good handle on the strengths of Linux in comparison to today's WinNT, as well as the NT yet to be developed.
As usual, it's noted that so much FUD from the Micros~1 people downplay the importance and significance that Linux has in current Internet applications as well as home-users' desktops. MS seems to have just discovered that there indeed are GUIs for Linux, and there are applications comparable to most anything that MS has already produced. And Linux almost always does it better.
To quote:
And the reasons stating the superiority of Linux go on and on. Really, if you look at those numbers and have used Linux, the numbers shouldn't be a surprise to you. Can you really beat an OS that's not only free, but has thousands of programmers continually fixing, updating, and supporting it?
viva Open Source! viva Linux!
Still has a long way to go (Score:1)
A little off topic, but elephants are actually very good swimmers. Their large surface area to allows them much buoyance, and their trunks can be used as snorkels.
Just a little useless fact.
Of course, Steve Jobs is way ahead of everyone (Score:1)
Say it isn't so... (Score:1)
BooBoo
Linux applications in Borders (Score:1)
There was a whole solid bookcase column (vertical member to vertical member) devoted to Linux distributions and applications. Wow!
D
----
No 64 bit Windows NT? No problem. (Score:1)
Nice (Score:1)
For what its worth, I will state that you are correct about this. Corporations have bought into the Windows desktop. They are not about to just replace X thousands of OS's, the costs would be staggering (I am not talking about the cost of the OS, but the cost of retraining users, upgrading each desktop and the (temporary) increase in the number of support calls).
Linux Crashed on Me - X isn't Linux (Score:1)
Greg
First the esrvers, then the world! (Score:1)
I think what is reasonable to assume is that in two or three years Linux+KDE|Gnome will be the clear informed choice for a newbie or for someone who has found a compelling reason to leave windows. The ultimate pipe dream would be if people felt compelled to switch because they found some killer app that just doesn't run on windows quite yet......
This article is damning.... (Score:2)
Be honest now, if Hotmail used Linux instead of FreeBSD for their web servers, do you think Solaris would have been mentioned at all?
This article is damning.... (Score:2)
That they're using Solaris is especially telling to the audience of this piece. The use of FreeBSD may be of interest to us, but mentioning it to the PHB's just dilutes the impact.
Still has a long way to go (Score:2)
Furthermore, it's still quite a ways from being something that I would want to put on my mom's computer.
A lot has happened in the last year, but I would say it'll be 2 or 3 more years before it will make significant gains on "user's" desktops. Perhaps Corel's distribution will be more "idiot friendly." If so, that will be a reason for many techies to turn against the Corel distribution, and shoot themselves in the head.
Nice (Score:2)
Hopefully not so long (Score:2)
and she was on her own. She even waited for "System halted" to show up before turning off the
computer.
The thing I find most difficult for windows users (moving to linux) to understand is the multiuser concept. When I tell mom and dad to log off and let someone else use it, they ask me "why?" This is something new to them.