Professional Web Applications Themes

Freebsd vs. linux - FreeBSD

On Feb 15, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > >> That surely explains their sales of XServes and RAID servers. > > They're off the radar for servers. The only people who install Apple > servers are people who are already in love with Apple desktops. > They're > kind of the inverse of people who fall in love with server operating > systems and then insist on forcing them onto the desktop as well. Not true. Apple is getting a lot more server sales outside of their fanboy clubs. The XServe and the XServe RAID are getting ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: Freebsd vs. linux


    On Feb 15, 2005, at 10:48 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
    >
    >> That surely explains their sales of XServes and RAID servers.
    >
    > They're off the radar for servers. The only people who install Apple
    > servers are people who are already in love with Apple desktops.
    > They're
    > kind of the inverse of people who fall in love with server operating
    > systems and then insist on forcing them onto the desktop as well.
    Not true. Apple is getting a lot more server sales outside of their
    fanboy clubs. The XServe and the XServe RAID are getting a lot of
    interest in the Enterprise now. (Note that "a lot" is not anywhere
    near a majority or huge amount compared to, for example, Windows
    Server, but a lot is still a lot)

    Chad

    Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Freebsd vs. linux


    On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
    > Bart Silverstrim writes:
    >
    >> "It's not part of the OS!"
    >>
    >> Fine. Will MS let me buy just the kernel?
    >
    > No, but you don't have to buy or install most of the drivers. If you
    > run with only required default drivers, the system will be stable.
    Let's pretend I'm working on a system for the good old days, see if
    that will help make sense for a minute...

    *THE ISSUE BEING ADDRESSED HERE WAS THE DRIVERS INCLUDED WITH THE OS
    ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE OS. IF THE DRIVERS ARE THIRD PARTY BUT
    INCLUDED ON THE DEFAULT, AS-PURCHASED CD, 99% OF SANE PEOPLE OUT THERE
    IN THE REAL WORLD CONSIDER IT PART OF THE OS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE
    TO GO OUT AND JUMP THROUGH HOOPS TO INSTALL IT. THE OS DETECTED THE
    DEVICE AND INSTALLED THE DRIVER, THIRD PARTY OR NOT, BECAUSE IT WAS
    WITH THEIR CD. AS I RECALL BUT THE QUOTE HAS BEEN SNIPPED, SOMEONE
    SAID THEY HAD BEEN RUNNING THE DEFAULT DRIVERS AND THE DRIVER WAS CRAP
    SO THE OS STILL CRASHED. WITH A DEFAULT, INCLUDED, DETECTED AND
    OS-INSTALLED DRIVER.*
    >> Extend it a little more, even MS argued that Internet Explorer was
    >> part
    >> of the operating system and could not be unbundled. For their product
    >> definition, it was part of the OS. Technically, it was not.
    >> Practically, it was.
    >
    > They tried very hard to make it part of the OS, which was a serious
    > mistake, but they were very taken with the whole idea of web-everything
    > at the time.
    That *DOESN'T MATTER*. The fact is they did it. Of course it was a
    bloody mistake. The fact is they marketed and in court testified that
    it was PART OF the OS. For all practical purposes, they bundled it as
    part of the OS. Technically speaking it isn't. I don't CARE what the
    justification is. They did it. End of story.

    Bart Silverstrim Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Freebsd vs. linux


    On Feb 15, 2005, at 12:48 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
    > Bart Silverstrim writes:
    >
    >> "They" were an outside team that worked on VMS. "They" started NT
    >> before Windows became a marketing drone's dream. The Windows
    >> subsystem
    >> became the default subsystem after Windows 3.x took off. Originally
    >> it
    >> wasn't going to have a GUI.
    >
    > Oh well ... it's a bit late to dream about what could have been.
    >
    > As I recall, this is what caused Microsoft and IBM to part ways. IBM
    > was to collaborate on the NT project. But IBM wanted a CLI, like DOS
    > or
    > OS/2, whereas Microsoft insisted that a GUI was the wave of the future
    > on the desktop. As it turned out, Microsoft was right.
    Um, no. OS/2 had the Presentation Manager layer on it for the GUI.
    They parted ways because MS was working on the Windows-centric version
    of NT behind IBM's back, realizing they had a new cash cow out of
    Windows 3.x. IBM was schnookered hook, line and sinker, and realized
    it only after MS was presenting more and more updates to their project
    with Windows API's instead of OS/2. MS wanted to split from Big Blue
    because of cultural differences and MS wanted independence from IBM,
    knowing full well that that dependence on OS/2 would be a hindrance to
    their market engine.

    Read ShowStopper!. It's an excellent history of the background of NT
    (and Cutler). You can also read the Why I Hate Microsoft rant posted
    at [url]http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html[/url] .
    I find it an excellent read for the history in it. (And do NOT turn
    this into a OS-bashing thread. I am posting this because it has
    history in it and was well written with history and footnotes. So
    everyone stick to the facts and do NOT start the bashing crap).
    > The GUI still requires destabilizing code in the kernel. It still
    > takes
    > up space and resources.
    I'll agree there.
    > And, worst of all, on a GUI-oriented server
    > like Windows, you cannot administer the machine without using the GUI.
    True to a point. Just because you have a GUI as the primary interface
    it doesn't mean that the OS *must* have crappy administration tools.
    It is just the tendency because of the low variety of "popular" server
    OS's out there. The Mac is primarily GUI driven for it's audience and
    uses a primarily GUI paradigm, but CLI admin tools are very much
    available (and many of the Apple GUI tools act as front ends to the CLI
    tools). It's a question of design.
    >> <Xserves, etc.>
    > They're off the radar for servers. The only people who install Apple
    > servers are people who are already in love with Apple desktops.
    > They're
    > kind of the inverse of people who fall in love with server operating
    > systems and then insist on forcing them onto the desktop as well.
    Wrong-o. Xserves are wonderful for people that want integration of OS
    and hardware while at the same time are familiar with UNIX. Yes,
    there's a lot of point and click, but 90% of their tools are mirrored
    in CLI tools as well. Do more reading on how OS X works.
    >> Don't want the GUI, then install Darwin. Want GUI and remote
    >> admin/monitoring tools, use OS X Server. Don't log into it, and it'll
    >> swap out most of the "GUI" stuff to disk.
    >
    > Why not just install FreeBSD?
    Because we were discussing at that particular point Apple, their GUI,
    their OS. OS X = Darwin + Aqua. Don't need the proprietary layer,
    then strip out Aqua/Finder/Apple tools, you've got Darwin. If you want
    to install something else, be my guest. I personally don't care what
    you're running, I was just pointing out if you want Apple stuff and
    want to keep parity with OS X without their tools, use Darwin.
    >> They most certainly profit from MCSEs.
    >
    > Yes, by training and certifying them. But after that, they're on their
    > own, and out of Microsoft's revenue stream.
    Then once again, they profit from them and continue to profit by their
    recertification. They are human advertisements, they are MS
    evangelists by proxy, they reinforce market position, and they are
    brainwashed into MS-centric solutions for everything thus encouraging
    more purchases by the companies they work for/in from MS. SO that
    would mean MS profits from them and their existence and their having to
    get re-certified for their new OS's periodically. End of story.

    Bart Silverstrim Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Freebsd vs. linux

    Bart Silverstrim writes:
    > Um, no. OS/2 had the Presentation Manager layer on it for the GUI.
    Presentation Manager was an afterthought, once they realized how far
    they had gone astray.
    > True to a point. Just because you have a GUI as the primary interface
    > it doesn't mean that the OS *must* have crappy administration tools.
    True. But in the case of Windows, that's exactly the situation. I had
    to administer servers with pcAnywhere. Have you ever used pcAnywhere
    over a dial-up line?
    > Because we were discussing at that particular point Apple, their GUI,
    > their OS. OS X = Darwin + Aqua.
    Let's return to discussion of FreeBSD, then.
    > Then once again, they profit from them and continue to profit by their
    > recertification.
    If they bother to recertify.
    > They are human advertisements, they are MS
    > evangelists by proxy, they reinforce market position, and they are
    > brainwashed into MS-centric solutions for everything thus encouraging
    > more purchases by the companies they work for/in from MS.
    They are not brainwashed by MS. They were that way long before they
    became MCSEs, otherwise they would not have become MCSEs.

    --
    Anthony


    Anthony Atkielski Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Freebsd vs. linux

    On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 08:45:52AM -0500, Bart Silverstrim wrote:
    >
    > Read ShowStopper!. It's an excellent history of the background of NT
    > (and Cutler). You can also read the Why I Hate Microsoft rant posted
    > at [url]http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html[/url] .
    > I find it an excellent read for the history in it.
    Thanks for that URL. It's a wonderful article.

    --
    Kids can get a free PlayStation 2!
    [url]http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0104/ps2.html[/url]
    aj34381244@tampabay.rr.com Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Freebsd vs. linux


    On Feb 16, 2005, at 12:22 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote:
    > Bart Silverstrim writes:
    >
    >> Um, no. OS/2 had the Presentation Manager layer on it for the GUI.
    >
    > Presentation Manager was an afterthought, once they realized how far
    > they had gone astray.
    anthony: "But IBM wanted a CLI, like DOS or
    OS/2, whereas Microsoft insisted that a GUI was the wave of the future
    on the desktop. As it turned out, Microsoft was right."

    They added a GUI on OS/2 when machines could start handling a GUI
    without knuckling under. Point is, OS/2 was graphical, and PM was out
    before Program Manager on NT.
    >> Because we were discussing at that particular point Apple, their GUI,
    >> their OS. OS X = Darwin + Aqua.
    >
    > Let's return to discussion of FreeBSD, then.
    Fine, then it's agreed that Apple's OS isn't necessarily married to the
    GUI, just as FreeBSD isn't married to X. If you want their tools,
    however, you take the good with the bad. Otherwise get handy with the
    command line on Darwin.
    >> Then once again, they profit from them and continue to profit by their
    >> recertification.
    >
    > If they bother to recertify.
    Irrelevant. They (MS) still profit in every other way I mentioned.
    And if these are corporate techs that survive in the world of certs by
    having as many acronyms as possible on their resume', they recertify.
    >> They are human advertisements, they are MS
    >> evangelists by proxy, they reinforce market position, and they are
    >> brainwashed into MS-centric solutions for everything thus encouraging
    >> more purchases by the companies they work for/in from MS.
    >
    > They are not brainwashed by MS. They were that way long before they
    > became MCSEs, otherwise they would not have become MCSEs.
    I made the mistake of taking a swipe at the popularity of the cert
    programs out there. Any cert test it seems (except maybe A+) is aimed
    at pushing the product you cert on. I thought you'd catch what I was
    implying.

    And you're over-categorizing. Many people get MCSE because their boss
    or business requires it or pays for it along the way, not because they
    want to use Windows as a solution for everything short of running their
    expresso machine. How many BSD admins have a cert around somewhere?

    Bart Silverstrim Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 11th, 01:37 AM
  2. Compile FreeBSD RELENG_5 on FreeBSD 4-STABLE
    By Brovo Karokin in forum FreeBSD
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 25th, 09:04 AM
  3. How to start Linux on Win2K/Linux system?
    By Leo in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 24th, 05:18 PM
  4. Question on which Linux Binaries to d/l for Linux Redhat 7.0 ?
    By K T in forum Linux Setup, Configuration & Administration
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 22nd, 05:16 PM
  5. Linux Event + 2 Workshops on Debian GNU/Linux
    By Warren Norrix in forum Debian
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 1st, 08:10 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139