NZ Linux users engage in Govt-MS bashing

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Alex Axolotl, Nov 25, 2004.

  1. How well will Longwait run on today's hardware? Probably not very well
    at all, given past history and MS's own projected platform requirements.
    So my three year old hardware, which according to you isn't ancient,
    will be at best minimum spec for an OS in two years' time. Linux will
    run quite happily on hardware that's ten years old, if you don't want a
    really fancy GUI like Gnome or KDE. XP won't even install on something
    that old.
    Because you're spinning shit. Old hardware is no more or less reliable,
    provided you take basic precautions like not throwing the computers
    around and filtering their power.
    There are major ISPs running their mail, DNS and RADIUS servers on
    hardware that's approaching six years old. No problems. That's a good
    benchmark. Not only that, those same boxes could be upgraded to the
    latest version of their respective operating systems without needing new
    hardware. Will that NT4 server run 2K3 without needing more RAM, and
    probably a new CPU? Doubt it.
    And if MS were to fold tomorrow, nobody would be able to patch their
    software or make any improvements to it. OSS is not at the same risk.
    If you have a critical OSS application that is no longer being written,
    you can still find someone to write patches for it because you have the
    code. Please, tell me, who's writing patches for Win95 these days?

    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Nov 27, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alex Axolotl

    Peter Guest

    Ha ha ha. Bill Gates and Microsoft has obtained and used open source
    code, as well as code found in dumsters etc which developers had never
    bothered to copyright to develop his business. Much of the internet
    access code in Windows is open source code that Microsoft incorporated
    in the product.
    And IBM was facilitating the sharing of open source code amongst IBM's
    customers even before Bill Gates was a twinkle in somone's eye.

    IBM is still at it with its adoption and support of Linux.

    For heavens sake, Patrick, learn something about the subject before
    you spout off like this. is a good start.
    Peter, Nov 27, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alex Axolotl

    Peter Guest

    not fair comparison - are you trying to make MS look bad? ;-)
    After all, MS spends billion$ on R&D, so what they come up with just *has*
    to be better.


    Peter, Nov 27, 2004
  4. Alex Axolotl

    Peter Guest

    Or, where do you go if you want to use DOS?
    Micro$oft is useless for this, but OSS community has developed and supports
    replacements. There are still plenty of systems that continue to run
    happily on DOS. If they function fine, why buy more hardware to run a more
    expensive OS to do the same job?

    Another case where the OSS community delivers what the users want, but MS

    Peter, Nov 27, 2004
  5. Alex Axolotl

    Peter Guest

    You're right - most hardware purchases are to upgrade capability (speed,
    RAM, disk capacity, etc), not because the hardware is worn out.
    This is especially obvious with games, but is also evident in business and
    education areas.

    With the right software setup, you could continue using the hardware much
    longer. But this wouldn't suit MS, they get more $$$ out of NZ if we
    upgrade software every year or 2.

    Peter, Nov 27, 2004
  6. Alex Axolotl

    Chris Hope Guest

    So? No one has to work for free. If they didn't want to contribute to an
    open source project no one is forcing them to.
    Did I say they don't? As far as I am aware the only open source project they
    contribute to is Linux. And they do that because they get to leverage off
    the work of others as well as their own. In the end, they will end up with
    a far superior product than they would have been able to create otherwise
    on their own eg AIX. (And no, by mentioning AIX I am not claiming Linux is
    currently better than it).
    Chris Hope, Nov 27, 2004
  7. Alex Axolotl

    Chris Hope Guest

    And open source works for a lot of users as well. There's no need to have a
    hissy fit about it every time someone mentions it.
    So MySQL, Apache, PHP, Postgres don't have track records of producing
    reliable software? While Microsoft may have been around longer, all three
    mentioned are of about the same vintage as the Microsoft offerings SQL
    Server, IIS and ASP.
    So that doesn't give them the right to ask questions then? A certain
    percentage of people voted for them in the last election which entitled
    them to a certain number of seats. Therefore they are in Parliament. Just
    because *you* don't like them and *you* don't agree with them doesn't mean
    that everyone disagrees with them.
    The biggest does not necessarily mean the best. People use MS because they
    are the dominant player in the desktop market and they have leveraged that
    dominance to become dominant with other types of software such as word
    processing and spreadsheet software. (And they did that via
    anti-competitive means). They became dominant in the desktop market because
    of some clever work by Bill Gates way back when IBM released their first
    Chris Hope, Nov 27, 2004
  8. Alex Axolotl

    thing Guest

    Apache is older than IIS, effectively it was the first.

    I think ASP is pretty young, I would have thought Perl far older.


    thing, Nov 27, 2004
  9. Alex Axolotl

    thing Guest

    I very much want copyright, what I do not want is IP in software. What I
    do not want to see is extended copyright, "old" films etc should drop
    into the public domain as intended.


    thing, Nov 27, 2004
  10. Alex Axolotl

    thing Guest

    Lev Lafayette wrote:


    misnomer IMHO, to make MS run well and stay up the sys admin has to be
    as good as a Linux one, those are not any cheaper. The difference is
    someone who knows little about an operating system could install NTx and
    IIS and get on the net, a linux OS would take more reading and hence
    work work, but at that stage I would argue the Linux box is better built
    and more secure if only because the builder understands more.


    thing, Nov 27, 2004
  11. I thought ACT were on the side of free enterprise. Does that make them
    pro-Microsoft or anti-Microsoft?
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Nov 27, 2004
  12. Alex Axolotl

    Gavin Tunney Guest

    You used to be conceited and now you're perfect, right?

    If we're all second rate here then you must be too... since you're one
    of those left.

    Gavin Tunney, Nov 27, 2004
  13. Alex Axolotl

    Chris Hope Guest

    Apache has been around since 1995 and is was the code successor to NCSA
    HTTPd, the second web server, after Tim Berners Lee's first one.
    Larry Wall released Perl 1.0 in 1987. I don't know when ASP was released but
    it wouldn't have been until IIS first appeared; the Netcraft web server
    survey shows IIS appearing around Feb 1996
    Chris Hope, Nov 28, 2004
  14. Alex Axolotl

    Kim Shepherd Guest

    Fair enough argument (and I am on the OSS side here), but in purely
    financial terms, at this stage at least, it would probably cost more for the
    small businesses to invest in training/support contracts to use Linux/other
    OSS products... we need more user eduation, or more 'out of the box' OSS
    products, or both, before it can really be cheaper for the mainstream small

    Kim Shepherd, Nov 28, 2004
  15. Alex Axolotl

    Peter Guest

    Once set up they would require less support and maintenance that
    Windows. This is especially when dealing with viruses, worms, etc is
    factored into the costs. In this regard note that anti virus software
    cannot pick up the latest problems. Linux has anti-virus built in,
    not bolted on as an aftermarket product like Windows.
    Peter, Nov 28, 2004
  16. There is no Microsoft product by that name.
    "Probably" is you saying you either don't know what the requirements of
    the next version of Windows are going to be, or maybe you've been
    listening to all the anti MS FUD that says it will need a 3 GHz CPU and a
    128MB 3D video card and all that nonsense.

    The current product, Windows XP, runs well on three year old machines.

    Longhorn is still two years away, and when it does come out, it will
    probably run well on machines that are 3 years old at that point.
    Yes it will be five years old at that time, and thus technologically
    Anything that's ten years old won't have USB or Firewire and you won't be
    able to buy RAM off the shelf for it. New spares will be unavailable for
    the most part, and it will break down more often.

    TCO is not just the software cost, it is the hardware cost as well, and

    No, talking from experience.

    Hard drives, motherboards, power supplies, displays, fans are all parts
    that have a finite life and are much more likely to fail....and we've
    seen numerous examples of this, the vast majority being machines that are
    more than five years old.
    Name these major ISPs.
    The NT4 server would be fully depreciated and thus uneconomic to
    maintain. Its actual financial value would be less than the cost of most
    repairs or upgrades.

    We note that many businesses and institutions work on a cycle of around
    three years to replace their workstations.
    And why should MS fold tomorrow?
    Why would anyone want to keep supporting that crock?

    Are there any versions of Linux as crappy as 95 that anyone is still
    supporting these days?

    I don't think you have much idea of software development methodologies.
    Getting patches written for software isn't just a matter of having code
    and being a programmer. It's about knowing what the code is doing, how to
    fix it, and most importantly, being able to test it. When we see the
    lengtsh that companies like MS go to to test their code, that gives some
    idea of what is actually involved.

    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."
    Patrick Dunford, Nov 28, 2004
  17. So alleged, but not proven.
    And IBM has a huge pile of proprietary closed code that they use and
    develop for people.

    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."
    Patrick Dunford, Nov 28, 2004
  18. But there is already copyright now, the only dispute is over how long it
    whould run for.

    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."
    Patrick Dunford, Nov 28, 2004
  19. Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:19:37 +1300, Lawrence D¹Oliveiro <[email protected]
    central.gen.new_zealand> says...
    Act are pro-making themselves look good

    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."
    Patrick Dunford, Nov 28, 2004
  20. Not for machines running behind a firewall.

    "Marriage is a lifelong covenant commitment between
    a man and a woman.

    This foundation provides the best possible
    environment to raise our children."
    Patrick Dunford, Nov 28, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.