Linux heads
-
JCParker wrote:
At this time and this is an argument used by Microsoft defending these claims, Linux is the most usable alternative to Microsoft's Desktop operating system. I will also admit that I use Solaris as a desktop and for some environments, it is a better fit than Windows.
I am aware that Microsoft uses this argument. That's because it is a valid argument. This should be readily apparent by the fact that Corporate America is not interested in Linux. It is too risky and costly. No one would bet their business on an ideology. Unix had its chance unopposed and it failed because it was a world run by bigots and technocrats that have an aversion to business sense. Linux is a dead body stood up and walked by zealots in hopes that someone will consider it alive. It is not driven by the commercial markets therefore it has no structure and backbone of support other than someone that goes home at night and types on his computer to hack out something in between games of Halo. As a file server it had appeal until they figured out that most Linux admins are specialists in the Linux world, and motivated by idealism rather than the profit of the company. Just look at the way they mock the market leader in operating systems as though some obscure technical advantage would somehow be perceived at preferential. This is what is meant by a technocrat. Reasonably good at technology with no earthly idea how to use it in the real world or what the point of businesses are in the first place. Businesses are not interested in drumbeaters jousting windmills.
JCParker wrote:
When Microsoft produced Windows, the system was designed for ease of use and with the goal that anyone could use it. Other systems were designed with different goals, by other programers, thus with different results.
They took the same approach to the developer. This is why Microsoft rose to the top. They had apps that anyone could develop. This is a pariah in the OSS world. They don't want everyone using their software. They want businesses to depend on a set of esoteric programmers that can charge them more for their rarity of skills. The technology is driven by the capitalist businesses, not by some idealist illusion of nobility. Corporate America is not interested in the vilification of Microsoft by a bunch of script kiddies. Why should I settle on an OS that guarantees it will always be chasing the leader and one that is in the ha
rittjc wrote:
Anyone developing on Unix or Linux today risks becoming a dinosaur skillswise and unmarketable in the future. Too much competition now in the Windows world of developers. Nothing personal, its just the way it is in my opinion.
I guess you are right. But FYI I turn down more jobs than I take. I only take jobs that intrigue me. I have been programing for more than 40 years. I do all right as a dinosaur, make more than many programers I know who are much younger. Cheers
-
"Unix/Linux was never created for the average user." And hence the reason both died a rapid and mericless death. When I started developing 20 years ago, we used assembler and it was "cool" to do something so complex that no one could understand it. This was how you got your reputation. This was the era when Unix (father of Linux) was developed. This is laughed at in this day and age because efficency is everything. This is also why both have sucked hind tit to Windows for these years. This is also why the use of Linux is considered a "hobby". I witnessed the Unix biggots who believed themselves to be above the others because they learned a convoluted obsolete environment. Their punishment was unemployment and finding a job where they were the neophites. Pride goes before the fall.
rittjc wrote:
And hence the reason both died a rapid and mericless death.
Get your facts straight. Neither of them are dead.
rittjc wrote:
This was the era when Unix (father of Linux) was developed.
No, Unix came about way before the 80s. Get your facts straight.
rittjc wrote:
This is also why the use of Linux is considered a "hobby".
Wrong again. Unix/Linux is used in a lot of professional instances that are not hobbies. For example, do you enjoy watching movies? Render farms use it a lot to save money, SGIs use a variant, and the list goes on. There's more, Google, Yahoo, etc. use it. Get your facts straight.
rittjc wrote:
I witnessed the Unix biggots who believed themselves to be above the others because they learned a convoluted obsolete environment.
Biggots are everywhere, even Windows users that think they are smarter for choosing it - which is how you're acting. Once again, get your facts straight. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Unix/Linux was never created for the average user. Granted it has come a long way, but the fact remains if you want to get anywhere with it you're going to have to learn about it first.
:omg: Did you post the exact same phrase some time ago or did I just have a deja vu? I knew what all the pharase was at the moment I started reading it. regards, Mircea Many people spend their life going to sleep when they’re not sleepy and waking up while they still are.
Mircea Grelus wrote:
Did you post the exact same phrase some time ago or did I just have a deja vu?
Nah, I just read your mind before I clicked submit. ;) Jeremy Falcon
-
rittjc wrote:
And hence the reason both died a rapid and mericless death.
Get your facts straight. Neither of them are dead.
rittjc wrote:
This was the era when Unix (father of Linux) was developed.
No, Unix came about way before the 80s. Get your facts straight.
rittjc wrote:
This is also why the use of Linux is considered a "hobby".
Wrong again. Unix/Linux is used in a lot of professional instances that are not hobbies. For example, do you enjoy watching movies? Render farms use it a lot to save money, SGIs use a variant, and the list goes on. There's more, Google, Yahoo, etc. use it. Get your facts straight.
rittjc wrote:
I witnessed the Unix biggots who believed themselves to be above the others because they learned a convoluted obsolete environment.
Biggots are everywhere, even Windows users that think they are smarter for choosing it - which is how you're acting. Once again, get your facts straight. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Get your facts straight. Neither of them are dead.
Dead is figurative. It simply means no future no growth.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
No, Unix came about way before the 80s. Get your facts straight.
An era is a period of time not an instantaneous event. Unix was the primary OS when I started in the early 80s. It is not significantly different than it was 30 years ago.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Wrong again. Unix/Linux is used in a lot of professional instances that are not hobbies. For example, do you enjoy watching movies? Render farms use it a lot to save money, SGIs use a variant, and the list goes on. There's more, Google, Yahoo, etc. use it. Get your facts straight.
I am talking about application development. You don't use Linux to develop professional applications. It’s a decent file server, I have already stated that. If all you do is file servers, you can settle for Linux without taking a lot of risk, especially if you already are Linux savvy. That’s the reason Google/Yahoo use it. I am surprised they haven’t moved to the Microsoft servers, since they are faster especially as you increase the number of processors. They are equally secure (Windows 2003 had less (5) major CERT problems than the latest (at the time) RedHat Linux (11) when it was first released). The comparisons of Unix to DOS were similar to comparison of the IBM PC to the Mac. The Intel 8088 architecture with its hideous segmented architecture was grossly inferior to the Mac’s Motorola 68x00 linear addressing processor. But, Apple got its butt waxed because IBM had use of a visionary named Bill Gates who was insightful enough to develop a basic interpreter and release it with the OS so people could actually start using a computer for solving problems, in an easy to understand language, not just managing files. This was and is the difference. A successful platform is all about getting developers in the game so that they can get end users in the game (who bring their money with them). Unixizers loved lording their knowledge of a complex OS and mocking Windows developers. I remember this very well. I was there friend. But Windows developers started using the computer for more than a file server. This took the myopic Unixizers by surprise and rapidly made them obsolete. It is the same principle as the Palm to the other Pocket PC type competitors.
-
rittjc wrote:
Anyone developing on Unix or Linux today risks becoming a dinosaur skillswise and unmarketable in the future. Too much competition now in the Windows world of developers. Nothing personal, its just the way it is in my opinion.
I guess you are right. But FYI I turn down more jobs than I take. I only take jobs that intrigue me. I have been programing for more than 40 years. I do all right as a dinosaur, make more than many programers I know who are much younger. Cheers
JCParker wrote:
I guess you are right. But FYI I turn down more jobs than I take. I only take jobs that intrigue me. I have been programing for more than 40 years. I do all right as a dinosaur, make more than many programers I know who are much younger.
I would hope you would make more money than people just getting into the business after being in it for 40 years. But you do stand the risk of that market drying up. The relative rarity of Linux skills it was makes the costs high for development. But logically that makes the price of the app more expensive to the end user. To me OSS is like socialism trying to operate like capitalism. It is inevitable that some ideological concept is going to be compromised and lead to a sort of hypocrisy. In this case the "budget OS" has too expensive applications. It's like the telecommunications companies giving away a free phone or satellite disk companies give away the receiver equipment for their service. Free is never really free. That’s was Microsoft’s argument and it is valid. Even the programming world is driven by supply and demand. Jim
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Get your facts straight. Neither of them are dead.
Dead is figurative. It simply means no future no growth.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
No, Unix came about way before the 80s. Get your facts straight.
An era is a period of time not an instantaneous event. Unix was the primary OS when I started in the early 80s. It is not significantly different than it was 30 years ago.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Wrong again. Unix/Linux is used in a lot of professional instances that are not hobbies. For example, do you enjoy watching movies? Render farms use it a lot to save money, SGIs use a variant, and the list goes on. There's more, Google, Yahoo, etc. use it. Get your facts straight.
I am talking about application development. You don't use Linux to develop professional applications. It’s a decent file server, I have already stated that. If all you do is file servers, you can settle for Linux without taking a lot of risk, especially if you already are Linux savvy. That’s the reason Google/Yahoo use it. I am surprised they haven’t moved to the Microsoft servers, since they are faster especially as you increase the number of processors. They are equally secure (Windows 2003 had less (5) major CERT problems than the latest (at the time) RedHat Linux (11) when it was first released). The comparisons of Unix to DOS were similar to comparison of the IBM PC to the Mac. The Intel 8088 architecture with its hideous segmented architecture was grossly inferior to the Mac’s Motorola 68x00 linear addressing processor. But, Apple got its butt waxed because IBM had use of a visionary named Bill Gates who was insightful enough to develop a basic interpreter and release it with the OS so people could actually start using a computer for solving problems, in an easy to understand language, not just managing files. This was and is the difference. A successful platform is all about getting developers in the game so that they can get end users in the game (who bring their money with them). Unixizers loved lording their knowledge of a complex OS and mocking Windows developers. I remember this very well. I was there friend. But Windows developers started using the computer for more than a file server. This took the myopic Unixizers by surprise and rapidly made them obsolete. It is the same principle as the Palm to the other Pocket PC type competitors.
rittjc wrote:
Dead is figurative.
Um, no duh.
rittjc wrote:
An era is a period of time not an instantaneous event.
Except your dates was over 20 years off. That's not even close to instantaneous as you suggested I insinuated.
rittjc wrote:
I am talking about application development. You don't use Linux to develop professional applications.
This is a load of crap. Really, do your homework.
rittjc wrote:
That’s the reason Google/Yahoo use it.
This only demonstrates how little you know about the subject matter. Get your facts straight. Here's one linke, there are many more. Clickety[^]
rittjc wrote:
I am surprised they haven’t moved to the Microsoft servers, since they are faster especially as you increase the number of processors.
I can give you 10 reasons right now why Windows is slower. Look up it though, I still have the rest of your looooong post to endure. Btw, do you honestly think Windows is the only OS with SMP or that MS invented or something?
rittjc wrote:
They are equally secure (Windows 2003 had less (5) major CERT problems than the latest (at the time) RedHat Linux (11) when it was first released).
Just becuase RedHat made some mistakes doesn't affect the quality of Unix/Linux. You apparently don't understand their model.
rittjc wrote:
They therefore bought more and the prices dropped and created a world where experiments like Linux could occur.
And Unix was still around way before that. Get your facts straight.
rittjc wrote:
I’m sorry Jerry
Um... that's not my name. :laugh:
rittjc wrote:
but Linux is just a leach of the Microsoft profiting that drove innovation and the ease use of computers both from a developer’s standpoint as well as the end user.
Yeah, you think you're not a biggot?
-
JCParker wrote:
I guess you are right. But FYI I turn down more jobs than I take. I only take jobs that intrigue me. I have been programing for more than 40 years. I do all right as a dinosaur, make more than many programers I know who are much younger.
I would hope you would make more money than people just getting into the business after being in it for 40 years. But you do stand the risk of that market drying up. The relative rarity of Linux skills it was makes the costs high for development. But logically that makes the price of the app more expensive to the end user. To me OSS is like socialism trying to operate like capitalism. It is inevitable that some ideological concept is going to be compromised and lead to a sort of hypocrisy. In this case the "budget OS" has too expensive applications. It's like the telecommunications companies giving away a free phone or satellite disk companies give away the receiver equipment for their service. Free is never really free. That’s was Microsoft’s argument and it is valid. Even the programming world is driven by supply and demand. Jim
rittjc wrote:
But you do stand the risk of that market drying up.
Actually I do not think the market will dry up. I can not see the light at the end of the tunnel. I usually teach where ever I go, this helps others and broadens the number of people who have the knowledge. BTW I program interfaces between applications, protocols, and OS's. As long as there is diversity I will have a job:laugh:
rittjc wrote:
Free is never really free.
A better quote (and much older) is "There is no such thing as a free lunch" and instead of
rittjc wrote:
"budget OS"
rather Other OS since there are places who use very old (Long past when support was droped) systems that have to be accessed for historical data or for a special application not available for current systems. Cheers
-
rittjc wrote:
But you do stand the risk of that market drying up.
Actually I do not think the market will dry up. I can not see the light at the end of the tunnel. I usually teach where ever I go, this helps others and broadens the number of people who have the knowledge. BTW I program interfaces between applications, protocols, and OS's. As long as there is diversity I will have a job:laugh:
rittjc wrote:
Free is never really free.
A better quote (and much older) is "There is no such thing as a free lunch" and instead of
rittjc wrote:
"budget OS"
rather Other OS since there are places who use very old (Long past when support was droped) systems that have to be accessed for historical data or for a special application not available for current systems. Cheers
-
rittjc wrote:
Dead is figurative.
Um, no duh.
rittjc wrote:
An era is a period of time not an instantaneous event.
Except your dates was over 20 years off. That's not even close to instantaneous as you suggested I insinuated.
rittjc wrote:
I am talking about application development. You don't use Linux to develop professional applications.
This is a load of crap. Really, do your homework.
rittjc wrote:
That’s the reason Google/Yahoo use it.
This only demonstrates how little you know about the subject matter. Get your facts straight. Here's one linke, there are many more. Clickety[^]
rittjc wrote:
I am surprised they haven’t moved to the Microsoft servers, since they are faster especially as you increase the number of processors.
I can give you 10 reasons right now why Windows is slower. Look up it though, I still have the rest of your looooong post to endure. Btw, do you honestly think Windows is the only OS with SMP or that MS invented or something?
rittjc wrote:
They are equally secure (Windows 2003 had less (5) major CERT problems than the latest (at the time) RedHat Linux (11) when it was first released).
Just becuase RedHat made some mistakes doesn't affect the quality of Unix/Linux. You apparently don't understand their model.
rittjc wrote:
They therefore bought more and the prices dropped and created a world where experiments like Linux could occur.
And Unix was still around way before that. Get your facts straight.
rittjc wrote:
I’m sorry Jerry
Um... that's not my name. :laugh:
rittjc wrote:
but Linux is just a leach of the Microsoft profiting that drove innovation and the ease use of computers both from a developer’s standpoint as well as the end user.
Yeah, you think you're not a biggot?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
rittjc wrote: Dead is figurative. Um, no duh.
Um, yea duh. I was using it figuratively therefore it was figurative. Why would you disagree with what I said I meant? Are you just being argumentative?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
rittjc wrote: An era is a period of time not an instantaneous event. Except your dates was over 20 years off. That's not even close to instantaneous as you suggested I insinuated.
My dates were right on since I was talking about the early 80s when Unix was the premier OS. I should know I was there. I never said anything about the original date of Unix. Go back and read carefully, then answer. So many of your responses here seems to indicate that you think a standard and an open standard are the same thing. Windows is a standard, not an open standard. Therefore it has absolute definition and you can design to it. Linux is an open standard. It is chaotic and has a new release every other week. I don't need poorly tested changes coming out in my OS on a regular basis also with security patches that force me to upgrade this potentially buggy code. I havent upgraded my Windows XP2 since I got it two years ago. Yes, a 1000 programmers will look at Linux releases and find the bug and fix it, but it crashed my system before that time and makes me upgrade again and again. I don't have to rely on fly by night drivers for an OS that is needlessly cryptic to debug. You make a big mistake when you say I have never installed and worked with Linux. You seem to think there are millions of businesses out there using Linux on their desktops. There are not that many radicals in business IT departments out there. Linux is a decent file server with a wannabe desktop personna. That's not bigoted that is a commonly known fact. Don't go quoting anecdotes of where someone managed to get Linux to work for them. We are talking out OSs as a mainstream commodity not some as some fringe application of it. Sometimes the truth hurts especially a zealot like yourself. Your comment that Unix was "not made for idiots" is a bit over the top. Not only is it a baseless claim and arrogant, anyone that would use an obsolete OS that had decades to evolve but is nothing more than a glorified file/web server (same as Linux which is simply an 80x88 knockoff of Unix and why there was a threat of a lawsuit) should never refer to developers and admins of other OS's as idiots.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
rittjc wrote: Dead is figurative. Um, no duh.
Um, yea duh. I was using it figuratively therefore it was figurative. Why would you disagree with what I said I meant? Are you just being argumentative?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
rittjc wrote: An era is a period of time not an instantaneous event. Except your dates was over 20 years off. That's not even close to instantaneous as you suggested I insinuated.
My dates were right on since I was talking about the early 80s when Unix was the premier OS. I should know I was there. I never said anything about the original date of Unix. Go back and read carefully, then answer. So many of your responses here seems to indicate that you think a standard and an open standard are the same thing. Windows is a standard, not an open standard. Therefore it has absolute definition and you can design to it. Linux is an open standard. It is chaotic and has a new release every other week. I don't need poorly tested changes coming out in my OS on a regular basis also with security patches that force me to upgrade this potentially buggy code. I havent upgraded my Windows XP2 since I got it two years ago. Yes, a 1000 programmers will look at Linux releases and find the bug and fix it, but it crashed my system before that time and makes me upgrade again and again. I don't have to rely on fly by night drivers for an OS that is needlessly cryptic to debug. You make a big mistake when you say I have never installed and worked with Linux. You seem to think there are millions of businesses out there using Linux on their desktops. There are not that many radicals in business IT departments out there. Linux is a decent file server with a wannabe desktop personna. That's not bigoted that is a commonly known fact. Don't go quoting anecdotes of where someone managed to get Linux to work for them. We are talking out OSs as a mainstream commodity not some as some fringe application of it. Sometimes the truth hurts especially a zealot like yourself. Your comment that Unix was "not made for idiots" is a bit over the top. Not only is it a baseless claim and arrogant, anyone that would use an obsolete OS that had decades to evolve but is nothing more than a glorified file/web server (same as Linux which is simply an 80x88 knockoff of Unix and why there was a threat of a lawsuit) should never refer to developers and admins of other OS's as idiots.
rittjc wrote:
I never said anything about the original date of Unix.
You said "This was the era when Unix (father of Linux) was developed." in the context of 20 years ago. Maybe you should reread it. Also, I'm not going to bother with the rest of this post. Nothing you said has been correct, and I feel I'm wasting my time. Good day to you. Jeremy Falcon