Do you think Microsoft will make Linux illegal?

Page 3 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

nodice1996
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jan 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,047
Location: Michigan

07 Jul 2010, 8:48 pm

I bet Microsoft relies on Linux for their servers.


_________________
Guns don't kill people--Magic Missiles Do.


TOGGI3
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

07 Jul 2010, 8:59 pm

nodice1996 wrote:
I bet Microsoft relies on Linux for their servers.


they did at one point for various things but in order to make people believe windows is ready for big iron they need to 'eat their own dogfood'. I guess in a way they still rely on linux for alot of things, like their CDN which is handled by akamai and their routers im sure arent windows on their high load stuff.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

07 Jul 2010, 11:06 pm

Ichinin wrote:
Windows is King and Linux are "here and there" in the occasional server halls. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH YOU LIKE LINUX/UNIX/MAC OS, Business do not give a flying sh** about the features of those systems, they want something that works and that "everyone" knows.

Dude... you have no freaking room to talk to other people about the "real world" when you say such ridiculous things as that.

Basically every supercomputer in the world runs some *nix distro or other. Every research lab I have ever visited depends on Linux servers to get real work done. The overwhelming majority of scientists and academics that I know use UNIX on their personal machines, not Windows. Almost every business with a web page relies on Linux. This website that we are using right now is hosted on a Red Hat server last I heard. UNIX is massively important in industry and everywhere where people need their computers to actually work and where random crashes and gaping security holes are not acceptable. The features of UNIX systems actually are extremely important to businesses. If you don't know that, well I'm sorry for your ignorance, but it is true.

Quote:
But sure, if you think that Linux as it exists today will win over Windows, then i have some realestate on the moon i'd like to sell to you...

Linux has plenty of places it needs to improve. The biggest thing it needs is good penetration into the pre-installed market, and not just a handful of crappy Dells that are hidden in a remote part of their website. But Linux is most certainly superior to Windows in every way (except perhaps gaming, but OpenGL has plenty of potential given game developers). The fight to win over Windows is in the marketplace, and the people you flamed so harshly were talking about the necessity of supporting UNIX in the marketplace so it has a better chance to win that fight.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


TOGGI3
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

07 Jul 2010, 11:26 pm

well there is also the thing about science preferring to use utilities where they can audit the source code, *nix is probably the only thing that makes sense if they want the most verifiably accurate results possible.



LordoftheMonkeys
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 927
Location: A deep,dark hole in the ground

08 Jul 2010, 10:44 am

nodice1996 wrote:
I bet Microsoft relies on Linux for their servers.


Bing runs on Linux. You can look at Netcraft to see what I'm saying.


_________________
I don't want a good life. I want an interesting one.


Ichinin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.

08 Jul 2010, 4:46 pm

TOGGI3 wrote:
Its not that difficult, there are companies that devote everything to support. You really cant *find* support? I mean being unwilling to pay for it is one thing, but cant *find* it? I doubt it.


But what kind of support is it? Can they set up a system so it can replace an MS Win2003 box totally? Probably not. What do they do, besides offering installing server stuff like Apache and MySQL services and IPTables firewalls? When do we get to important, world "turn upsidedowner" thing - the client itself?

People at home are not running Apache and Snort. They are running World of Warcraft and Photoshop Elements. <---- Can we finally see the f*****g point i am making yet?


Orwell wrote:
Dude... you have no freaking room to talk to other people about the "real world" when you say such ridiculous things as that.


Yes i do actually since i am one of the people who have actually worked with the stuff unlike some younger people here with zero professional experience.


Quote:
Basically every supercomputer in the world runs some *nix distro or other. Every research lab I have ever visited depends on Linux servers to get real work done. The overwhelming majority of scientists and academics that I know use UNIX on their personal machines, not Windows. Almost every business with a web page relies on Linux. This website that we are using right now is hosted on a Red Hat server last I heard.


No, not every one. And Linux Isn't Unix. Its not like you can take a HPUX box and get it to run Linux Apps.

You talk about "home" and sciense/academia installations, well, what kind of "home user" is that? Do they play games? Do the scientific community run with the same QoS and uptime requirements as the business world? No, we are talking about home tinkerers and "Hey, lets set up something in the Uni Lab"-users - that are not representable for the real world.

Again, i am not pro MS and will never be, but you have to stop self indoctrinating yourself that Linux is ready to "take over the world". Wasting time on forums reassuringly yourself and peers is not helping your cause.

For the moment, Linux is NOT ready for primetime.


...And with that i'm done with this thread. If a reader of this thread havent gotten the point by now, then matey, its lost on you forever.


_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

08 Jul 2010, 6:16 pm

Orwell wrote:
But Linux is most certainly superior to Windows in every way (except perhaps gaming...


Now, you see this is why people think you are crazy. :D

If it is better for you then I am happy for you. When it is better for the other 99.9% of users maybe they'll install it.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

08 Jul 2010, 7:15 pm

Ichinin wrote:
No, not every one. And Linux Isn't Unix. Its not like you can take a HPUX box and get it to run Linux Apps.

Close to all of them, yes. I can pull up the numbers if you like.

And Linux is UNIX-like. Oddly enough, I have no trouble taking Linux software and compiling it on my uni's AIX cluster, or conversely taking software that's generically marked for "UNIX" and compiling it on my Linux Mint install on this laptop. I can even use the same makefiles in OS X and Ubuntu.

Quote:
You talk about "home" and sciense/academia installations, well, what kind of "home user" is that? Do they play games? Do the scientific community run with the same QoS and uptime requirements as the business world? No, we are talking about home tinkerers and "Hey, lets set up something in the Uni Lab"-users - that are not representable for the real world.

What happened to your talk about businesses? Running away from the inconvenient fact of Linux/UNIX penetration in business applications to go back to talking about the home market?

And you really want to talk uptime? Lemme check my Red Hat cluster down in the physics lab...
uptime: 185 days

And the scientific community aren't just tinkering with Unix. They rely on it to do their jobs. Most of them don't care at all about proprietary vs open source, MS vs anyone else, etc. They use UNIX because it is by far the best tool for the job, and Windows just plain does not cut it for real work in science.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


TOGGI3
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 410

08 Jul 2010, 7:51 pm

I for one, dont use world of warcraft or photoshop elements (both of which work GREAT in wine btw). Pretty sure there are others. :)

But im getting tired of hearing the straw men personally. Fanboys will argue till the end of time "well it still cant do this" and as soon as it can they will move back to say it doesnt do something else, it just gets more and more irrelevant every day yet there they still are saying xyz sucks and abc is so much better at everything because xyz doesnt have said feature or application of abc and until it does it sucks, etc, etc, etc.



mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

08 Jul 2010, 9:30 pm

Orwell wrote:
And the scientific community aren't just tinkering with Unix. They rely on it to do their jobs. Most of them don't care at all about proprietary vs open source, MS vs anyone else, etc. They use UNIX because it is by far the best tool for the job, and Windows just plain does not cut it for real work in science.
I don't know about that. Windows NT and Unix have pretty much the exact same feature set (multi-user, paging and memory protection, etc.). A properly configured Windows installation isn't any more unstable than a properly configured UNIX installation (though granted most windows users would not know how to properly configure a server for security and stability).

Now I agree that Linux is infinitely better than Windows in terms of benefit/cost. I believe the reason a lot of scientists and engineers use UNIX (though there is a lot of widely used windows engineering software these days) is because it is standardized and runs on lots of platforms other than 386s and PA-RISC. And tradition of course, no need to switch to Windows if it doesn't do anything better than UNIX.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

08 Jul 2010, 9:55 pm

mcg wrote:
I don't know about that. Windows NT and Unix have pretty much the exact same feature set (multi-user, paging and memory protection, etc.). A properly configured Windows installation isn't any more unstable than a properly configured UNIX installation (though granted most windows users would not know how to properly configure a server for security and stability).

The usual command-line utilities, remote login via ssh, the available software library in scientific applications... sure, maybe these things (or something similar) are possible on Windows NT systems, but they aren't as cleanly implemented as in UNIX systems. And we're talking about very powerful systems used for major research projects. These systems have a lot more than 3GB of RAM, and Microsoft didn't have a realistic 64-bit implementation of their OS until pretty recently.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

08 Jul 2010, 10:11 pm

Orwell wrote:
mcg wrote:
I don't know about that. Windows NT and Unix have pretty much the exact same feature set (multi-user, paging and memory protection, etc.). A properly configured Windows installation isn't any more unstable than a properly configured UNIX installation (though granted most windows users would not know how to properly configure a server for security and stability).

The usual command-line utilities, remote login via ssh, the available software library in scientific applications... sure, maybe these things (or something similar) are possible on Windows NT systems, but they aren't as cleanly implemented as in UNIX systems. And we're talking about very powerful systems used for major research projects. These systems have a lot more than 3GB of RAM, and Microsoft didn't have a realistic 64-bit implementation of their OS until pretty recently.
There's cygwin for all that! :D I use all Microsoft products at work, but I still do pretty much everything from bash.

What I'd really like to see is Microsoft and PC manufactures ditching the 386 altogether (too much legacy support nonsense). Sadly doesn't look like its going to happen though, as now even Apple has switched :/



Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

08 Jul 2010, 10:46 pm

mcg wrote:
There's cygwin for all that! :D I use all Microsoft products at work, but I still do pretty much everything from bash.


Ah, cygwin. Almost like linux's version of wine for windows. :P


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

08 Jul 2010, 11:48 pm

mcg wrote:
Orwell wrote:
mcg wrote:
I don't know about that. Windows NT and Unix have pretty much the exact same feature set (multi-user, paging and memory protection, etc.). A properly configured Windows installation isn't any more unstable than a properly configured UNIX installation (though granted most windows users would not know how to properly configure a server for security and stability).

The usual command-line utilities, remote login via ssh, the available software library in scientific applications... sure, maybe these things (or something similar) are possible on Windows NT systems, but they aren't as cleanly implemented as in UNIX systems. And we're talking about very powerful systems used for major research projects. These systems have a lot more than 3GB of RAM, and Microsoft didn't have a realistic 64-bit implementation of their OS until pretty recently.
There's cygwin for all that! :D I use all Microsoft products at work, but I still do pretty much everything from bash.

The crappy attempt at UNIX emulation? At that point, why not just run UNIX? And this still isn't a solution on the server/supercomputer side.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


mcg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jan 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 538
Location: Sacramento

09 Jul 2010, 12:08 am

Orwell wrote:
The crappy attempt at UNIX emulation? At that point, why not just run UNIX?
Because it's my work computer, and I need to run windows binaries. Honestly almost every UNIX program you would ever want has a direct windows port, but cygwin is extremely convenient because I can compile most linux code with no modification. I think it does what it does pretty well, what problems have you had with it?

Orwell wrote:
And this still isn't a solution on the server/supercomputer side.
Yeah, it wouldn't really be a smart business decision for Microsoft to try to make windows available for the vast amount of platforms out there. That's one of the reasons I gave in my first post for why scientists and engineers use UNIX. My point was that other factors the same, UNIX is not inherently more suited to scientific computing.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

09 Jul 2010, 12:14 am

mcg wrote:
My point was that other factors the same, UNIX is not inherently more suited to scientific computing.

Quite possibly true. At the moment, UNIX is certainly more suited to the type of high-throughput data analysis that scientists need, but I'm sure the Windows NT platform is also capable of doing those things if it were designed to do so. Similarly, Windows is not inherently more suited to gaming.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH