Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Comment: Re:AIX is back (Score 1) 408

by trasz (#34502782) Attached to: Ex-Sun CEO Warns Oracle of Death By Open Source
Just let me debunk some of your "facts". ;-) First, the 5% you cited is for web developers - i.e. techies. If you look at the operating systems market share among average users, you'll notice that Linux has only about 1% (http://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=8). OSX has five times as much. Second, writing applications for Android has nothing in common with programming for Linux - completely different environment, language, API etc - and so the developers group don't really overlap. Since you've demonstrated that you know nothing about portability between unix-like systems, you're probably not a programmer, but you could at least do some reading here. Here's a homework for you: figure out how many pieces of software are there in the AppStore, how many are there in Debian, and then compare. And that's not mentioning the fact that in the last few years lots of Open Source developers replaced Linux with OSX, which is rather evident on Open Source-related conferences.

Comment: Re:AIX is back (Score 1) 408

by trasz (#34500776) Attached to: Ex-Sun CEO Warns Oracle of Death By Open Source
Sun didn't compete in operating systems. Neither did IBM. There is no business there - lots of companies tried and failed; only one succeeded, and mostly because of IBMs historical mistake. Suns' mistake had nothing to do with Linux or Solaris - it was all about their management staff. They avoided wasting some money on Linux, but I doubt it was amount that could make a difference. Linux kernel / Solaris userland wouldn't make porting software from Linux any easier compared to normal Solaris; from the programmer point of view, differences between unix-likes are mostly in userland. Solaris kernel / Linux userland would, though. Apple ditched Linux, because they needed something better. And that's one of the reasons OSX has several times more desktop users - and more developers - than Linux.

Comment: Re:AIX is back (Score 1) 408

by trasz (#34500252) Attached to: Ex-Sun CEO Warns Oracle of Death By Open Source
1. Trying to deprecate AIX was a mistake. Sun kind of did the same (remember McNealy saying how they love Linux?), but they realized their mistake a little sooner than IBM. Still, this had nothing to do with their business failure - Sun simply didn't have a clue on how to do business. 2. Linux kernel + Solaris userland doesn't make any sense at all, since technologically Linux is inferior (that's the point with IBM benchmarking, btw). Solaris kernel and Linux (GNU) userland would be better, though. 3. Apple affair with Linux was a total failure. That's why they ditched it and never looked back, instead going with their own operating system, not borrowing a single line of code from Linux kernel.

Comment: AIX is back (Score 1) 408

by trasz (#34498708) Attached to: Ex-Sun CEO Warns Oracle of Death By Open Source
Not sure where you've spent last five years, but IBM is pushing its proprietary systems again, and with pretty good results. Did you notice that for big machines, their always publish server application benchmarks under AIX, not Linux? High-end Linux benchmark results from IBM are limited to things like HPC.

Comment: Re:Freedom ain't free (Score 1) 273

by trasz (#33417138) Attached to: Native ZFS Is Coming To Linux Next Month
Looks like some folks try very hard to notice a very simple fact: that in every case involving license incompatibility one of the parties is always GPL. There are GPL-compatible licenses, there are GPL-incompatible licenses, but there are no e.g. Mozilla-incompatible licenses other than GPL. In other words - in the Open Source world license incompatibility problem just doesn't occur when not dealing with GPL. Also, GPL-incompatibility is not the only problem with that license. GPL code cannot be incorporated into software licensed under most GPL-compatible licenses, such as BSD, Apache, Xorg, whatever. But I digress.

C for yourself.