Heh - just was looking at the SMART webpage ( http://labix.org/smart ) and noticed someting really funny. Here we've been comparing the differences between SUSE and Ubuntu. I've been talking about how I use SMART now to update SUSE since the Zen thingy is FUBAR. Well, guess who has been funding SMART? "Canonical Ltd. - Is funding Smart development since September of 2005." Canonical, for those who don't know, is Mark Shuttlesworth's (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/) company, which funds and employs the people who actually make and distribute Ubuntu. I found it kind of ironic. -- Kai Ponte www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com "Missed it by that much."
Op woensdag 13 september 2006 23:59, schreef PerfectReign:
Heh - just was looking at the SMART webpage ( http://labix.org/smart ) and noticed someting really funny. Here we've been comparing the differences between SUSE and Ubuntu. I've been talking about how I use SMART now to update SUSE since the Zen thingy is FUBAR.
Well, guess who has been funding SMART?
"Canonical Ltd. - Is funding Smart development since September of 2005."
Canonical, for those who don't know, is Mark Shuttlesworth's (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/) company, which funds and employs the people who actually make and distribute Ubuntu.
I found it kind of ironic.
Yes, like Ubuntu is gonna start an graphic-effects-team. Guess what? They probably use XGL, the mother of 3d environement this days. Funded (and founded?) by Novell/SUSE Kinda ironic ;-) Azerion
Azerion wrote:
Op woensdag 13 september 2006 23:59, schreef PerfectReign:
Heh - just was looking at the SMART webpage ( http://labix.org/smart ) and noticed someting really funny. Here we've been comparing the differences between SUSE and Ubuntu. I've been talking about how I use SMART now to update SUSE since the Zen thingy is FUBAR.
Well, guess who has been funding SMART?
"Canonical Ltd. - Is funding Smart development since September of 2005."
Canonical, for those who don't know, is Mark Shuttlesworth's (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/) company, which funds and employs the people who actually make and distribute Ubuntu.
I found it kind of ironic.
Yes, like Ubuntu is gonna start an graphic-effects-team. Guess what? They probably use XGL, the mother of 3d environement this days. Funded (and founded?) by Novell/SUSE
Kinda ironic ;-)
Indeed. SuSE also uses RPMs developed by RedHat, and I'm certain there are countless others. That's the nature of open source. Everyone adds to the whole, making Linux better for everyone. This is one of Linux's main strengths over both closed source and BSD-style licenses.
suse@rio.vg schrieb:
Indeed. SuSE also uses RPMs developed by RedHat, and I'm certain there are countless others. That's the nature of open source. Everyone adds to the whole, making Linux better for everyone. This is one of Linux's main strengths over both closed source and BSD-style licenses.
Do you like to elaborate why this should be not the case for BSD-style licenses? The possibility to keep your modified code closed doesn't influence the openness of the project. Please check how many important projects out there use non-GPL licenses. Ciao Siegbert
Siegbert Baude wrote:
suse@rio.vg schrieb:
Indeed. SuSE also uses RPMs developed by RedHat, and I'm certain there are countless others. That's the nature of open source. Everyone adds to the whole, making Linux better for everyone. This is one of Linux's main strengths over both closed source and BSD-style licenses.
Do you like to elaborate why this should be not the case for BSD-style licenses? The possibility to keep your modified code closed doesn't influence the openness of the project. Please check how many important projects out there use non-GPL licenses.
Because GPL requires that any code added to a GPL project be itself GPL'd. BSD does not. This is not only a technicality, but also affects the culture of their respective projects.
suse@rio.vg wrote:
Siegbert Baude wrote:
Indeed. SuSE also uses RPMs developed by RedHat, and I'm certain there are countless others. That's the nature of open source. Everyone adds to the whole, making Linux better for everyone. This is one of Linux's main strengths over both closed source and BSD-style licenses. Do you like to elaborate why this should be not the case for BSD-style
suse@rio.vg schrieb: licenses? The possibility to keep your modified code closed doesn't influence the openness of the project. Please check how many important projects out there use non-GPL licenses.
Because GPL requires that any code added to a GPL project be itself GPL'd. BSD does not. This is not only a technicality, but also affects the culture of their respective projects.
It's also the reason that BSD, like all other unixes, was losing ground to Apple and MS until linux came out. Since anyone could use and distribute their own code without revealing it, it was common practice for a company to tweak BSD for their own use, then charge 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars for their "proprietary" operating system. This got even worse after UCB dropped the requirement for attribution in the 90's. You still have to pay 10's of thousands of dollars for OS updates to at least one Forida-based BSD vendor I could name. -- John Perry
On Thursday 14 September 2006 10:54, John E. Perry wrote:
it was common practice for a company to tweak BSD for their own use, then charge 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars for their "proprietary" operating system. This got even worse after UCB dropped the requirement for attribution in the 90's. Thankfully those days are behind us... In fact, those "proprietary" OSes are at this point nothing more than redundant. There just isn't a business case these days to pay $$$$ for Unix from any vendor while rock solid enterprise linux distros are being produced for $. The Unix of yesterday is about as useful today as the mainframe of yesterday.
-- Kind regards, M Harris <>< harrismh777@earthlink.net
M Harris wrote:
On Thursday 14 September 2006 10:54, John E. Perry wrote:
it was common practice for a company to tweak BSD for their own use, then charge 10s to 100s of thousands of dollars for their "proprietary" operating system. This got even worse after UCB dropped the requirement for attribution in the 90's. Thankfully those days are behind us...
Quite so. But what put them behind us was the GPL unix. Linux made it less beneficial to keep your modifications hidden, so bsd prospered along with linux.
In fact, those "proprietary" OSes are at this point nothing more than redundant. There just isn't a business case these days to pay $$$$ for Unix from any vendor while rock solid enterprise linux distros are being produced for $. The Unix of yesterday is about as useful today as the mainframe of yesterday.
_That_ was the point I was trying to make. Even so, there's still darwin at least, and, as someone else pointed out, MS is also using bsd as a club to try to beat the rest of us to death, as they did so many others. -- John Perry
On Friday 15 September 2006 07:07, M Harris wrote:
In fact, those "proprietary" OSes are at this point nothing more than redundant. There just isn't a business case these days to pay $$$$ for Unix from any vendor while rock solid enterprise linux distros are being produced for $.
That's unfortunately not true. i spent 18 months working as a contractor for German bank between 2005 and early this year, and there's no way in hell the internals of the bank could have run solely on Linux. The bank was a Solaris house, and it needed to be. i know linux is stable and solid and fast and all of that, but Solaris is STABLE. (In almost 7 years of working with Solaris, i think i've seen 2-3 system crashes.) Not only that, but the flexibility of the SAN (Storage Area Network) was critical to keeping things running at the bank. AFAIK, there is no SAN which works as gracefully (if at all) under Linux. And an enterprise-wide backup solution... no, i'm not talking 'tar' here, but robotic facilities which handle incoming backups and outbound restore requests from the whole company, all day long. Slick stuff. There are of course other, often more political reasons, for running a closed OS, especially at a bank where "just hack it" is NOT an option, and you aren't allowed to install any packages which have not been approved by the security team. In 1995 i remember telling several people, "Unix is dead. Windows will replace it within 5 years." Three years later, of course, i was eating those words. How little i understood of what really lies under the hoods of many large corporations, keeping them purring on a daily basis - old-fashioned, commercial ($$$$) Unices. -- ----- stephan@s11n.net http://s11n.net "...pleasure is a grace and is not obedient to the commands of the will." -- Alan W. Watts
stephan beal wrote:
On Friday 15 September 2006 07:07, M Harris wrote:
In fact, those "proprietary" OSes are at this point nothing more than redundant. There just isn't a business case these days to pay $$$$ for Unix from any vendor while rock solid enterprise linux distros are being produced for $.
That's unfortunately not true. i spent 18 months working as a contractor for German bank between 2005 and early this year, and there's no way in hell the internals of the bank could have run solely on Linux. The bank was a Solaris house, and it needed to be. i know linux is stable and solid and fast and all of that, but Solaris is STABLE. (In almost 7 years of working with Solaris, i think i've seen 2-3 system crashes.) Not only that, but the flexibility of the SAN (Storage Area Network) was critical to keeping things running at the bank. AFAIK, there is no SAN which works as gracefully (if at all) under Linux. And an enterprise-wide backup solution... no, i'm not talking 'tar' here, but robotic facilities which handle incoming backups and outbound restore requests from the whole company, all day long. Slick stuff.
There are of course other, often more political reasons, for running a closed OS, especially at a bank where "just hack it" is NOT an option, and you aren't allowed to install any packages which have not been approved by the security team.
In 1995 i remember telling several people, "Unix is dead. Windows will replace it within 5 years." Three years later, of course, i was eating those words. How little i understood of what really lies under the hoods of many large corporations, keeping them purring on a daily basis - old-fashioned, commercial ($$$$) Unices.
I'm going to echo those words: You're out of your mind on this issue, aswell. I used to manage a FreeBSD box that had been running for upwards of 8 years whose only downtime was power issues. I've been using Linux for over ten years, and I spent a few years at a place that ran Solaris. I've seen more Solaris kernel panics than Linux ones. The "political" reason you mentioned is equally absurd. Compared to modern distro's, I'd spend more time tinkering with a newly installed Solaris machine than Linux boxes to get them securely running. You don't need to "hack" Linux anymore. Virtually every package on every production machine I've run in the past four years has been entirely package-based (rpm or deb). As far as enterprise backup solutions, the same products available for Solaris are available for Linux, stuff like Legato. There's also more advanced systems than tar, like rsnapshot. Moreover, Linux SAN is quite powerful, with dedicated SAN boxes built on Linux. The robotic tape backup devices these days are entirely self-contained with their own network interface, so they work regardless of OS.
On Friday 15 September 2006 04:03, stephan beal wrote:
That's unfortunately not true. i spent 18 months working as a contractor for German bank between 2005 and early this year, and there's no way in hell the internals of the bank could have run solely on Linux.
Nonsense. There are many banks (and other mission critical venues) running strictly linux.
The bank was a Solaris house, and it needed to be. i know linux is stable and solid and fast and all of that, but Solaris is STABLE. (In almost 7 years of working with Solaris, i think i've seen 2-3 system crashes.)
I was one of the first internal IBMers to use Linux for a mission critical in-house cluster... the machine was actually a four machine Beo-cluster (distributed processing similar to Beowulf) that ran for three years 24x7 with no down-time except for the one physical move the machines made. The systems *never* crashed and were *never* rebooted... except for the one time when we replaced the buildings main transformer and we were without power for 15 minutes while they switched in the mobile generators. I was using a stripped down version of RedHat 5.2 which ran the 2.0.36 kernel. Those machines were, well, *STABLE*.
There are of course other, often more political reasons, for running a closed OS, especially at a bank where "just hack it" is NOT an option, and you aren't allowed to install any packages which have not been approved by the security team.
Just *hack it* was not an option on my cluster either... only I had root... and no one... no one... signed on to that system or did anything to it...except me... and it ran for a very very long time. You must remember that just because Linux is open doesn't mean that you can't *close* it as a system administrator for security and/or political reasons.
In 1995 i remember telling several people, "Unix is dead. Windows will replace it within 5 years." Three years later, of course, i was eating those words. How little i understood of what really lies under the hoods of many large corporations, keeping them purring on a daily basis - old-fashioned, commercial ($$$$) Unices.
Wrong again. Thousands of commercial installations are now running Linux ... and here is the main point... not that BSD, or Solaris, or AIX or... blah blah blah isn't still good, but rather, is it cost effective. Linux has now come to the point where it matches the commercial *nixes and yet is far and away more cost effective. The enterprise editions of Suse (or RedHat) are capturing the market.... its just a matter of time and critical mass now. -- Kind regards, M Harris <><
M Harris wrote:
In fact, those "proprietary" OSes are at this point nothing more than redundant. There just isn't a business case these days to pay $$$$ for Unix from any vendor while rock solid enterprise linux distros are being produced for $. The Unix of yesterday is about as useful today as the mainframe of yesterday.
Tell that to IBM, who finds that Linux on mainframe to be a great combination.
In fact, those "proprietary" OSes are at this point nothing more than redundant. There just isn't a business case these days to pay $$$$ for Unix from any vendor while rock solid enterprise linux distros are being produced for $. The Unix of yesterday is about as useful today as the mainframe of yesterday.
Tell that to IBM, who finds that Linux on mainframe to be a great combination.
Tell that people who still think buying prop OSes buys them more. Jan Engelhardt --
On Fri, September 15, 2006 10:23 am, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
In fact, those "proprietary" OSes are at this point nothing more than redundant. There just isn't a business case these days to pay $$$$ for Unix from any vendor while rock solid enterprise linux distros are being produced for $. The Unix of yesterday is about as useful today as the mainframe of yesterday.
Tell that to IBM, who finds that Linux on mainframe to be a great combination.
Tell that people who still think buying prop OSes buys them more.
Yeah, I had to bite my lip during a recent meeting at which senior management exhaulted the stability and security of this new system I'm putting in because it is all based on Microsoft. Sigh... -- Kai Ponte www.perfectreign.com || www.4thedadz.com remember - a turn signal is a statement, not a request
Tell that to IBM, who finds that Linux on mainframe to be a great combination.
Tell that people who still think buying prop OSes buys them more.
Yeah, I had to bite my lip during a recent meeting at which senior management exhaulted the stability and security of this new system I'm putting in because it is all based on Microsoft.
No I did not really mean to inclued Microsoft - that's a whole different story in terms of functionality and stability. What I was thinking about is, why do people still run AIX, HPUX, Digital UNIX or <insert favorite commercial UNIX here>. Jan Engelhardt --
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 18:51, Azerion wrote:
Well, guess who has been funding SMART? Canonical, for those who don't know, is Mark Shuttlesworth's (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/) company, which funds and employs the people who actually make and distribute Ubuntu. I found it kind of ironic. Yes, like Ubuntu is gonna start an graphic-effects-team. Guess what? They probably use XGL, the mother of 3d environement this days. Funded (and founded?) by Novell/SUSE
This is what is so great about the world of Linux and open source! Bryan *************************************** Powered by Kubuntu Linux 6.06 KDE 3.5.2 KMail 1.9.1 This is a Microsoft-free computer Bryan S. Tyson bryantyson@earthlink.net ***************************************
participants (10)
-
Azerion -
Bryan S. Tyson -
James Knott -
Jan Engelhardt -
John E. Perry -
M Harris -
PerfectReign -
Siegbert Baude -
stephan beal -
suse＠rio.vg