| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Is Unix on Borrowed Time? | |
|
||
| Time: 00:13 EST/05:13 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
SuSE's Geck said Unix will eventually fade away to be replaced by Linux, while VA Software's Augustin said Linux to him is the next generation of Unix. He too said Unix will be replaced by Linux over time as it simply does not make economic sense for many businesses to be developing on an old proprietary operating system anymore. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:56:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 7/16/2003 12:39:33 AM |
| Unix will eventually fade away and be replaced with Windows, while the die-hard ABMers will have to suffice with Linux. |
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 7/16/2003 1:49:20 AM |
|
"does not make economic sense for many businesses to be developing on an old proprietary operating system anymore."
Of course not. It makes much more sense to develop a business on a new OS, which itself is based on an old, proprietary operating system. |
| #3 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 7/16/2003 2:49:30 AM |
|
#1 'Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.' -- Henry Spencer
#2 It's based on Unix but it's not proprietary which is the important difference. If you're using RedHat's distro and RedHat want to charge you extra for support (or whatever else) you can switch quite easily to Suse or any of the other hundreds of distro's out there. You will not be in a position where if company X goes bust (or similar) you're stuck with a useless system that you don't have the source code for. |
| #4 By 12071 (203.217.67.168) at 7/16/2003 5:39:52 AM |
| #4 Agreed. But I think that by "eventually fading away and being replaced by Linux" that they mean just that.... eventually.... i.e. it's not going to happen in the next 5 years. |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 7/16/2003 9:31:55 AM |
|
#3 - "It's based on Unix but it's not proprietary which is the important difference"
I didn't say Linux was proprietary. I said it was based on a proprietary OS. |
| #6 By 12071 (203.217.67.168) at 7/16/2003 10:18:08 AM |
| #8 RMD, I read your comment as a sarcastic stab at Augustin's comment in regards to Unix being proprietary. It doesn't matter what it's based on, the important point is that it is NOT proprietary, which is what I said in my response to you. I realise that you didn't say that Linux was proprietary and I never said anything to that effect. |
| #7 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 7/16/2003 10:39:05 AM |
|
what a fun industry we are all going to be a part of... where the basis of all innovation is the commodity product linux. oh happy day that will be. of course we'll be penny-less, compared to now. but at least we will have defeated the evil microsoft.
its quite fun to think of my developer buddies relegated to positions that look like factory-floor line workers more than the change-the-world developers they are now. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 10:39. |
| #8 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 7/16/2003 11:48:31 AM |
|
moozilla, you think a business will use a free OS, but will stand for paying for apps? No way. Business guys wont stand for it. Just like the "music is free" movement with Napster... these business guys will demand that technology should also be free.
oh, i cant wait! |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/16/2003 4:42:03 PM |
|
Linux makes sense in certain cases.
But it doesn't make sense in all cases, or anywhere close to the majority of cases. Granted, my main issue with Linux is it's old technology and not very fun to work with. It's like working with COBOL, yeah it makes sense in some cases but who wants to do that? |
| #10 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 7/16/2003 7:40:53 PM |
|
sodablue:
LOL another one for the list! As much sense as this makes and as much as I agree with this: "Linux makes sense in certain cases. But it doesn't make sense in all cases, or anywhere close to the majority of cases." You make an unbelievably untrue statement immediately following by saying: "Granted, my main issue with Linux is it's old technology and not very fun to work with." Old technology? ROFLMFAO. The sodablue Hall of Shame: "Granted, my main issue with Linux is it's old technology and not very fun to work with." "It's funny, but actually Linux is too bloated to be used for embedded devices." "Linux which is motivated entirely from hatred of Microsoft products" "OSS development is cheaper... partly true, but since it's unreliable and slower you position yourself with a competitive disadvantage." "The large problem is really that most open source zealots do not have any understanding of the computer world." "The US should start investigating on whether Linux exists because of illegal dumping by foreign companies." "most GPL code is of dubius quality" "I don't have a problem with Linux but I do have a problem with the community's general lack of respect for other peoples work." |
| #11 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 7/16/2003 8:14:41 PM |
|
#12 The real issue is that you generally DON'T think... something that probably started occuring as soon as you started using Windows =)
And as mOOzilla has been painfully trying to make obvious to you all, yet you still can't quite grasp it, just because the underlying platform is free it doesn't mean that the applications on top of it have to be free. e.g. Don't like Xfree, you can buy Accelerated-X. |
| #12 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/16/2003 8:42:54 PM |
|
I see tgnb is at it again being the resident AW troll.
kabuki - "just because the underlying platform is free it doesn't mean that the applications on top of it have to be free." This is certainly true. I believe the issue here has to do with the OSS communities unwillingness to accept commercial software running on Linux. It also hasn't been a roaring success stories for the companies who adopted this business strategy. |
| #13 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 7/16/2003 10:29:38 PM |
|
sodablue: maybe you'd like to explain to us how exactly linux is "old technology"... enlighten me please. Am I completely wrong in thinking that Linux is young and still somewhat immature technology?
"I believe the issue here has to do with the OSS communities unwillingness to accept commercial software running on Linux." This is ALSO completely untrue. Please provide us with some illustrations that the OSS community is willing to accept commercial software running on Linux. For example, i don't see any big fuss from the OSS community about the fact that Oracle runs on Linux. Now instead of trying to dodge these "claims" can you back them up? This post was edited by tgnb on Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 22:37. |
| #14 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/17/2003 12:26:12 AM |
|
tgnb - "Am I completely wrong in thinking that Linux is young and still somewhat immature technology? "
Yes. Linux is a immature implementation of old technology. "This is ALSO completely untrue." I don't know how you can say that, anybody with half a mind can go on over to slashbot and see the cries of outrage that anybody dares charge for intellectual property. "For example, i don't see any big fuss from the OSS community about the fact that Oracle runs on Linux. " Sure there was. When these articles appear on slashbot they are greated with "You oughta be running mySQL anyway. "Now instead of trying to dodge these "claims" can you back them up?" I guess I'm now curious what fantasy world it is you live in where these trends are not immediately apparent to yourself. |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 7/17/2003 12:33:37 AM |
|
tgnb - You know, maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt here.
Apparently I'm misjudging OSS. You appear to believe that I'm basing my opinions on biased websites. So maybe you could point me in the right direction. Apparently slashdot.org, gnu.org, opensource.org, redhat.com, linuxtoday.com, osopinion.com and so on are all biased websites which misrepresent the OSS community. Could you please point me in the right direction? |
| #16 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 7/17/2003 10:02:51 AM |
|
sodablue:
First you say linux is old technology. Then I call you on it and suddenly you say its not old technology but rather a young implementation of old technology. I guess their support for 64bit computing is a young implementation of old technology? Netfilter is a young implementation of old technology? High performance clustering is old technology? slashdot.org - biased? somewhat agree however there are also plenty of smart comments gnu.org - biased? umm i dunno its not a news site opensource.org - biased? biased towards what? opensource? doh! Are they against commercial software running on linux? mmm don't think so. if so please advise with a link. redhat.com - biased? umm towards what? their own distribution? are they against commercial software running on linux? Surely not! linuxtoday.com - biased? i dunno, i dont read that site osopinion.com - biased? yep i agree linuxdailynews.net - biased? towards what linux? DOH! But are they against commercial software running on linux? NO! for example read recent headline praising Win4Lin. In any case. All that is dodging my real issue with your comments. You have not yet shown me that the OSS community is against commercial software running on linux. I am still waiting! |
| #17 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/17/2003 12:38:06 PM |
|
tgnb - "Then I call you on it and suddenly you say its not old technology but rather a young implementation of old technology. "
Ahh, you seem to be trying to mince words. You can build a replica of a Stanley Steamer using modern steel, but it is still just a steam engine. "I guess their support for 64bit computing is a young implementation of old technology?" 64bit has been around for quite a long time. I was using 64-bit OSF/1 back in 1994. "All that is dodging my real issue with your comments." I would have to point out, once again, that it is you who are dodging the issue. Again, I say it is based off of old technology concepts... concepts which had their basis with TTY based computing. I think there are better ways. "You have not yet shown me that the OSS community is against commercial software running on linux. I am still waiting! " Huh? I already pointed you towards slashdot, gnu.org, opensource.org and other sites. You claim that I'm not supposed to pay attention to these as they don't represent the real OSS community. I'm still waiting for you to tell me where this real community exists so I can get in contact with them. |
| #18 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/17/2003 4:03:24 PM |
|
Ok when is the next Linuxworld in the midwest(like Chicago maybe?)?
|
| #19 By 7797 (63.76.44.70) at 7/17/2003 4:08:09 PM |
|
sodablue:
"Ahh, you seem to be trying to mince words. You can build a replica of a Stanley Steamer using modern steel, but it is still just a steam engine." Correct, but Linux is not trying to just "replicate" Unlix. It is using Unixlike ideas and building onto them. If Linux was just a replica of some old Unix it wouldnt have USB support for example. "64bit has been around for quite a long time. I was using 64-bit OSF/1 back in 1994." So are you saying that 64bit computing is "old technology" since you already used it back in 1994? " Again, I say it is based off of old technology concepts... concepts which had their basis with TTY based computing." No originally you didnt say it was based on old technology concepts. You said: "...it's old technology and not very fun to work with." Right there you said IT'S old technology. You did NOT say its "based on" old technology. There is a big difference in these 2 statements. Linux is NOT old technology. It is young technology! "Huh? I already pointed you towards slashdot, gnu.org, opensource.org and other sites. You claim that I'm not supposed to pay attention to these as they don't represent the real OSS community." You pointed me there and i explained in detail why these sites have nothing to do with my issue. The original issue if you remember was that you "believe the issue here has to do with the OSS communities unwillingness to accept commercial software running on Linux." These sites you showed me in no way prove or even show that the OSS community is unwilling to accept commercial software running on linux. And thus you are dodging the issue. Also i never said you should not pay attention to them. Don't put words in my mouth. This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, July 17, 2003 at 16:11. |
| #20 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/17/2003 5:01:56 PM |
|
tgnb - "If Linux was just a replica of some old Unix it wouldnt have USB support for example. "
Solaris has USB support. But I don't think you understand. I'm not talking about hardware drivers. I'm talking about the fundamental core. The way you construct apps, the way you interface between systems, etc. "Right there you said IT'S old technology. You did NOT say its "based on" old technology." Ok, I'm confused. Are you trying to claim that this somehow invalidates my point of view? That's just bizarre, you're trying to win an argument based on mincing of words? "These sites you showed me in no way prove or even show that the OSS community is unwilling to accept commercial software running on linux." Unfortunately they do prove that the OSS community is not willing to accept commercial software. Just go to gnu.org and you'll fill your mind with plenty of evidence. Look, I can just point out the evidence. If you choose not to look at it, that doesn't mean it's not there. "Also i never said you should not pay attention to them. Don't put words in my mouth." Whatever, Mr. WordMeister. I remain unconvinced that Linux is the future of computing. Keep trying. |
| #21 By 7797 (63.76.44.70) at 7/17/2003 6:54:05 PM |
|
sodablue:
"Ok, I'm confused. Are you trying to claim that this somehow invalidates my point of view? That's just bizarre, you're trying to win an argument based on mincing of words?" Your original claim was that Linux is old technology. This is untrue no matter how you try to twist. Is it so hard to say "Hey tgnb you're right. Linux is not old, but its my point of view that the fundamentals are based on old technology"? "Unfortunately they do prove that the OSS community is not willing to accept commercial software. Just go to gnu.org and you'll fill your mind with plenty of evidence. " Thats not true. These sites do not prove that at all. Maybe some parts of those sites might give that appearance to you if you ignore the rest. But as a whole these sites certainly do not prove that the OSS community is not willing to accept commercial software running on linux. "Look, I can just point out the evidence. If you choose not to look at it, that doesn't mean it's not there." Hey you know .. the same thing goes both ways. If you only choose to look at the parts of the site that would support your argument then yes.. But there is more parts of those sites encouraging commercial software running on linux than you might want to admit. "I remain unconvinced that Linux is the future of computing. Keep trying." I never said Linux is the future of computing and I am certainly not trying to convince anyone of this especially not you. So thanks for putting even more words in my mouth. I like Linux but that doesn't mean i think its the future of computing. I also like Microsoft and that doesn't mean it is the future of computing either. But you're too onesided to understand that people can live LIKING more than just Microsoft alone! This post was edited by tgnb on Friday, July 18, 2003 at 08:07. |
| #22 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/18/2003 4:43:14 PM |
|
tgnb - "But you're too onesided to understand that people can live LIKING more than just Microsoft alone!"
There you go again. I'm having a real hard time taking you seriously in your claims that I'm too onesided when I have a much broader understanding of the technologies than you yourself. From my perspective, you seem to be simply ignorant and refuse to recognize the real technical strengths and weaknesses of the solutions, instead believing the fluffy nonsense your fed by the Jim Jones society over in the OSS community. cba-3.14 - ""It's us or them" is the message I heard from Microsoft when I developed Windows software." I've never heard that message from anyone other than the OSS community. OSS didn't use to be like that either, it used to be inclusive and open until around 1997 when Perens and Raymond took over and corrupted it into an anti-Microsoft force. The sad thing is, most of the successful open source software these days is developed for Microsoft Windows, not Linux. But people like tgnb are too caught up in their religious arguments to see that. |
| #23 By 7797 (63.76.44.70) at 7/18/2003 4:54:30 PM |
|
"There you go again. I'm having a real hard time taking you seriously in your claims that I'm too onesided when I have a much broader understanding of the technologies than you yourself.
From my perspective, you seem to be simply ignorant and refuse to recognize the real technical strengths and weaknesses of the solutions, instead believing the fluffy nonsense your fed by the Jim Jones society over in the OSS community." Hehe nice deflection strategy again. If you find yourself defenseless just start attacking your opponent instead of following through and actually answering some questions. I'm still waiting for any hint of a proof for your claim. So far you have come empty. Pointing to some websites without anything concrete shows absolutely nothing short of the fact that you CANNOT prove it. "I've never heard that message from anyone other than the OSS community." We pretty much hear that message from you on a daily basis. Your comments throughout this site are proof enough. "The sad thing is, most of the successful open source software these days is developed for Microsoft Windows, not Linux." could you please point out what this most successful open source software developed by microsoft is? "But people like tgnb are too caught up in their religious arguments to see that." Could you please point to a specific example of a religious argument and proof that your counter argument is not religious at the same time? Besides my religious arguments are usually nothing but attempts at getting you to provide proof to some of your most ridiculous claims and statements. No proof ever comes.. Just deflections and attacks. Ah well. At least i dont make stupid claims I can't back up. This post was edited by tgnb on Friday, July 18, 2003 at 16:56. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:56:42 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
