| 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 |
 |
Linux Not Cause of Microsoft's Downfall | |
|
||
| Time: 12:41 EST/17:41 GMT | News Source: *Linked Within Post* | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
In the latest validation of the power and presence of Linux, a recent report disclosed that seven of the top ten super computers in the world now run Linux. To some, this represents the essence of how serious and formidable is the capability and challenge of Linux to Microsoft's reign on corporate computing. To others, the uniqueness of super computing raises questions whether it is even relevant in the context of the enterprise. No matter how you cut it, there is no doubt that Microsoft's Server OS is not in the running for supercomputer use. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:49:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 32132 (207.216.27.238) at 12/1/2005 2:45:19 PM |
|
"But does all this mean that Microsoft's powerful hold on the OS market is dramatically shrinking"
Nope. It means OSS fanatics are freaking out because: 1) Microsoft is entering a market the Unix and Linux users thought they had to themselves, and they know what happens when Microsoft does that! 2) Linux is dead on the desktop ... and that makes them write stupid articles. 3) Linux growth in the server marker is cooling off ... and Microsoft is still 3 times bigger in currrent sales ... and beating Unix too ... and they know full well that many Linux server sales end up running a pirated copy of Windows ... so its panic time! "No matter how you cut it, there is no doubt that Microsoft's Server OS is not in the running for supercomputer use." Actually, if Microsofts recent pricing decision on Virtual Server 2005 R2 is any indication, Windows on Supercomputers is inevitable, and it will be cheap, and they will dominate the Price/Performance chart just like they do for TPC-H and TPC-C. This post was edited by NotParker on Thursday, December 01, 2005 at 14:45. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/1/2005 2:47:03 PM |
|
Moreover, Microsoft continues to validate the benefit of UNIX OS variants by employing SUN Solaris and FreeBSD in several of its major infrastructures.
And the link points to an ancient article regarding LinkExchange and Hotmail pre-the Windows 2000 switch? Unless the word "continues" doesn't mean what I think it does, that's just outright lying. |
| #3 By 28388 (199.126.246.128) at 12/1/2005 3:16:15 PM |
| With Windows Vista entering the picture, with protected display features, and DRM features like the recent Sony rootkit fiasco. MS should be worried about Linux. If MS should monkey with users data, Windows will be tossed faster than you can say "Linux Roks you Lamo MS Haxors"... |
| #4 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 12/1/2005 3:35:40 PM |
|
"Microsoft's Downfall" Eh? To answer your first question... no I didn't read the Article. The premis of this article if false. Microsoft is not in a Downfall nor will it be for many years. People have been saying that MS is going to go down for YEARS... YEARS! Nothing has happened to show that MS is being brought down. Their revenues and profits are as strong as ever and like usual they are responding to the market.
One thing that nobody seems to keep in mind is Microsoft can adapt and evolve just like Linux. What is sad is Microsoft seems to do it faster and that is saying something. #3 Gimme a break. The average user doesn't care about "monkey[ing] with users data". MS will never take it to the extreme that the average user would care, they can't afford to. People like you (I'm assuming you would qualify though I would be happy to be corrected) and other knee jerk privacy freaks will toss Windows, others will keep using the Operating system that has satisfied them for years. This post was edited by Mr.Humpty on Thursday, December 01, 2005 at 15:44. |
| #5 By 2332 (66.92.78.18) at 12/1/2005 6:31:09 PM |
| By the way, 7 of the top 10 supercomputers most certainly do NOT run Linux. They have user-nodes that run Linux, but the supercomputer itself is absolutely NOT Linux. |
| #6 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 12/1/2005 6:47:51 PM |
|
now i don't know a thing 'bout super computers, but i do got two questions for y'all that do.
1) aren't these things made by IBM and wouldn't they be very inclined not to use an MS OS.... 2) how many fps could one of these things get my hl2 goin' if'n they did run a proper OS? ps - who in the sam heck cares about weather modeling anyways when there’s games to be played? |
| #7 By 8273 (66.15.109.72) at 12/2/2005 12:23:11 AM |
|
Wow, #3. That is the biggest load of FUD that I have ever read. Equate a bit of evil, malicious, trojan software that is completely wrong that Sony decided to call DRM, with a way to protect copyrights that MS calls DRM, and you certianly have FUD. If MS made an equasion like this, and you could bet that /. would be having a screaming fit.
And yes, I do support DRM. Why? I am a computer book author, I am a musician. I do not have a regular job other than this, and these two jobs are how I put food on the table. When I read through /. they advocate that they should be able to steal whatever they want because it should be free. My books are released as paper, and my music is released on CD in WMA format. My books have sold in 100s of thousands (I got lucky - most popular computer books sell around 8-10 thousand - and you do not make much as an author), and I rely upon my music sales as extra pocket cash (I have only sold about 2000 CDs to date), but I cannot let people copy these simply because they feel it is their right. What Sony did was bad, really bad. But to say that all DRM is bad because of that, and to punish people like myself who are trying to make a living off their work by a blanket statement that DRM is evil, then there would be no purpose for me to do my work. But I know that you, and you kind, don't care. You have your own agenda to take whatever you want, and everybody else be damned. If it were not for DRM, I would probably not do the work that I do. If I were to release my work as an E-Book that everybody could download for free, and make a CD that one person bought and traded for free, then I would not bother spending the time writing or playing. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/2/2005 8:40:07 AM |
|
#7: What a load of crap. The Sony DRM is DRM, no matter how you want to spin it. DRM does not stop pro pirates, it only inconveniences legitimate users. Junkhead says he doesn't like DRM and, out of nowhere, you equate him with an IP thief. As for your opinion on personal copying, I hate to tell you but long-standing principles of fair use are not something that you get to dictate to the rest of us.
#8: I bet you also love getting kicked in the crotch. Well, everything except the massive pain and injury, but other than that, crotch kicks are great, right? Feh. And your statement about anyone who doesn't like DRM is a thief is just so backward. I suppose you support mandatory weekly home searches by the gov't, since only a person with something to hide would object? |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/2/2005 9:58:42 AM |
|
DRM does not stop pro pirates, it only inconveniences legitimate users.
That's just plain nonsense, but it's a great argument to hide behind. Pro pirates are a problem, but DRM is like a lock on your house--it's not going to keep out "pro thieves," but it keeps the honest people honest. Should we all abandon locks on our houses because of the inconvenience? Nonsense. DRM is necessary for the same reason--not the pro thieves, but the people that will do it because it's easy, or they're ignorant, or they just don't care, but don't care enough to start hacking it, either. And for all those folks that say that it hasn't affected the sales of music, that is a big pile of garbage. I witnessed (as many of us did) the explosion of Napster a few years ago first-hand, and I know for a fact that those people were not buying things on CD that they otherwise would have. You can make the argument that they wouldn't have bought some of those CDs anyhow, but that's a criminal's logic ("well, they won't mind if I steal $1,000 dollars--they have more than enough money anyways!"). I also witnessed it first-hand with a band I played in around 2000--we were all nearly broke, so we made a small run of CDs to make a little extra money. The CDs we'd sell at gigs would put gas in our tanks for the week. Imagine the frustration you'd feel if you were in my shoes--someone came up to us and said, "Hey, I loved your CD!! I burned a bunch of copies and gave them to my friends--some of them are here tonight!!" It's painfully obvious that a lot of people don't consider this stealing at all, and it has taken things like DRM to force the issue and raise awareness. It may be slightly inconvenient, but perhaps critics of DRM should stop thinking about themselves and their slight inconvenience for a second and think about the people who make a living or supplement their income off their music/work. |
| #10 By 8273 (131.107.0.104) at 12/2/2005 12:49:28 PM |
|
#9, let me get this correct. I say that Sony DRM is bad (quote: "Equate a bit of evil, malicious, trojan software that is completely wrong that Sony decided to call DRM"), and you acuse me of calling it OK. Never did I say that he is an IP thief (go ahead, guote me where I say that he is), and you say I do. All I said is that I want to protect my stuff from people that do pirate. And frankly, I don't care if somebody is a casual pirate or the pirate that makes thousands of copies, I want compensation for my hard work.
But I guess that I disagreed with you, and so that means that you can make up whatever lies you want and that is OK. |
| #11 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/2/2005 1:54:26 PM |
|
#10: a better DRM analogy would be to put locks on every door in your house. Pro thieves will just bust down all the doors, but it's a pain for your family to move from room to room. As for the 'big pile of garbage', it could be refuted that online music sharing hurts the biggest bands who are already rich, but helps the smaller bands in need of exposure. Also, studies not sponsored by the RIAA have shown that music sales are impacted negligibly by music sharing, and in some cases have caused people to buy music they otherwise wouldn't have. At any rate, I don't think it's as cut & dried as the RIAA would have uss all believe. Lastly, your music story was interesting in that I also used to play in a band back in the day (drummer w/20 years experieince). You complained about people buying your CD and copying it for friends who then attended your gig. I submit that they wouldn't have bought your CD to begin with, but you then made revenue from them attending your show that they otherwise wouldn't have without the copied CD to sample. Sharing isn't always bad.
#11: I admit that I misread your statement on Sony DRM to read that it wasn't DRM because it was more akin to malware and really bad. However, you did go on to say about junkhead "But I know that you, and you kind, don't care. You have your own agenda to take whatever you want, and everybody else be damned." Sounds like you're tarring him as a pirate to me. Just because someone disagrees with DRM does not mean he's looking for something for free. I believe that artists should be paid for their work. What I don't agree with are industry execs who are cooking up plans to extract as much money as possible, no matter how odious, from the consumer. I would prefer to download an album and send the artist $5 directly that to buy a DRM-encumbered CD for $20 where $19 goes to the label and $1 to the artist. I want to be able to rip the songs to MP3 from 5 CDs I bought so I can burn them on a single CDR to play in my MP3-enabled car stereo, for example. That does not make me a thief, pirate or whatever nasty label the RIAA is calling us these days. |
| #12 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/2/2005 2:18:30 PM |
|
Ah--you're a drummer, too, eh? I guess that explains the mutual understanding of the Rush reference. ;)
About the "biggest bands who are already rich"--see, this is the same type of logic as the thief that thinks "well, they already have as much money as the need, so I'll take that $1000!" That's just plain flawed logic. The amount of money they have is irrelevant--stealing is stealing. They have as much right to protection from stealing as the next. And besides--for a lot of the bands that become popular, they don't see much of that money for quite some time. Regarding the small bands that need exposure--why not let them decide that? They could always release a non-DRM copy of their music, if they want. There are many other ways to get exposure, anyhow. About our band--I see what you're saying, but that's assuming there was a cover charge, and that we took a cut. Unfortunately, we were paid a flat-rate (it was a house-band gig). So, in this case, those people that said they wanted a copy of the CD and then their friend copied it for them, yeah, it was money out of our pocket. |
| #13 By 8273 (131.107.0.104) at 12/2/2005 2:33:13 PM |
|
#12, I see how it can be read that way, but it was not the intent. What I was getting at was that you can read /. and see everywhere comments about people who do pirate Windows, music, and everything else, but then those same people have a screaming fit if somebody violates the GPL. If somebody violates the GPL, they should be punished, but why should that same person be allowed to pirate? It goes back to what #13 was saying, who decides when somebody has too much? Some could say that Microsoft has too much, and therefore copying their software is OK. I could say that somebody has only $20, but I only have $5, so I should be able to take his $20.
junkhead was saying that if you use DRM, any DRM, then you are going to be tossed, and I was commenting about that mentality, and not calling him a pirate. |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 12/2/2005 3:46:50 PM |
|
#13: I'm not arguing that it's OK to steal form rich big-name bands, just that they are the ones most hurt by music piracy. I don't think it's OK to steal from anyone.
Don't sniff at the power of social networking. One lost CD sale, for the $10 you'd get for it and the actual $1 lost for the media, might result in 20 people hearing your music who might not have. Those 20 people will tell others and the next thing you know there are 50 people at the next gig. The larger the crowd you bring in, the more the club owner will pay to book you. #14: All I want are my fair use rights that have decades of precedent. More granular control over DRM will be irresistible for the RIAA, MPAA et al to play with. I have a PVR at home. Sometimes I'll record a movie and watch it a month or two later. I don't want the TV industry telling my pVR to delete the movie 24 hours after recording it. DRM has its good uses, as does the Patriot act and the DMCA, but it's too easy for it to be abused by those in a position to do so. |
| #15 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/2/2005 4:31:17 PM |
|
Don't sniff at the power of social networking. One lost CD sale, for the $10 you'd get for it and the actual $1 lost for the media, might result in 20 people hearing your music who might not have. Those 20 people will tell others and the next thing you know there are 50 people at the next gig. The larger the crowd you bring in, the more the club owner will pay to book you.
Oh, we didn't have a problem with packing the place--the problem was the place was too small! And the owners were cheap to a fault. We weren't getting any more money from them no matter how you sliced it, plus we were playing sort of a niche music style, and this was the only place in the area that catered to that. I agree with you about social networking--so what's the problem with letting the band themselves decide that? We didn't have a problem with publicity, and we weren't really interested in "making it big" anyways, for a variety of reasons. We just wanted to pay the bills! But more than that, it was just the nerve of people telling us that they copied our CD--they might as well have stopped by and said, "Hey, I just took $75 from your wallet, isn't that great?" Like I said, it's obvious some people are ignorant of the fact that this is stealing, and DRM could have protected people--like our band, where it could have paid some very real bills. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 311 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:49:04 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
