Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Now let's see, your last post was jus advocating buying everything > new, you said you bought your house, car, etc. all new... > > and here your advocating obsolete hardware? > > Is this a flip-flop? No. It means don't buy the latest hardware; it doesn't mean buy used hardware. Find something less than the very latest thing, and buy that new. It'll be cheaper than the bleeding edge and it is more likely to be supported. And it will still be brand-new. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
# Ted Mittelstaedt: [ Anthony bemoans the lack of support for obsolete hardware ] > Now let's see, your last post was jus advocating buying everything > new, you said you bought your house, car, etc. all new... > > and here your advocating obsolete hardware? > > Is this a flip-flop? You kidding? If that was a flip-flop, you'd actually know what to insert to get the output you wanted. No, this is actually a Schroedinger troll and lacking proper support for RSP[1], you can't get it in a stable situation. Cheers. Mario [1]: Remote Strangulation Protocol. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 9:05 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > > > You can't be that confident that the other operating systems > will work > > on the new hardware, either. > > Mainstream hardware is usually well supported. Bleeding-edge > technologies and obsolete hardware may not be. Mainstream commercial > operating systems are probably a slightly better bet for obsolete > hardware, since they are more likely to have encountered it previously > and it's unusual for support to be explicitly removed. > Now let's see, your last post was jus advocating buying everything new, you said you bought your house, car, etc. all new... and here your advocating obsolete hardware? Is this a flip-flop? Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > You can't be that confident that the other operating systems will work > on the new hardware, either. Mainstream hardware is usually well supported. Bleeding-edge technologies and obsolete hardware may not be. Mainstream commercial operating systems are probably a slightly better bet for obsolete hardware, since they are more likely to have encountered it previously and it's unusual for support to be explicitly removed. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:44 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > > > Do you always buy new cars? New homes? > > Yes. And new PCs. > > > If you were tasked with going out and buying Windows server hardware > > and you had a maximum of $200 to spend, you would be pretty stupid to > > go down to Fry's and get one of their $199 on-sale computers when you > > could go spend the $200 on a used HP server that cost $9000 when it > > was new and has a full set of SCSI disks in it and probably a > > tapedrive. Sure the HP server is slow - but in that environment the > > reliability is more important than the speed. > > But at least I could be reasonably sure that Windows would be able to > use the machine. I can't be that confident with other operating > systems. > You can't be that confident that the other operating systems will work on the new hardware, either. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Do you always buy new cars? New homes? Yes. And new PCs. > If you were tasked with going out and buying Windows server hardware > and you had a maximum of $200 to spend, you would be pretty stupid to > go down to Fry's and get one of their $199 on-sale computers when you > could go spend the $200 on a used HP server that cost $9000 when it > was new and has a full set of SCSI disks in it and probably a > tapedrive. Sure the HP server is slow - but in that environment the > reliability is more important than the speed. But at least I could be reasonably sure that Windows would be able to use the machine. I can't be that confident with other operating systems. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > >> One word: ebay > > I don't trust used equipment. You never know where it's been. Do you always buy new cars? New homes? The only difference between buying used equipment and new equipment is that the risk/reward is different. With used gear you have a higher risk but you get a higher reward. There's situations where one is appropriate and the other is appropriate. Most people for example would not purchase a used infant car seat. Whereas most people will purchase a used house. Used gear fills an important market niche. If you were tasked with going out and buying Windows server hardware and you had a maximum of $200 to spend, you would be pretty stupid to go down to Fry's and get one of their $199 on-sale computers when you could go spend the $200 on a used HP server that cost $9000 when it was new and has a full set of SCSI disks in it and probably a tapedrive. Sure the HP server is slow - but in that environment the reliability is more important than the speed. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > One word: ebay I don't trust used equipment. You never know where it's been. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 1:45 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > > > Cisco's online knowledgebase is far superior. > > Since Cisco equipment is outside my budget, I've never had any occasion > to look at theirs, but I'll take your word for it. One word: ebay > (Then again, > hopefully I wouldn't _need_ the knowledgebase if I had Cisco gear.) > No, you would. Cisco gear, once it's setup to be reliable, it stays reliable and rarely needs attention. However, getting it to that point, and getting yourself to the point that you can set it up so that it's reliable, can sometimes take some doing. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Cisco's online knowledgebase is far superior. Since Cisco equipment is outside my budget, I've never had any occasion to look at theirs, but I'll take your word for it. (Then again, hopefully I wouldn't _need_ the knowledgebase if I had Cisco gear.) -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jon Drews writes: If you think the FreeBSD community is a "nightmare" then why are you sticking around except to stir up strife ? It's the closest thing to support available for FreeBSD. There's nothing else. I do note, however, that only about 10% of my questions to the list actually generate useful answers. The other questions either get no replies at all, or vague replies that really aren't useful, or pure guesses. One gets the impression that nobody really knows anything about FreeBSD, or, if anybody does, he never replies to this list. That is bullshit. Take your recent request regarding firefox. I told you exactly how to do it - install ports, run portupgrade, then make install in the firefox directory. I did exactly that Monday evening on a system I was setting up and it worked perfectly. I also told you not to screw with the precompiled firefox package, and you did it anyway, and you had problems. Indeed, the only messages that generate replies are those that suggest that FreeBSD is anything other than sweetness and light. Serious questions about how to use the software are met by a deafening silence in too many cases. That's why I say what I do on my Web site. Anyone thinking of running FreeBSD in a production environment needs on-site experts to deal with it, because they'll never get any help from anywhere else. Untrue. There's many of the core team that make a living consulting with FreeBSD and that has been going on for years. What you really mean to say is that they will never get any CHEAP help from anywhere else, whereas with Windows since it's common as dogshit, there's enough activity in the huge number of Windows forums that your bound to run across the answer to your question, for free, if you fish around for it long enough. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" i've had everything i've ever asked about answered by multiple people, quickly and they have all be very insightful answers. what the parent poster needs to look at it not the quality of the answers, but the quality of his questions. no one is going to waste time deciphering some vague question like " freebsd doesn't work help me" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And in cases where I've needed support, the very extensive knowledge > base that Microsoft maintains has been useful. It's pretty lame in an > absolute sense, but it's much better than anything that other vendors > provide (although HP comes close, and probably matches it for > hardware). Cisco's online knowledgebase is far superior. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jon Drews writes: > >> If you think the FreeBSD community is a "nightmare" then why are you >> sticking around except to stir up strife ? > > It's the closest thing to support available for FreeBSD. There's > nothing else. > > I do note, however, that only about 10% of my questions to the list > actually generate useful answers. The other questions either get no > replies at all, or vague replies that really aren't useful, or pure > guesses. One gets the impression that nobody really knows anything > about FreeBSD, or, if anybody does, he never replies to this list. > That is bullshit. Take your recent request regarding firefox. I told you exactly how to do it - install ports, run portupgrade, then make install in the firefox directory. I did exactly that Monday evening on a system I was setting up and it worked perfectly. I also told you not to screw with the precompiled firefox package, and you did it anyway, and you had problems. > Indeed, the only messages that generate replies are those that suggest > that FreeBSD is anything other than sweetness and light. Serious > questions about how to use the software are met by a deafening > silence in too many cases. > > That's why I say what I do on my Web site. Anyone thinking of running > FreeBSD in a production environment needs on-site experts to deal with > it, because they'll never get any help from anywhere else. Untrue. There's many of the core team that make a living consulting with FreeBSD and that has been going on for years. What you really mean to say is that they will never get any CHEAP help from anywhere else, whereas with Windows since it's common as dogshit, there's enough activity in the huge number of Windows forums that your bound to run across the answer to your question, for free, if you fish around for it long enough. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On 2005-02-26 12:39, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Giorgos Keramidas writes: >>On 2005-02-25 20:47, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Ted Mittelstaedt writes: All throughout our businesses careers, we will be faced with this problem of having to unlearn the old way of doing things and learn new, better ways. >>> >>> Not necessarily. When something works well enough, there's no reason to >>> learn anything else. >> >> Not necessarily true all the time. Otherwise, why isn't everyone still >> using Microsoft Word 2.x or the first version of Outlook Express? > > A great many people still are. Some people are still using MS-DOS. This quickly diverges far too off-topic for my taste. Trimming excessively the quoted material, as you did before replying, doesn't help much either. The point being made is not about "great many people", which includes people who work isolated from the rest of the world on some archaic accounting program running on MS-DOS. > For much of the population, a computer that works is all they need. > They don't care if anything on the machine ever gets "upgraded" at > all, and they will change to something new only if the existing > machine breaks. Which is a very acceptable and logical way of using computers. Alas, this doesn't explain why "change" is not so infrequent as you present it in the business world. There are other, more important reasons why a business setup needs change more often than the typical, isolated user who runs those archaic accounting packages on DOS. Compatibility with the rest of the world. When the rest of the world uses program MS Office version 2003 to write documents, inevitably, people who still use version 2.X of MS Office are blocked out. This means that every time a large enough critical mass of the business world upgrades, the rest of the business world HAS to upgrade too. Ergo change. Support. When vendor X stops supporting version 1.X of their product, business users who depend on features of this program are effectively "forced" to upgrade to version 2.X. Ergo change, again. Change is not always easy to avoid. Change is not something a business should fear either. Fear of change leads to decisions based on lots of emotional, invalid reasons. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Anthony Atkielski wrote: Jon Drews writes: If you think the FreeBSD community is a "nightmare" then why are you sticking around except to stir up strife ? It's the closest thing to support available for FreeBSD. There's nothing else. http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/consult_bycat.html I do note, however, that only about 10% of my questions to the list actually generate useful answers. The other questions either get no replies at all, or vague replies that really aren't useful, or pure guesses. One gets the impression that nobody really knows anything about FreeBSD, or, if anybody does, he never replies to this list. maybe it's YOU Indeed, the only messages that generate replies are those that suggest that FreeBSD is anything other than sweetness and light. Serious questions about how to use the software are met by a deafening silence in too many cases. Anyone who's been part of this list for longer than you (i.e. more than a couple of weeks) knows this to be absolute bullshit. There are some REAL knowledgeable folks here who have plenty to offer but you've annoyed most of them into silence. The proof is in the archives. Nothing left for you to do but leave and/or change your name (once again?) so that you appear in our inbox instead of the trash bin. G ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: > I am sorry, but I get the same level of support here that I do in the > Windows list, if not more. I suspect you won't believe me, but I rarely recall ever having to look for Windows support. The few problems I've had with Windows have been with specific applications or drivers, not the OS. And in cases where I've needed support, the very extensive knowledge base that Microsoft maintains has been useful. It's pretty lame in an absolute sense, but it's much better than anything that other vendors provide (although HP comes close, and probably matches it for hardware). -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Feb 26, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Jon Drews writes: If you think the FreeBSD community is a "nightmare" then why are you sticking around except to stir up strife ? It's the closest thing to support available for FreeBSD. There's nothing else. I am sorry, but I get the same level of support here that I do in the Windows list, if not more. And that is all I have for WIndows as well? What? You want me to pay for Windows support? Then pay for your damn BSD support! There are consultants and companies you can pay for your FreeBSD support that will offer you much better support than you get now. Chad I do note, however, that only about 10% of my questions to the list actually generate useful answers. The other questions either get no replies at all, or vague replies that really aren't useful, or pure guesses. One gets the impression that nobody really knows anything about FreeBSD, or, if anybody does, he never replies to this list. Indeed, the only messages that generate replies are those that suggest that FreeBSD is anything other than sweetness and light. Serious questions about how to use the software are met by a deafening silence in too many cases. That's why I say what I do on my Web site. Anyone thinking of running FreeBSD in a production environment needs on-site experts to deal with it, because they'll never get any help from anywhere else. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Jon Drews writes: > If you think the FreeBSD community is a "nightmare" then why are you > sticking around except to stir up strife ? It's the closest thing to support available for FreeBSD. There's nothing else. I do note, however, that only about 10% of my questions to the list actually generate useful answers. The other questions either get no replies at all, or vague replies that really aren't useful, or pure guesses. One gets the impression that nobody really knows anything about FreeBSD, or, if anybody does, he never replies to this list. Indeed, the only messages that generate replies are those that suggest that FreeBSD is anything other than sweetness and light. Serious questions about how to use the software are met by a deafening silence in too many cases. That's why I say what I do on my Web site. Anyone thinking of running FreeBSD in a production environment needs on-site experts to deal with it, because they'll never get any help from anywhere else. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 14:12:38 +0100, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > > > For one thing you can just stop with the site licensing fees. > > Licensing fees aren't necessarily the largest or even a significant > expense for a business. Ted and others: This guy is a troll plain and simple. From his website: http://www.atkielski.com/inlink.php?/main/TechnicalFAQ.html "FreeBSD currently is a winning solution for servers from a technical standpoint. Unfortunately, FreeBSD is unsupported, and trying to deal with other users of the OS or the people who control it is a nightmareâlike the Linux community, they are fanatically devoted to their OS and will tolerate no differences of opinion, or even any questions that they find less than gushingly complimentary of the system." If you think the FreeBSD community is a "nightmare" then why are you sticking around except to stir up strife ? > > For another you can lay off half your IT staff that you hired to spend > > their days running around and cleaning viruses and trojans off the > > systems that get past the AV filters. > > No, you have to keep them and hire more to keep the open-source stuff > running, since it is less likely to work on unusual configurations and > there is no support for it. > > With open source you save the licensing fees, but you must pay out at > least as much (in most cases) for qualified IT staff to support the open > source, because there is no formal support for it and it is far less > likely to work out of the box on all the configurations you might wish > to use. > > I'm looking at proof of this right now. Windows NT installed on this HP > Vectra without a hitch, and ran flawlessly on the machine for eight > years. FreeBSD installed okay, but it won't boot (unless I boot from > the installation diskettes and then switch to the hard drives), and it > generates SCSI errors continually, occasionally terminating in a panic. > And when I tried Mandrake Linux, it wouldn't install at all--it died > after the first screen. > > Multiple this by 30,000 seats, and you begin to see the problem. > > > And this is to say nothing of now you don't have your IT staff running > > around putting machines back to rights because the employee has > > brought a disk of something in from the outside, and tried installing > > it and it blew her system. > > You'll have that problem no matter what you install on the machine, > particularly if you have an OS installed that cannot be locked down > against local users. > > > Why do you think that Gates announced a few weeks ago that Windows > > AntiSpyware will be free after the beta period? > > I don't know. > > > Do you think that the large corporate customers all are sitting around > > wondering why everyone else is so upset over the amount of lost time > > consumed by viruses? > > Large corporate customers that don't want problems lock down their > machines. > > However, I'll grant that if a large enterprise truly wants a > problem-free desktop, it might be better off installing Linux or UNIX. > But to make this work it would have to customize the OS a lot so that > the end user can do absolutely nothing beyond what the system allows him > to do. For example, you could build and configure it to support a few > key corporate applications, and nothing else. By carefully configuring > and building the OS, you can make it impossible for users to add > anything new without completely reinstalling a different OS. > > This essentially turns PCs into workstations or terminals, but in many > organizations, that's exactly what one needs. > > This is not an out-of-the-box installation, though. You'd have to > develop your own tweaked version of the software and install it > specifically on certain hardware configurations for which it had been > customized. This could cause problems with hardware acquisition since > it requires a great deal of central control. > > This can be done with Windows, but it requires a lot of work up front, > and the option of customizing the OS to completely exclude certain > functionalities isn't there. > > > Provide support for this statement. > > That's the key word: support. For open source, there isn't any. Many > companies cannot afford to use unsupported products, even if they are > free. > > -- > Anthony > > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > For one thing you can just stop with the site licensing fees. Licensing fees aren't necessarily the largest or even a significant expense for a business. > For another you can lay off half your IT staff that you hired to spend > their days running around and cleaning viruses and trojans off the > systems that get past the AV filters. No, you have to keep them and hire more to keep the open-source stuff running, since it is less likely to work on unusual configurations and there is no support for it. With open source you save the licensing fees, but you must pay out at least as much (in most cases) for qualified IT staff to support the open source, because there is no formal support for it and it is far less likely to work out of the box on all the configurations you might wish to use. I'm looking at proof of this right now. Windows NT installed on this HP Vectra without a hitch, and ran flawlessly on the machine for eight years. FreeBSD installed okay, but it won't boot (unless I boot from the installation diskettes and then switch to the hard drives), and it generates SCSI errors continually, occasionally terminating in a panic. And when I tried Mandrake Linux, it wouldn't install at all--it died after the first screen. Multiple this by 30,000 seats, and you begin to see the problem. > And this is to say nothing of now you don't have your IT staff running > around putting machines back to rights because the employee has > brought a disk of something in from the outside, and tried installing > it and it blew her system. You'll have that problem no matter what you install on the machine, particularly if you have an OS installed that cannot be locked down against local users. > Why do you think that Gates announced a few weeks ago that Windows > AntiSpyware will be free after the beta period? I don't know. > Do you think that the large corporate customers all are sitting around > wondering why everyone else is so upset over the amount of lost time > consumed by viruses? Large corporate customers that don't want problems lock down their machines. However, I'll grant that if a large enterprise truly wants a problem-free desktop, it might be better off installing Linux or UNIX. But to make this work it would have to customize the OS a lot so that the end user can do absolutely nothing beyond what the system allows him to do. For example, you could build and configure it to support a few key corporate applications, and nothing else. By carefully configuring and building the OS, you can make it impossible for users to add anything new without completely reinstalling a different OS. This essentially turns PCs into workstations or terminals, but in many organizations, that's exactly what one needs. This is not an out-of-the-box installation, though. You'd have to develop your own tweaked version of the software and install it specifically on certain hardware configurations for which it had been customized. This could cause problems with hardware acquisition since it requires a great deal of central control. This can be done with Windows, but it requires a lot of work up front, and the option of customizing the OS to completely exclude certain functionalities isn't there. > Provide support for this statement. That's the key word: support. For open source, there isn't any. Many companies cannot afford to use unsupported products, even if they are free. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad Leigh -- > Shire.Net LLC > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 8:06 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > > Give me a break. Most all (excepting a few power users or financial > analysts) users of Office in corporate work use about 2% (or > some small > amount) of the features of Office and have never received formal > training. They write a few memos in Word, and a few > incidental uses of > perhaps PowerPoint or Excel. They are self taught. They use Office > through institutional inertia. I have worked in both large and small > organizations and this is true across the board. Very few people have > had specialized training using MS Office, and very few people use it > for more than writing memos, simple spreadsheets of their budget > (adding up stuff), etc. If they were given some other program that > they could write memos with, and were told to use it, they would. > This happens quite a lot with Lotus Notes deployments, as a matter of fact. > There are no massive costs involved in retraining the major mass of > employees. There may be a couple of power users who use Office to a > large percentage of its capabilities and who would need to be > retrained. > Or not. To a large company with, say, 2000 employees, if 20 of them are in the users of Office to a large percentage of it's capabilities category, then let 'em alone. It's far worth it to get the other 99% of the users switched over. What needs to change in these organizations is the tail wagging the dog situation. To many of these organizations have 20 power users who aren't in the IT group and yet think they should be able to set policy for the other 1,980 employees, and these people propagandize the high-level managers who are so hidebound they never touch a PC, into setting Orafice as the standard. Then 6 months later the CEO who was asleep at the switch is demanding to know why the IT budget went over by a half million for the year. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 11:49 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > > > That might be true but what is also true is that when such managers > > win, they win very very big. > > Big risk, big potential return. But not everyone wants to gamble. > > > So big that in the sum total of things, their wins bring in far more > > money to the company than anything that the conservative managers do. > > Sorry, but I really don't see how replacing Windows with an open-source > solution or anything of that nature would bring in far more > money to any > company. > I do. For one thing you can just stop with the site licensing fees. For another you can lay off half your IT staff that you hired to spend their days running around and cleaning viruses and trojans off the systems that get past the AV filters. And this is to say nothing of now you don't have your IT staff running around putting machines back to rights because the employee has brought a disk of something in from the outside, and tried installing it and it blew her system. Why do you think that Gates announced a few weeks ago that Windows AntiSpyware will be free after the beta period? Do you think that the large corporate customers all are sitting around wondering why everyone else is so upset over the amount of lost time consumed by viruses? > > Open Source/FreeBSD isn't playing it safe, but it isn't a > reckless risk > > either. > > Technically it's not much of a risk, but politically and in business > terms it can be a considerable risk. > Provide support for this statement. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 11:48 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > > > Your missing the point. It's far more cost-effective for a > business to > > not hire a bunch of whiners in the first place. > > They aren't whiners. It's perfectly logical for them to want to work > with software for which they are already trained, No, it isn't. When they are punching my clock they work the way I tell them to. That is why -I- am paying -them-. If they want to work their own way they are welcome to start their own business and work for themselves however way they want. > and it's equally > logical for a company to let them work with software for which they are > already trained. There's no reason at all to retrain them on something > completely different. > For starters, as I already indicated, expectation levels are different for different levels of employees. Someone who is getting paid a lot of money should not be dependent on the company training them, they should take responsibility for their own training. If they go to work for the company and the company uses Brand X software, well then they know this when they go to work for the company and they better take responsibility for training themselves using the manuals, or finding a class somewhere and expensing it to the company. But to expect that I'm going to go out and arrainge training and schedule these people is rediculous. These are grown people they can arrainge their own schedules and training. For God's sake, we pay their expenses, the least they can do is set it up for themselves. Prior training that an employee brings to the company may or may not have value to the company. Quite obviously, companies try to make an effort to hire people who have some prior training that is useful. But, with the wide variety of office equipment and other technical systems these days, it is much more important to hire someone who has the QUALITIES that will help your business. For example, I go to hire a salesman, I'm looking for someone who has a good rapport with people and who can close a deal. I really don't give a crap if he knows Excel or not, and I am certainly not going to make a hiring decision that would take that into account. The miniscule amount of money it would cost for him to take a training class in Excel would be paid back 100fold if he has the magic of sales in him. > > But I don't expect this kind of whining from someone I hire at $30K a > > year to actually do some real clerical work that requires some > > responsibility, and I am not going to stand for it for the $60K and > > above grown up adult that I hire for a managerial or ops position or > > some such. > > I guess you can spend another $60K on training them to use something > else and hope they don't leave until you amortize that additional > expense (if you ever do). But that doesn't seem to make very good > business sense. > It actually makes a lot of business sense depending on what they are doing. If I am hiring a financial controller who is responsible for a 10 million a year operating cost, if I have a system that tracks that 10 million better than any of my competitors systems track their 10 million for their operating costs, then $60K is cheap insurance to prevent a mistake that might cost a million. Most of the big company financial systems, no matter WHAT platform they are built on, are quite complex, so your going to spend the same money training them on either a MS system or a UNIX system. But in any case, $60K for training is a rediculous figure to begin with. Very little Microsoft or Sun desktop training that is out there costs anywhere near this amount, and what does cost this takes place in Vegas or Hawaii, and is effectively a way for a company to pay for someone's vacation without it showing up as income to them, and allowing it to be written off for the company. > > Unfortunately, there's still too many upper managers in > business today > > who came of age before the computer became integrated into business, > > and chose to be lazy and not learn how to use them, and as a result > > today cannot themselves operate the things, so it is not possible for > > them to hold their employees to any kind of standard in this area. > > They already _know_ how to use computers; they just aren't > familiar with > the software that you personally prefer. They know the most popular > software on the market and how to use it; they can get their work done > with that software alone, without any need for anything
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Giorgos Keramidas writes: > Not necessarily true all the time. Otherwise, why isn't everyone still > using Microsoft Word 2.x or the first version of Outlook Express? A great many people still are. Some people are still using MS-DOS. For much of the population, a computer that works is all they need. They don't care if anything on the machine ever gets "upgraded" at all, and they will change to something new only if the existing machine breaks. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On 2005-02-25 20:47, Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: >> All throughout our businesses careers, we will be faced with this >> problem of having to unlearn the old way of doing things and learn >> new, better ways. > > Not necessarily. When something works well enough, there's no reason to > learn anything else. Not necessarily true all the time. Otherwise, why isn't everyone still using Microsoft Word 2.x or the first version of Outlook Express? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Feb 25, 2005, at 12:47 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: Ted Mittelstaedt writes: Your missing the point. It's far more cost-effective for a business to not hire a bunch of whiners in the first place. They aren't whiners. It's perfectly logical for them to want to work with software for which they are already trained, and it's equally logical for a company to let them work with software for which they are already trained. There's no reason at all to retrain them on something completely different. But I don't expect this kind of whining from someone I hire at $30K a year to actually do some real clerical work that requires some responsibility, and I am not going to stand for it for the $60K and above grown up adult that I hire for a managerial or ops position or some such. I guess you can spend another $60K on training them to use something else and hope they don't leave until you amortize that additional expense (if you ever do). But that doesn't seem to make very good business sense. Give me a break. Most all (excepting a few power users or financial analysts) users of Office in corporate work use about 2% (or some small amount) of the features of Office and have never received formal training. They write a few memos in Word, and a few incidental uses of perhaps PowerPoint or Excel. They are self taught. They use Office through institutional inertia. I have worked in both large and small organizations and this is true across the board. Very few people have had specialized training using MS Office, and very few people use it for more than writing memos, simple spreadsheets of their budget (adding up stuff), etc. If they were given some other program that they could write memos with, and were told to use it, they would. There are no massive costs involved in retraining the major mass of employees. There may be a couple of power users who use Office to a large percentage of its capabilities and who would need to be retrained. Those are the facts. Office is used throughout the corporate world because of simple corporate institutional inertia and some high level manager or IT person declaring that that is the standard. The training costs come in the custom apps that people actually have to use to do their work. SAP, and that sort of thing and other custom SW. Or specialized software like Photoshop or Final Cut Pro, etc. where a small number of people are experts at using specialized tools. Chad Unfortunately, there's still too many upper managers in business today who came of age before the computer became integrated into business, and chose to be lazy and not learn how to use them, and as a result today cannot themselves operate the things, so it is not possible for them to hold their employees to any kind of standard in this area. They already _know_ how to use computers; they just aren't familiar with the software that you personally prefer. They know the most popular software on the market and how to use it; they can get their work done with that software alone, without any need for anything else. There is no reason for them to look elsewhere for software, nor is there any reason for them to waste time and money learning other, more obscure software packages that just do nothing more than Office already does. Managers don't have an emotional attachment to any type of computer software. They run Office because everyone knows how to use Office. And employees want Office because that's what they know how to use. It's perfectly rational, and fully cost-effective, and it has nothing to do with laziness or the age at which someone was first exposed to computers. All throughout our businesses careers, we will be faced with this problem of having to unlearn the old way of doing things and learn new, better ways. Not necessarily. When something works well enough, there's no reason to learn anything else. Everyone that works in a job faces this. Not necessarily. Even in jobs that require the use of a computer, it isn't necessary to relearn things over and over. Microsoft Word and Excel haven't changed significantly in ages. Unfortunately, many people choose to refuse to unlearn old ways, and a larger percentage of them get like this when they have been doing the old way for a long time. They have to have a good reason to learn new ways, and "because someone in the IT department hates Microsoft" isn't a good reason. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > That might be true but what is also true is that when such managers > win, they win very very big. Big risk, big potential return. But not everyone wants to gamble. > So big that in the sum total of things, their wins bring in far more > money to the company than anything that the conservative managers do. Sorry, but I really don't see how replacing Windows with an open-source solution or anything of that nature would bring in far more money to any company. > Open Source/FreeBSD isn't playing it safe, but it isn't a reckless risk > either. Technically it's not much of a risk, but politically and in business terms it can be a considerable risk. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Your missing the point. It's far more cost-effective for a business to > not hire a bunch of whiners in the first place. They aren't whiners. It's perfectly logical for them to want to work with software for which they are already trained, and it's equally logical for a company to let them work with software for which they are already trained. There's no reason at all to retrain them on something completely different. > But I don't expect this kind of whining from someone I hire at $30K a > year to actually do some real clerical work that requires some > responsibility, and I am not going to stand for it for the $60K and > above grown up adult that I hire for a managerial or ops position or > some such. I guess you can spend another $60K on training them to use something else and hope they don't leave until you amortize that additional expense (if you ever do). But that doesn't seem to make very good business sense. > Unfortunately, there's still too many upper managers in business today > who came of age before the computer became integrated into business, > and chose to be lazy and not learn how to use them, and as a result > today cannot themselves operate the things, so it is not possible for > them to hold their employees to any kind of standard in this area. They already _know_ how to use computers; they just aren't familiar with the software that you personally prefer. They know the most popular software on the market and how to use it; they can get their work done with that software alone, without any need for anything else. There is no reason for them to look elsewhere for software, nor is there any reason for them to waste time and money learning other, more obscure software packages that just do nothing more than Office already does. Managers don't have an emotional attachment to any type of computer software. They run Office because everyone knows how to use Office. And employees want Office because that's what they know how to use. It's perfectly rational, and fully cost-effective, and it has nothing to do with laziness or the age at which someone was first exposed to computers. > All throughout our businesses careers, we will be faced with this > problem of having to unlearn the old way of doing things and learn > new, better ways. Not necessarily. When something works well enough, there's no reason to learn anything else. > Everyone that works in a job faces this. Not necessarily. Even in jobs that require the use of a computer, it isn't necessary to relearn things over and over. Microsoft Word and Excel haven't changed significantly in ages. > Unfortunately, many people choose to refuse to unlearn old ways, and a > larger percentage of them get like this when they have been doing the > old way for a long time. They have to have a good reason to learn new ways, and "because someone in the IT department hates Microsoft" isn't a good reason. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > What the contracting company then does with the code is their own > business. It's not giving it away for free. Contractors are even worse than their clients. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> > Jerry McAllister writes: > > > Unfortunately, it is sort of true. If someone chose something other > > than IBM and something screwed up, the chooser would get wailed upon > > for making a dumb choice. If then chose IBM and something screwed up > > as it most often did, they could say, well that is just the way it > > is in the computer field. It ain't my fault. Then IBM is just > > grinning and rubbing their hands at all the additional stuff they will > > then get to sell to fix up their own screwups. > > > Well, that same odor seems to come on those winds from the northwest > > as well.If you are a middle manager, you don't have to justify paying > > scads of money to buy an MS "solution" and any screwups are just the way > > life is. But your neck is on the line if you buy anything else - even if > > it is free. You have to justify it first and defend it every day > > regardless of how much better it might perform. So, managers cave. > > They want to keep their salaries and get their bosses off their backs. > > It's a bit more complex than that. Companies like IBM and Microsoft > will assist managers in justifying their respective software or hardware > solutions. The manager is not alone in arguing in favor of these > solutions. If the manager chooses something like open source, or any > unsupported solution, he's on his own, and often he loses. Roughly what I said in the piece you cut off only you use softer language here. I have been in numerous bid battles (as customer) and IBM used to heavily employ that 'no one ever got fired for buying IBM' line especially if the choice seemed close.I haven't heard MS people actually say it, but strongly imply the same sort of thing. They both also like to feed managers lines to use in rationalizing choosing their own stuff. Everyone does that. It just makes sense. But it is the implied threat stated in reverse that characterizes their attitude. The managers in the cases I participated in, were not wishing to choose IBM or MS, but were being threatened in a sense. jerry > > -- > Anthony > > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Jerry McAllister writes: > >> Well, that same odor seems to come on those winds from the northwest >> as well.If you are a middle manager, you don't have to justify >> paying scads of money to buy an MS "solution" and any screwups are >> just the way life is. But your neck is on the line if you buy >> anything else - even if it is free. You have to justify it first >> and defend it every day regardless of how much better it might >> perform. So, managers cave. They want to keep their salaries and >> get their bosses off their backs. > > It's a bit more complex than that. Companies like IBM and Microsoft > will assist managers in justifying their respective software > or hardware > solutions. The manager is not alone in arguing in favor of these > solutions. If the manager chooses something like open source, or any > unsupported solution, he's on his own, and often he loses. That might be true but what is also true is that when such managers win, they win very very big. So big that in the sum total of things, their wins bring in far more money to the company than anything that the conservative managers do. CEO's of companies generally don't get to be in that position until they recognize this, with banking and a few other fields the notable exceptions. Most of them would love to see more of their middle managers stick their necks out more and take some risks. Many of the largest companies regularly hire consulting companies and send their people off to seminars in an effort to promote this. All of this gets down to basic risk reward. Nobody ever got big rewards by playing it safe. Nor did anybody make it for long taking reckless risks. Open Source/FreeBSD isn't playing it safe, but it isn't a reckless risk either. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > >> If you put anything other than Microsoft Office in front of those >> people they will spend endless hours complaining about how much >> better a job they can do (as if they are capabable of doing anything >> better than their normal half-assed job of anything) if they have >> Microsoft office, because they know that better ... > > They're right. Why train them on something different when they > already know how to use Office? It makes no economic sense. > >> ... they are too lazy to learn something different ... > > It's not cost-effective to train them on anything different. They > already know Office, so put Office in front of them. It's cheaper to > buy them a copy of Office than it is to train them on something else, > even if the something-else is free. Your missing the point. It's far more cost-effective for a business to not hire a bunch of whiners in the first place. I expect the above behavior out of the chewinggummy girl I hire to sit at the reception desk for $7 an hour and present a set of nice boobs to the customers when they walk in the door. If I can keep her off the phone to her boyfriend all day long I consider myself lucky, if I can actually get some real work out of her other than answering the phone and serving as eye candy, I'm in seventh heaven. But I don't expect this kind of whining from someone I hire at $30K a year to actually do some real clerical work that requires some responsibility, and I am not going to stand for it for the $60K and above grown up adult that I hire for a managerial or ops position or some such. Unfortunately, there's still too many upper managers in business today who came of age before the computer became integrated into business, and chose to be lazy and not learn how to use them, and as a result today cannot themselves operate the things, so it is not possible for them to hold their employees to any kind of standard in this area. All throughout our businesses careers, we will be faced with this problem of having to unlearn the old way of doing things and learn new, better ways. Everyone that works in a job faces this. Unfortunately, many people choose to refuse to unlearn old ways, and a larger percentage of them get like this when they have been doing the old way for a long time. It isn't impossible. I've seen many older managers very skilled in applying computer technology to their jobs, and this is a joy to behold as you get a meld of experience in the industry to the technology that produces some amazing things. I would not want to compete in any way with these folks! Unfortunately, call me cynical or what, but these managers appear to be in the minority. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > >> Daniel, if I'm running a big company and I pay a developer a chunk of >> change for a distributed FreeBSD server manager program, or some such >> thing like that, I am not going to pay them if they are going to take >> the money and run out and work on their own projects. > > Nor will most companies pay them to write anything that they are going > to release as free software. No, not true at all! The vast majority of businesses that employ contractors to customize software for them are actually paying companies for the labor, and the developer is an employee of that contracting company. In those cases the code ownership is that of the contracting company, and you as a business owner won't see a line of code written for you until you sign a contract that formalizes this. What the contracting company then does with the code is their own business. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Jerry McAllister writes: > Unfortunately, it is sort of true. If someone chose something other > than IBM and something screwed up, the chooser would get wailed upon > for making a dumb choice. If then chose IBM and something screwed up > as it most often did, they could say, well that is just the way it > is in the computer field. It ain't my fault. Then IBM is just > grinning and rubbing their hands at all the additional stuff they will > then get to sell to fix up their own screwups. > Well, that same odor seems to come on those winds from the northwest > as well.If you are a middle manager, you don't have to justify paying > scads of money to buy an MS "solution" and any screwups are just the way > life is. But your neck is on the line if you buy anything else - even if > it is free. You have to justify it first and defend it every day > regardless of how much better it might perform. So, managers cave. > They want to keep their salaries and get their bosses off their backs. It's a bit more complex than that. Companies like IBM and Microsoft will assist managers in justifying their respective software or hardware solutions. The manager is not alone in arguing in favor of these solutions. If the manager chooses something like open source, or any unsupported solution, he's on his own, and often he loses. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad Leigh -- > > Shire.Net LLC > > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:11 AM > > To: List Free Bsd > > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > > > > > > On Feb 25, 2005, at 1:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > > > > > And they are still buying Microsoft Office because their users are > > > demanding it. > > > > I don't believe this. I believe that a few users demand it, and by > > default everyone else gets it. Some manager or IT VP or someone > > decides that is the new corp standard and that is it. > > > > I think either you wern't paying attention in the big companies that > you worked in or you haven't worked in big companies. > > Big companies have a longstanding personnel problem in that they > tend to attract, for want of a better word, lazy bastards. > > That is not to say all big company employees are lazy, far far from > it. Big companies also attract many very talented people. > > ... Stuff nuked > > What happens when you as a manager tell your lazy bastard employee > to do a job, is they will find every conceivable excuse to avoid > doing it. "My computer is screwed up" is a favorite one. Another > one is "I need training on that and I can't do the work until you > give it to me" "It's not in my job description" is another favorite. > I'm sure any managers reading have heard all of these. > > If you put anything other than Microsoft Office in front of those > people they will spend endless hours complaining about how much > better a job they can do (as if they are capabable of doing anything > better than their normal half-assed job of anything) if they have > Microsoft office, because they know that better (translation, they > are too lazy to learn something different) blah blah blah. I think both things happen. Sometimes it is the manager who is either lazy or scared to make a decision and imposes "solutions" on the company. I see that a lot with our clients. Do you remember the very popular IBM selling point (especially in the mainframe world) - IBM sales people will come in and, if things seem to be getting close to leaning toward a different vendor, would start throwing around the phrase 'no-one ever got fired for choosing IBM' to try and scare people in the decision making position. I have heard them quote that in presentations many times. MS might not use that same quote, but they try and leave that same feeling. They both have gleefully traded on that weight in the marketplace. Unfortunately, it is sort of true. If someone chose something other than IBM and something screwed up, the chooser would get wailed upon for making a dumb choice. If then chose IBM and something screwed up as it most often did, they could say, well that is just the way it is in the computer field. It ain't my fault. Then IBM is just grinning and rubbing their hands at all the additional stuff they will then get to sell to fix up their own screwups. Well, that same odor seems to come on those winds from the northwest as well.If you are a middle manager, you don't have to justify paying scads of money to buy an MS "solution" and any screwups are just the way life is. But your neck is on the line if you buy anything else - even if it is free. You have to justify it first and defend it every day regardless of how much better it might perform. So, managers cave. They want to keep their salaries and get their bosses off their backs. The fact that they have to deal with lazy employees in the manner described in your post just makes that whole symdrome worse. jerry > > Ted > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > it's this short-term thinking which will be fatal for this planet after > all I'll agree that it's not very intelligent thinking for the long term, but that's the way most businesses reason these days. They think only about the next fiscal quarter, and never beyond. > is it so hard to think about the future, and not be dependent on a > ruthless monopoly like Microsoft, not be dependent on a fossile fuel > like oil etc. ? Actually it is. It takes more intelligence to see and evaluate long-term consequences than it does to deal with immediate, short-term consequences. And intelligence is in short supply in today's corporate world. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Daniel writes: > my scenario was this: i'm a big company and i use FreeBSD coz it > suites best for my needs; let's say among others that my/a programming > team built something on top of it ; > because i want the system to work as flawless as possible i pay a > monthly fee for support - say some 4 to 6 figures of dollars; would i > care what you do with the money? i think not; i'm only interested that > you'll be there (in place) whenever i need, whenever i get some freaky > error Maybe, but for the company providing the support, it has an interest in creating as many bugs as possible, in order to generate more support revenue. Some companies have actually fallen into this trap. They try to convert support functions into profit centers instead of cost centers, and in so doing they create serious conflicts of interest. The same problem exists for companies that provide both free/low-cost support and highly-paid consulting services. There's a tendency to push support issues off to the consultants and try to bill the customer for consulting fees in order to fix what is actually a bug. It's not very ethical but I've seen it happen often enough. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:10:57 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > > well, if a big company pays for support, those money would allow > > FreeBSD to have some more people (developers or not) focus on giving > > the support (fixing/answering) while the developers do their job...i > > believe this is quite natural course of action > > Paying for support would rapidly generate a conflict of interest, in > that it would encourage the production of buggy software in order to > increase support revenues (the only revenues the software generates). my scenario was this: i'm a big company and i use FreeBSD coz it suites best for my needs; let's say among others that my/a programming team built something on top of it ; because i want the system to work as flawless as possible i pay a monthly fee for support - say some 4 to 6 figures of dollars; would i care what you do with the money? i think not; i'm only interested that you'll be there (in place) whenever i need, whenever i get some freaky error the more companies will pay, FreeBSD will have some more guys for support and some more guys for developing... this may be a rather crude view but it could serve as a starting point... Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 13:22:00 +0100 Anthony Atkielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ... they are too lazy to learn something different ... > > It's not cost-effective to train them on anything different. They > already know Office, so put Office in front of them. It's cheaper to > buy them a copy of Office than it is to train them on something else, > even if the something-else is free. it's this short-term thinking which will be fatal for this planet after all is it so hard to think about the future, and not be dependent on a ruthless monopoly like Microsoft, not be dependent on a fossile fuel like oil etc. ? ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > If you put anything other than Microsoft Office in front of those > people they will spend endless hours complaining about how much > better a job they can do (as if they are capabable of doing anything > better than their normal half-assed job of anything) if they have > Microsoft office, because they know that better ... They're right. Why train them on something different when they already know how to use Office? It makes no economic sense. > ... they are too lazy to learn something different ... It's not cost-effective to train them on anything different. They already know Office, so put Office in front of them. It's cheaper to buy them a copy of Office than it is to train them on something else, even if the something-else is free. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Daniel writes: > well, if a big company pays for support, those money would allow > FreeBSD to have some more people (developers or not) focus on giving > the support (fixing/answering) while the developers do their job...i > believe this is quite natural course of action Paying for support would rapidly generate a conflict of interest, in that it would encourage the production of buggy software in order to increase support revenues (the only revenues the software generates). -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Ted Mittelstaedt writes: > Daniel, if I'm running a big company and I pay a developer a chunk of > change for a distributed FreeBSD server manager program, or some such > thing like that, I am not going to pay them if they are going to take > the money and run out and work on their own projects. Nor will most companies pay them to write anything that they are going to release as free software. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Julien Gabel > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:54 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > > Yes, i do. This is one of the aim of this initial fork of the FreeBSD > ports collection (pkgsrc) to be used on multiple plateform and > operating > system (NetBSD, Solaris, Linux, AIX, etc.: a list of all the supported > OSes can be found at http://www.pkgsrc.org/). Sure, it is not perfect, > but it is a valuable tool. > Interesting, I wasn't aware that pkgsrc was aiming to be cross-platform. > Because sunfreeware.com provide binary only packages for Solaris, it is > very convenient to be able to compile our own set of packages > from source > (and use our particular settings) or be able to install a software not > provided on sunfreeware.com or not yet updated. > > It can then be possible to track and keep a real personalized > third party > software baseline on multiple release versions of one or more OSes (for > example, have the same version of compilation tools or web server on > Solaris 2.6, Solaris 9 and Linux). > > I don't think _one_ tool can solve of all problems, but use both the > native and non-native (pkgsrc) tools/package manager can be a good > compromise. > > The advantages i think of (at least :-)) > - As with the FreeBSD ports collection, we can use an > existing base of > packages building from source (generally well up-to-date) > with our own > settings; > - Management of software (or tools) dependancies; > - Automatic checking for security vulnerabilities in > installed packages; > - Can generate binary package from our own sets, either manually or > automatically using the bulk builds (for deployment for example); > - Although compiled from source, you can managed installed > packages via > the pkg_* tools which is more convenient than from hands > in /usr/local; > - Don't interfer with supported native packages (from Sun) or non- > supported packages (from sunfreeware.com, etc.). > > As a side note, it is interesting to note that although not > considered part > of Solaris 10 you can found a _reference_ to the The NetBSD Packages > Collection on the Compagnion CD provided by Sun[1], among > others. It would > seems furthermore than there exists a specialized group in the NetBSD > Project to handle specific PRs on this plateform > (solaris-pkg-people) and > that Sun will be using "some form of pkgsrc" for its contrib packages > extras in Solaris[2] (i have not yet verify this). Last, Sun has > contributed > some hardware to help making bulk builds of pkgsrc on Solaris OS[3]. > > >> I don't say i disagree with your global point of view, just that the > >> last two points may be slightly... moderated :) > > > Solaris 2.6, 8, 9, 10 don't run on EISA. They also got rid of the > > alt-F keys for the multiple consoles. > > Yes, right :( > > > 2.6 also included it's own perl, and I think later versions did too. > > Blech on that if you needed a later version of perl on the system. > > On Solaris 10 plateform, you can found Perl 5.8.4 and Perl 5.6.1. The > default is to place Perl 5.8.4 as /usr/bin/perl. > > > These Solaris versions were fine for big companies with lots > of money to > > buy brand new Sun boxes (which ran them well). They were > hideous for not > > so big companies that didn't want to have to throw perfectly > good quad > > Pentium 200 servers with EISA hardware raid controllers and big SCSI > > arrays on them in the garbage. > > Maybe we can hope this will change in near future, with Solaris 10+. > Oh, it's going to change eventually. Despite all Intel's work there is a practical limit to CPU speeds. Ultimately the desktop PC architecture is going to come to a halt in terms of speed increases, and will remain there unless the entire architecture is chucked out and replaced with something else (optical, perhaps?) Once that happens, software vendors will not be able to count on the increasing hardware speed making up for the shortcomings of their 4GL tools or scripts, or whatever quick hacked tools are that spew forth such bloated code. At that time, even throwing money into new hardware won't speed up the next version of whatever application is sold. Customers are going to force the ISV's into hand optimization, better yacc's, etc. > > And try building something like ImageMagik on Solaris 10 I will bet > > that at least 1 of the collection of libraries that this conglomerate > > program requires will not build without tweaks. > > Certainly. (FYI: currently, it breaks on the graphics/jasper > dependancy > on the 2004-Q4 branch) Hmm - jasper builds on my solaris box Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Daniel > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 8:35 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > sorry, i should have sent this to entire list... > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:43:32 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote > among others... > > > > FreeBSD does not have some of the things - such as > distributed management > > of hundreds to thousands of FreeBSD servers over a large enterprise - > > that > > are a requirement for big companies. > > would not these things be worthy of implementing in FreeBSD? It isn't a question if they would be worthy. There's worth in implementing anything in FreeBSD of some level. It is much more a question that these sorts of tools are -very- complex if they are any good, complex to build, complex to maintain, and complex to operate. We are talking a tool that might take a few months of experience by someone already experienced in FreeBSD to become proficient with. Or a tool that might take a year for someone not already familiar with FreeBSD to become proficient with. Furthermore your only talking a very limited market for them. The model for this kind of tool is one where you have a handful of really experienced developers who are constantly working on them, and selling into a market of perhaps a couple hundred experienced admins in the world, if even that. Between them these tools control thousands of servers and desktops. That means, unfortunately, you have to extract a fairly hefty amount of money every year from that group of couple hundred experienced admins. You do that by licensing on a per-server basis, per-desktop basis, etc. Since the big companies can well afford this, it works out fine, but only as a commercial software offering. You cannot build these kinds of tools as a one-shot thing, or build to solve a specific problem, and have them last. > making a good OS that runs on cheap, low-end machines is nice, but the > real money come from companies... As has been said countless times in the past, the ideal Free Software model is one where you have a commons of core operating systems and general purpose applications that are open source, and companies then contract with developers to customize those applications to their specific needs. The commercial software approach has always been for the commercial companies to come out with a product that tries to do everything for everybody, and as a result does not do any one thing that well, and companies then modify their business processes to fit the software. Both approaches cost roughly the same money - with the Free Software model you spend it in labor, with the commercial software model you spend it in licensing. But with the Free Software model, you end up with customers getting exactly what they need. With the commercial model you end up with customers all working the same way their competitors are. > another idea, a study of what features big companies want from an OS > should be conducted...by you, maybe or some other people interested > and these features be prioritized for FreeBSD... > On the surface that seems like a reasonable way to get FreeBSD's usage increased. But there are some major reasons this wouldn't work. First, such a survey assumes that big companies know what features they want. The reality is often a big company will see a new feature they have never heard of before, never knew could even be implemented, and once they now know about it, they want it. In other words, your better off with a small team of people who are gurus, have a huge amount of experience in these environments, getting together and brainstorming. Second, this approach assumes that if you presented a big company with a OS that had every exact thing they wanted, that they would indeed switch to it. In reality they may still not switch, for example they may not believe your OS could do it, or the implementation problems would be too difficult. Kind of like dangling a lollypop in front of a kid who is on the other side of a 4 inch thick piece of glass - he would love to have it, he would be jealous that it's there and he can't get to it, but he still isn't going to be getting that lollypop. Third, this takes the "does everything for everybody and not any one thing well" approach. For example, you get 3 respondents, one wants item a, item b, item c, one wants item a, item c, item d, one wants item a and item e. You prioritize this and produce item a first, then item c. But after all that labor still nobody wants it - the first respondent can't use it because it's lacking item b, the second can't use it because it's lacking item d, the third can't use it because it's lacking item e. Another way of saying t
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Chad Leigh -- > Shire.Net LLC > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:11 AM > To: List Free Bsd > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > > On Feb 25, 2005, at 1:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > > > And they are still buying Microsoft Office because their users are > > demanding it. > > I don't believe this. I believe that a few users demand it, and by > default everyone else gets it. Some manager or IT VP or someone > decides that is the new corp standard and that is it. > I think either you wern't paying attention in the big companies that you worked in or you haven't worked in big companies. Big companies have a longstanding personnel problem in that they tend to attract, for want of a better word, lazy bastards. That is not to say all big company employees are lazy, far far from it. Big companies also attract many very talented people. But there's a certain percentage of the workforce out there who are simply lazy bastards - these are people who do the absolute minimum amount of effort to get by. These folks don't want to work for small companies, where they are easily detected and fired. They want to work for big companies where they can hide. As a result of this despite the best pruning efforts, there's a large percentage of lazy bastards in any big company. Big company managers and personnel people are well aware of this problem, of course, but there's little they can do short of the periodic mass layoff, to combat it. What happens when you as a manager tell your lazy bastard employee to do a job, is they will find every conceivable excuse to avoid doing it. "My computer is screwed up" is a favorite one. Another one is "I need training on that and I can't do the work until you give it to me" "It's not in my job description" is another favorite. I'm sure any managers reading have heard all of these. If you put anything other than Microsoft Office in front of those people they will spend endless hours complaining about how much better a job they can do (as if they are capabable of doing anything better than their normal half-assed job of anything) if they have Microsoft office, because they know that better (translation, they are too lazy to learn something different) blah blah blah. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:02:20 +0100, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > > would not these things be worthy of implementing in FreeBSD? this way > > other big companies would use it, pay you guys for it and FreeBSD will > > grow stronger... > > There are other obstacles to deployment of FreeBSD in large > organizations. The main one is a lack of formal, guaranteed support. > This afflicts Linux, also, to some extent, depending on the > distribution. Even for "supported" Linux distributions, the support is > often very limited in comparison to that available for systems such as > Solaris, Windows, or even Mac OS X. > > > making a good OS that runs on cheap, low-end machines is nice, but the > > real money come from companies... > > The problem is that the largest companies need more than just a > technically superior operating system. That's why they are still buying > Solaris and Windows. > well, if a big company pays for support, those money would allow FreeBSD to have some more people (developers or not) focus on giving the support (fixing/answering) while the developers do their job...i believe this is quite natural course of action the reason for the above comments is that i think FreeBSD should come out in light and become more popular, not only in sys admin world, maybe just like Linux; yes, we know that it is used in many critical systems, that it is there, serving, provinding certainty; true, FreeBSD is like "real things just happen, the press doesn't have to talk about it". Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Friday 25 February 2005 12:04 am, Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i hardly think that companies that use and enhance FreeBSD adding > features that they (and maybe others) need, would submit back those > enhacements - BSD license... Happens all the time - the goodwill is stronger than the license, or maybe it's because submitting improvements helps create a better OS for that company, as well as everyone else. Apple and Yahoo! are two notable examples. - jt ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Daniel > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:04 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > by making money i did not meant necessarily big bank acocunts for the > its developers but money that would allow developers to allocate more > time to FreeBSD, enhancing it so that when someone, sys admin/company/ > would want to setup a internet-aware (mail, web, fw, gw) server and at > the same time keep the peace of mind, would think "Of course!, we'll > use FreeBSD, you'll see, it's awesome" > Daniel, if I'm running a big company and I pay a developer a chunk of change for a distributed FreeBSD server manager program, or some such thing like that, I am not going to pay them if they are going to take the money and run out and work on their own projects. > i hardly think that companies that use and enhance FreeBSD adding > features that they (and maybe others) need, would submit back those > enhacements - BSD license... > Your wrong. There's lots of code and features that are in FreeBSD right now today that came from companies that used and enhanced FreeBSD. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Feb 25, 2005, at 1:01 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: And they are still buying Microsoft Office because their users are demanding it. I don't believe this. I believe that a few users demand it, and by default everyone else gets it. Some manager or IT VP or someone decides that is the new corp standard and that is it. Chad ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:48:05 -0500 (EST), Jerry McAllister wrote: > > would not these things be worthy of implementing in FreeBSD? this way > > other big companies would use it, pay you guys for it and FreeBSD will > > grow stronger... > > making a good OS that runs on cheap, low-end machines is nice, but the > > real money come from companies... > > Maybe. But the initial intent of FreeBSD was not making money. > It was having an OS that the people creating it liked so they didn't > have to muck around with the rest of the junk out there. by making money i did not meant necessarily big bank acocunts for the its developers but money that would allow developers to allocate more time to FreeBSD, enhancing it so that when someone, sys admin/company/ would want to setup a internet-aware (mail, web, fw, gw) server and at the same time keep the peace of mind, would think "Of course!, we'll use FreeBSD, you'll see, it's awesome" > But, there is no reason that someone could not make such a system > out of FreeBSD and charge for it - and probably make some significant > money. > > I don't know if that should be the direction of the FreeBSD project > per se though. Maybe, if those people who made the big system > contributed their work back to FreeBSD it would be interesting. > i hardly think that companies that use and enhance FreeBSD adding features that they (and maybe others) need, would submit back those enhacements - BSD license... Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 9:02 AM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > Daniel writes: > > > would not these things be worthy of implementing in FreeBSD? this way > > other big companies would use it, pay you guys for it and > FreeBSD will > > grow stronger... > > There are other obstacles to deployment of FreeBSD in large > organizations. The main one is a lack of formal, guaranteed support. > This afflicts Linux, also, to some extent, depending on the > distribution. Even for "supported" Linux distributions, the support is > often very limited in comparison to that available for systems such as > Solaris, Windows, or even Mac OS X. > Not for Red Hat, at least not anymore. The entire reason for making Red Hat commercial was to emulate as closely as possible the same type of $upport $tructure and co$ts that Microsoft provides. > > The problem is that the largest companies need more than just a > technically superior operating system. That's why they are > still buying > Solaris and Windows. > This is a gross simplification of the realities. The reality is they are still buying Solaris because the back end apps they run on it - big company apps that is, like Peoplesoft and SAP - require it. And they are still buying Microsoft Windows because they don't have a choice - because the low-end desktop computers that business purchase all come with Windows preloaded on it. And they are still buying Microsoft Office because their users are demanding it. But if you think that support is the reason for large companies buying Windows, I have a bridge to sell you. Every large company admin I've ever talked to with a Microsoft support contract all say that their paid support sucks. The only good thing I've ever heard about Microsoft support was the per-incident Developer support, which is $250 per incident, and is handled by a completely separate group than the regular paid support. Microsoft understood years ago that if you want to lock in the business market, the key is to lock in the application developers to your platform. Businesses if given a choice would go for Linux - but they aren't given a choice because the applications they want to run don't run on Linux - because Microsoft has in many cases told those application developers that if they offer Linux versions of their products, they won't get the same level of support from Microsoft than if they remain loyal. (this is one of the behaviors that was stopped by the antitrust trial - however, many ISV's still to this day will tell you that they believe they get better support from Microsoft if they don't support Linux) Years ago I worked for Symantec, and it is this very reason why for years no Symantec applications were offered for Linux. At the time the CEO, Gordon Eubanks (who was apparently pushed out of or got tired of Symantec around 2000 or thereabouts) prohibited development along those lines. (Eubanks was asked in 1999 by Bill Gates to testify in support of Microsoft at the antitrust trial) This was done solely to enable the Symantec development team to get inside information about Windows from Microsoft. This also is why Microsoft fought the idea of divestiture of Office applications which was proposed as a remedy for the trial. (indeed, it's the only remedy that made any sense at all) With Office apps supplied by a different company post-trial, it would be illegal for them to give special data to the Office company in exchange for preventing a port of Office to Linux. Since they own Office and have succeeded in killing off all other business office suite vendors, they can prevent new ones from getting a foothold by using their inside information tricks, and they can refuse to port to Linux. None of these dirty tricks are "needed" by businesses, contrary to your assertions. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Daniel writes: > would not these things be worthy of implementing in FreeBSD? this way > other big companies would use it, pay you guys for it and FreeBSD will > grow stronger... There are other obstacles to deployment of FreeBSD in large organizations. The main one is a lack of formal, guaranteed support. This afflicts Linux, also, to some extent, depending on the distribution. Even for "supported" Linux distributions, the support is often very limited in comparison to that available for systems such as Solaris, Windows, or even Mac OS X. > making a good OS that runs on cheap, low-end machines is nice, but the > real money come from companies... The problem is that the largest companies need more than just a technically superior operating system. That's why they are still buying Solaris and Windows. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
>>> That doesen't mean of course that it's impossible to do it - you can for >>> example use Solaris for a small company server - but the effort required >>> to go against the grain is much higher. Solaris for example comes with >>> no compiler and you must compile by hand all the applications you need, >>> and often you must recompile the complier just before you can even start >>> doing that. It takes days - whereas the FreeBSD ports system takes a >>> few hours for the largest and most complex packages. >> Just as a side notes here: >> >> 1/ Solaris does come with 'gcc' on Compagnion CD as can be seen on a >>fresh Solaris 10 installation: >># pkginfo -l SUNWgcc | egrep "PKGINST|NAME|VERSION|VENDOR|DESC" >> PKGINST: SUNWgcc >> NAME: gcc - The GNU C compiler >> VERSION: 11.10.0,REV=2005.01.08.05.16 >>VENDOR: Sun Microsystems, Inc. >> DESC: GNU C - The GNU C compiler 3.4.3 >> >> 2/ You can always use the pkgsrc (the NetBSD Packages Collection) as the >>FreeBSD ports system replacement for use on Sun Solaris. We do it >>here already for some software for Solaris 2.6, 8, 9 and soon for 10. > What possible benefit does that give for Solaris which already has > it's own package manager? Your certainly not advocating using the > NetBSD presets for compiling packages on Solaris? Yes, i do. This is one of the aim of this initial fork of the FreeBSD ports collection (pkgsrc) to be used on multiple plateform and operating system (NetBSD, Solaris, Linux, AIX, etc.: a list of all the supported OSes can be found at http://www.pkgsrc.org/). Sure, it is not perfect, but it is a valuable tool. Because sunfreeware.com provide binary only packages for Solaris, it is very convenient to be able to compile our own set of packages from source (and use our particular settings) or be able to install a software not provided on sunfreeware.com or not yet updated. It can then be possible to track and keep a real personalized third party software baseline on multiple release versions of one or more OSes (for example, have the same version of compilation tools or web server on Solaris 2.6, Solaris 9 and Linux). I don't think _one_ tool can solve of all problems, but use both the native and non-native (pkgsrc) tools/package manager can be a good compromise. The advantages i think of (at least :-)) - As with the FreeBSD ports collection, we can use an existing base of packages building from source (generally well up-to-date) with our own settings; - Management of software (or tools) dependancies; - Automatic checking for security vulnerabilities in installed packages; - Can generate binary package from our own sets, either manually or automatically using the bulk builds (for deployment for example); - Although compiled from source, you can managed installed packages via the pkg_* tools which is more convenient than from hands in /usr/local; - Don't interfer with supported native packages (from Sun) or non- supported packages (from sunfreeware.com, etc.). As a side note, it is interesting to note that although not considered part of Solaris 10 you can found a _reference_ to the The NetBSD Packages Collection on the Compagnion CD provided by Sun[1], among others. It would seems furthermore than there exists a specialized group in the NetBSD Project to handle specific PRs on this plateform (solaris-pkg-people) and that Sun will be using "some form of pkgsrc" for its contrib packages extras in Solaris[2] (i have not yet verify this). Last, Sun has contributed some hardware to help making bulk builds of pkgsrc on Solaris OS[3]. >> I don't say i disagree with your global point of view, just that the >> last two points may be slightly... moderated :) > Solaris 2.6, 8, 9, 10 don't run on EISA. They also got rid of the > alt-F keys for the multiple consoles. Yes, right :( > 2.6 also included it's own perl, and I think later versions did too. > Blech on that if you needed a later version of perl on the system. On Solaris 10 plateform, you can found Perl 5.8.4 and Perl 5.6.1. The default is to place Perl 5.8.4 as /usr/bin/perl. > These Solaris versions were fine for big companies with lots of money to > buy brand new Sun boxes (which ran them well). They were hideous for not > so big companies that didn't want to have to throw perfectly good quad > Pentium 200 servers with EISA hardware raid controllers and big SCSI > arrays on them in the garbage. Maybe we can hope this will change in near future, with Solaris 10+. > And try building something like ImageMagik on Solaris 10 I will bet > that at least 1 of the collection of libraries that this conglomerate > program requires will not build without tweaks. Certainly. (FYI: currently, it breaks on the graphics/jasper dependancy on the 2004-Q4 branch) So, if there is no native "solution" (binary packages or anything else), and if the FreeBSD ports collection is the favorite answer, i
Re: Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> > sorry, i should have sent this to entire list... > > On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:43:32 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote among others... > > > > FreeBSD does not have some of the things - such as distributed management > > of hundreds to thousands of FreeBSD servers over a large enterprise - > > that > > are a requirement for big companies. > > would not these things be worthy of implementing in FreeBSD? this way > other big companies would use it, pay you guys for it and FreeBSD will > grow stronger... > making a good OS that runs on cheap, low-end machines is nice, but the > real money come from companies... Maybe. But the initial intent of FreeBSD was not making money. It was having an OS that the people creating it liked so they didn't have to muck around with the rest of the junk out there. But, there is no reason that someone could not make such a system out of FreeBSD and charge for it - and probably make some significant money. I don't know if that should be the direction of the FreeBSD project per se though. Maybe, if those people who made the big system contributed their work back to FreeBSD it would be interesting. jerry > another idea, a study of what features big companies want from an OS > should be conducted...by you, maybe or some other people interested > and these features be prioritized for FreeBSD... > > have a good day.. > Dan > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Fwd: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
sorry, i should have sent this to entire list... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 01:43:32 -0800, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote among others... > > FreeBSD does not have some of the things - such as distributed management > of hundreds to thousands of FreeBSD servers over a large enterprise - > that > are a requirement for big companies. would not these things be worthy of implementing in FreeBSD? this way other big companies would use it, pay you guys for it and FreeBSD will grow stronger... making a good OS that runs on cheap, low-end machines is nice, but the real money come from companies... another idea, a study of what features big companies want from an OS should be conducted...by you, maybe or some other people interested and these features be prioritized for FreeBSD... have a good day.. Dan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Julien Gabel > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 2:22 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > > That doesen't mean of course that it's impossible to do it - > you can for > > example use Solaris for a small company server - but the > effort required > > to go against the grain is much higher. Solaris for example > comes with no > > compiler and you must compile by hand all the applications > you need, and > > often you must recompile the complier just before you can even start > > doing that. It takes days - whereas the FreeBSD ports > system takes a few > > hours for the largest and most complex packages. > > > Just as a side notes here: > > 1/ Solaris does come with 'gcc' on Compagnion CD as can be > seen on a fresh >Solaris 10 installation: ># pkginfo -l SUNWgcc | egrep "PKGINST|NAME|ARCH|VERSION|VENDOR|DESC" > PKGINST: SUNWgcc > NAME: gcc - The GNU C compiler > ARCH: sparc > VERSION: 11.10.0,REV=2005.01.08.05.16 >VENDOR: Sun Microsystems, Inc. > DESC: GNU C - The GNU C compiler 3.4.3 > > 2/ You can always use the pkgsrc (the NetBSD Packages > Collection) as the >FreeBSD ports system replacement for use on Sun Solaris. > We do it here >already for some software for Solaris 2.6, 8, 9 and soon for 10. > What possible benefit does that give for Solaris which already has it's own package manager? Your certainly not advocating using the NetBSD presets for compiling packages on Solaris? > I don't say i disagree with your global point of view, just > that the last > two points may be slightly... moderated :) > Solaris 2.6, 8, 9, 10 don't run on EISA. They also got rid of the alt-F keys for the multiple consoles. I think they were looking for ways to be degenerate. ;-) 2.6 also included it's own perl, and I think later versions did too. Blech on that if you needed a later version of perl on the system. It also didn't help that Sun for several years was FUDing the industry claiming they wern't going to support the Intel 64 bit chips. And check out the lack of /dev/random, /dev/urandom on 2.6 and 8 if I recall - problem for OpenSSL even though a Sun patch adds them. Although the Sun-supplied random devices blow chunks when running ENT or other PRNG testers. I kind of expect crappy entropy from a hacked up ripoff of the linux random driver, but I really expected a lot better entropy from a driver distributed from the maunfacturer. After all, Sun can look at interrupts at the network card and all kinds of other icky nonportable but highly unpredictable fantastic randomness sources - just what the heck are they doing in that driver of theirs? Calculating pi? Unless perhaps the NSA got to them and told them they better not release a decent random device because they want to keep spying on all of us. Seriously, the later versions of Solaris after 2.6 were big disappointments, It took years and years for hardware to catch up. Big, poky and slow. I don't know what they did but a 2.51 or 2.6 system on the same hardware kicked the crap out of 8 even with full patch sets applied. And the Companion CD didn't start supplying gcc for Solaris x86 until Solaris 8 I believe. These Solaris versions were fine for big companies with lots of money to buy brand new Sun boxes (which ran them well) They were hideous for not so big companies that didn't want to have to throw perfectly good quad Pentium 200 servers with EISA hardware raid controllers and big SCSI arrays on them in the garbage. And try building something like ImageMagik on Solaris 10 I will bet that at least 1 of the collection of libraries that this conglomerate program requires will not build without tweaks. We do use Solaris, it's stable, runs well, nice UNIX os. But what a time sucking bitch to setup. At least you get a Motif, that's worth something. Ted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> That doesen't mean of course that it's impossible to do it - you can for > example use Solaris for a small company server - but the effort required > to go against the grain is much higher. Solaris for example comes with no > compiler and you must compile by hand all the applications you need, and > often you must recompile the complier just before you can even start > doing that. It takes days - whereas the FreeBSD ports system takes a few > hours for the largest and most complex packages. Just as a side notes here: 1/ Solaris does come with 'gcc' on Compagnion CD as can be seen on a fresh Solaris 10 installation: # pkginfo -l SUNWgcc | egrep "PKGINST|NAME|ARCH|VERSION|VENDOR|DESC" PKGINST: SUNWgcc NAME: gcc - The GNU C compiler ARCH: sparc VERSION: 11.10.0,REV=2005.01.08.05.16 VENDOR: Sun Microsystems, Inc. DESC: GNU C - The GNU C compiler 3.4.3 2/ You can always use the pkgsrc (the NetBSD Packages Collection) as the FreeBSD ports system replacement for use on Sun Solaris. We do it here already for some software for Solaris 2.6, 8, 9 and soon for 10. I don't say i disagree with your global point of view, just that the last two points may be slightly... moderated :) -- -jpeg. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Freminlins > Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:42 AM > To: Jorn Argelo > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD? > > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:36:36 +0100, Jorn Argelo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think that they would. That'll be a massive > migration involving lots > > and lots of costs. They have to pay for RedHat Enterprise > too. The only reason > > I can think off is that they want support.Perhaps I missed a > part, but I don't > > see the word FreeBSD in that article. > > Although it doesn't state FreeBSD, I understand that Yahoo! runs stuff > on FreeBSD. > > > Besides, the point of the article is not regarding a > migration of Yahoo, but > > Linux and IT in general. It has nothing to do with Yahoo or > FreeBSD. I think > > that the author of the article is simply mistaking. > > I'n not sure I agree with that. The author stated "But in December, > Yahoo started to port ... to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.0" That would > suggest that Yahoo! is moving to Linux. > > I am very interested in this as I have for several years used the > argument "we use the same OS as Yahoo!". We're not going to migrate to > Linux if Yahoo! does. > The speaker cited in the article is a "Mason Ng, Yahoo's director of engineering operations" However I found a "Kevin Timmons, director, engineering operations, Yahoo" when I googled this up. http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2004/040112b.html http://www2.sprint.com/mr/news_dtl.do?id=1106 I've found numerous references to him in conjunction with Yahoo. Interestingly, I also found Mason Ng listed as well - here: http://www.oracle.com/technology/oracleworld/ow_j2ee.html as an Oracle Group Product manager. But, very few other references to that name. As it's a rather unique name, I would suspect that the Mason Ng in the article and the one listed as an Oracle employee last year are one and the same person. I would presume that if the article in Computerworld was in fact an accurate quote, that what has happened is that Yahoo has decided to move to using Oracle as a backend database, and they stole an Oracle manager away from Oracle to oversee the move. As Linux is the only open source OS that Oracle ships on, and Yahoo obviously wants to keep using open source, it gets elected as the platform. Keep in mind that in 2004, Yahoo stopped using google results, see here: http://www.infotoday.com/online/jul04/OnTheNet.shtml This represented a return to their roots. Back in 1995 when Yahoo first got going, it was only their own links on a cobbled-together software database. Then later on in 1998 they switched to the Inktomi database, see here: http://notess.com/write/archive/9904.html Obviously then sometime later than that, when the search market started these large monster OEM search providers, Yahoo started using Google, as did may other search engines. Then once the users started noticing that they were getting the same results no matter what search engine was being used, sites like Yahoo realized they better differentiate their products and so they went back to developing their own database. Yahoo still uses FreeBSD according to this FAQ: http://www.ystoreclick.com/yahoo-store-faqs.html And I would assume that they will probably only use Red Hat where they want to field Oracle. Note also that Yahoo is moving to Red Hat Linux according to the article. NOT moving to "Linux" Red Hat is not free, it is a commercial server product just like Microsoft's operating systems. Fedora - that is free. But they aren't moving to Fedora, they are moving to Red Hat. I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence of what is really going on for educated guesses to be drawn. Doubtless further googling will reveal more info about Yahoo to anyone interested. But clearly, Yahoo has correctly realized that it's database is the real valuable part of the company, and they have decided to get out of the roll-your-own database software business. Oracle is the obvious choice as it's designed for large scale operations, exactly what Yahoo is running. But if your going to run Oracle, you won't get any support from Oracle unless you run it on a supported operating system. I also seriously question that Yahoo's database was ever in the past running on FreeBSD. I suspect their model was an identical model to Hotmail's - a small core of strange database servers (Yahoo originally ran indy's, see http://www.sun.com/950523/yahoostory.html for their very first database) surrounded by a bunch of cheap Pentiums running FreeBSD as front end servers. Now they are moving to replace
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
RW writes: > Having said that, once they start using Linux, I wonder how long they will > want to keep both FreeBSD and Linux. Probably not forever. But it could go either way. They might tire of FreeBSD and switch entirely to Linux ... or they might tire of Linux and switch entirely to FreeBSD. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Wednesday 23 February 2005 14:00, Freminlins wrote: > "But in December, Yahoo started to port its homegrown infrastructure > applications from its custom operating system to Red Hat Enterprise > Linux 4.0, which was in beta at the time and was released last week. > Plans call for a gradual migration of more applications to Linux, but > the timing and number will depend on how successfully the early work > goes, Ng said." > > http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,99901,00 >.html ___ One of the thing they mention is performance and scalability improving on Linux, which suggests they aren't talking about it replacing FreeBSD. My understanding is that they use FreeBSD 4.x on cheap interchangeable low-end webservers. I think they use Solaris on higher-end machines. Having said that, once they start using Linux, I wonder how long they will want to keep both FreeBSD and Linux. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
Jorn Argelo writes: > I don't think that they would. That'll be a massive migration involving lots > and lots of costs. They have to pay for RedHat Enterprise too. The only reason > I can think off is that they want support. Support is a pretty big reason for most companies. In a few years, RedHat and its ilk are going to cost just as much as Microsoft software, and they'll have all the same disadvantages (but without all the advantages). It will be hard to tell them apart. -- Anthony ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 15:42:14 +, Freminlins wrote > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:36:36 +0100, Jorn Argelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think that they would. That'll be a massive migration involving lots > > and lots of costs. They have to pay for RedHat Enterprise too. The only > > reason > > I can think off is that they want support.Perhaps I missed a part, but I > > don't > > see the word FreeBSD in that article. > > Although it doesn't state FreeBSD, I understand that Yahoo! runs > stuff on FreeBSD. Yes, I was aware of that :-) > > > Besides, the point of the article is not regarding a migration of Yahoo, but > > Linux and IT in general. It has nothing to do with Yahoo or FreeBSD. I think > > that the author of the article is simply mistaking. > > I'n not sure I agree with that. The author stated "But in December, > Yahoo started to port ... to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.0" That would > suggest that Yahoo! is moving to Linux. Well, I can say that Microsoft is using illegal Warez stuff in their WMA extension, but who would believe me? I don't have any proof right? Point is, the author can say something like that, but I've never heard that Yahoo is migrating. If they would it would definitely be in the news if they would. I'd like to see a source where the author has gathered information. > > I am very interested in this as I have for several years used the > argument "we use the same OS as Yahoo!". We're not going to migrate > to Linux if Yahoo! does. No, of course not :-) I vaguely recall a discussion like this on the list in the past. I'll look it up on Google if I have time. > > > Jorn. > > Frem. > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:36:36 +0100, Jorn Argelo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think that they would. That'll be a massive migration involving lots > and lots of costs. They have to pay for RedHat Enterprise too. The only reason > I can think off is that they want support.Perhaps I missed a part, but I don't > see the word FreeBSD in that article. Although it doesn't state FreeBSD, I understand that Yahoo! runs stuff on FreeBSD. > Besides, the point of the article is not regarding a migration of Yahoo, but > Linux and IT in general. It has nothing to do with Yahoo or FreeBSD. I think > that the author of the article is simply mistaking. I'n not sure I agree with that. The author stated "But in December, Yahoo started to port ... to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.0" That would suggest that Yahoo! is moving to Linux. I am very interested in this as I have for several years used the argument "we use the same OS as Yahoo!". We're not going to migrate to Linux if Yahoo! does. > Jorn. Frem. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 14:00:31 +, Freminlins wrote > "But in December, Yahoo started to port its homegrown infrastructure > applications from its custom operating system to Red Hat Enterprise > Linux 4.0, which was in beta at the time and was released last week. > Plans call for a gradual migration of more applications to Linux, but > the timing and number will depend on how successfully the early work > goes, Ng said." > > http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801, > 99901,00.html I don't think that they would. That'll be a massive migration involving lots and lots of costs. They have to pay for RedHat Enterprise too. The only reason I can think off is that they want support.Perhaps I missed a part, but I don't see the word FreeBSD in that article. Besides, the point of the article is not regarding a migration of Yahoo, but Linux and IT in general. It has nothing to do with Yahoo or FreeBSD. I think that the author of the article is simply mistaking. Jorn. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Is Yahoo! moving from FreeBSD?
"But in December, Yahoo started to port its homegrown infrastructure applications from its custom operating system to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.0, which was in beta at the time and was released last week. Plans call for a gradual migration of more applications to Linux, but the timing and number will depend on how successfully the early work goes, Ng said." http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/os/linux/story/0,10801,99901,00.html ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
