Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Linux to Inherit Virtualization

  • Subject: Re: Linux to Inherit Virtualization
  • From: Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 08:31:54 +0100
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: schestowitz.com / MCC / Manchester University
  • References: <4194941.hroAWjH4bu@schestowitz.com> <1147237208.294559.200070@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <xWe8g.67298$Jk3.29478@bignews5.bellsouth.net> <1147268379.411414.297580@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <hxt8g.18683$Sl4.18582@bignews1.bellsouth.net> <1147392312.136802.104540@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1147394843.784085.290360@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
  • Reply-to: newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: KNode/0.7.2
__/ [ Larry Qualig ] on Friday 12 May 2006 01:47 \__

> Rex Ballard wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>> > Rex Ballard wrote:
>> > > DFS, thanks for thsee corrections.  This was very useful information.
>> >
>> > You're welcome.  It sure would be nice if you learned from these
>> > corrections, but I know that's too much to ask.
>> >
>> > As an aside, how do you maintain your civility on a group like cola, in
>> > the
>> > face of such withering attacks from me?  I sure couldn't do it.  You
>> > were raised wrong...
>> 26 years in the IT Industry, 26 years of rigorously working 12 step
>> programs, 15 years of working with Landmark Education.  Before that I
>> was a Deacon and Elder in the Presbyterian church - A post I left when
>> I was 21 years old.
>> You have valid points, you make them, and hopefully in the common
>> dialogue, possibilities open up for countless others, that, ironically,
>> you choose not to see.
>> It's not that you are ignorant, foolish, stupid, or anything else.  You
>> suffer from a mild form of contempt prior to investigation, and a
>> slightly more severe case of "techno-religeous dogma".  Jesus was put
>> to death by Pharasees who disagreed with Jesus' point of view relating
>> to the "Laws of God".
>> I'm certainly no "christ", just someone who knows how to share and
>> create possibilities in public discussions such as mailing lists and
>> usenet newsgroups.  Of those who observe these discussions, some will
>> simply agree with you, that I am just a nut-case.  But there are those
>> who will see that some of what I share, not all, creates whole new
>> possibilities for people and their relationship to information
>> technology.
>> When I was 11 years old, in 1968, I got a Ham Radio license.  I got the
>> Novice license in about 3 months, after learning morse code and radio
>> theory and FCC law.  It took almost a year for me to successfully pass
>> the examinations required to get my general class license, in 1969, at
>> 12 years old.
>> The irony is that even at 12 years old, I could see the possibility of
>> people being able to communicate using radios.  I saw the "cell phone"
>> as a possibility, nearly 35 years ago.  But 35 years ago, I didn't know
>> how to share that possibility with others in a manner that would
>> inspire the widespread distribution, sale, and use of "personal radio
>> phones".
>> When CB radios came out, I was able to listen to those who bought them,
>> found out what they used them for, and in 1974, I learned that truckers
>> were using them to identify speed traps and road hazards and
>> construction and other things that would slow them down.  It only took
>> a matter of weeks to reach the point where I was selling as many as I
>> could and couldn't get enough inventory.  I left to start college that
>> fall, and by the time I came back the following year, everybody was
>> selling CB radios.  I sold dozens of them every month and my
>> commissions helped pay my tuition.
>> I grew up in a city that shouldn't exist - Denver Colorado.  It was a
>> fort in the middle of a desert, at the intersection of two dry creek
>> beds that flooded every spring, and it was surrounded by various native
>> tribes.  There wasn't enough water for 100,000 people let alone 1
>> million people - and there are nearly 5 million people living in the
>> greater Denver Metro Area.  It's a town where the impossible is so
>> commonplace that people just expect the impossible to be made into
>> reality.
>> Denver has solar stills that purify millions of gallons of water every
>> minute.  They have some of the best water treatment plants in the
>> world, and they have a thriving city of 5 million living where there
>> was once nothing but Yucca and Sagebrush.
>> > Your MO is to always accuse MS first, and only sometimes leave yourself
>> > an out.
>> Yep.  There are times when I am just typing as fast as I can and I
>> start spewing bilge that even I'm not terribly proud of.  It makes
>> great fodder for people like you and Eric, but it also keeps the
>> discussions interesting.
>> A good teacher will keep their students interested by shocking them,
>> causing them to ask questions, to do their own investigation, to
>> challenge the teacher.  A teacher who only spews dry facts can be
>> absolutely accurate, and very knowledgible, and have a classroom full
>> of kids who are so not paying attention that they will fail
>> standardized tests on the subject being taught.
>> > > Even though Linux was supported, Microsoft had delisted it as one of
>> > > the supported platforms.
>> >
>> > Yes, I saw that.  In fact, Linux isn't even mentioned in the FAQ.  But
>> > as we all know, MS is well aware of Linux.
>> The irony is that Eric challenged this very statement.  I've responded
>> to that in a different article.
>> > Novell doesn't tell us "Richard Stallman developed gcc" on the Suse box,
>> > either.
>> The Linux distributors are very eager to share the credit (partly
>> because it reduces their liability).  Microsoft often announces great
>> new "innovations" which they in some cases have literally cut/pasted
>> from Open Source code, as if it were their own brand new innovation.
>> In some cases, they have even filed for patents.
>> I think it may be that Microsoft is filing defensive patents, to keep
>> some nutcase from having a whiplash lawyer file a patent on his behalf
>> - then pushing for lawsuits in a jury trial.  Microsoft doesn't fare
>> very well with Juries.
>> > >
>> > > So are you trying to tell me that NO ONE is EVER prohibited from
>> > > publising benchmarks without Microsoft's prior written permission?
>> > > Even Corporate licensees, OEMs, or other organizations?
>> >
>> > No, I'm not saying that.  It depends on the product.
>> And I would suggest that there is method to the madness.  Microsoft
>> knows excactly how to prevent the publication of hard-core side-by-side
>> comparisons between Microsoft products and competitor (including Open
>> Source) products.
>> Furthermore, they can prevent such publication by "credible sources"
>> such as major corporations, OEMs, and other highly visible players who
>> would have the credentials to be really credible.
>> > > Let's be more specific - exactly when ARE you prohibited from
>> > > publishing benchmarks? It's been real confusing lately.
>> >
>> > It is a little confusing.  For the record, I think it's kind of
>> > chickenshit for them to disallow benchmarks, and I wonder how they could
>> > enforce such a
>> > thing.  I guess just the threat of an MS lawsuit is enough.
>> It's even simpler than that.  Software is published under the terms of
>> a license.  If you violate any term of that license, you automatically,
>> and immediately, forfeit the right to continue to use that software.
>> If you have 100,000 employees who are using Windows and MS Office on a
>> daily basis, you probably don't want to violate a clearly stated term -
>> since this could result in a license audit - and the discovery that you
>> will again have to repurchase at least 100,000 licenses (plus possibly
>> licenses for every PC owned by every employee).  The cost of such a
>> mistake could run into the $billions in royalties alone.  The cost of
>> secondary impacts could run into hundreds of $billions.
>> > > I remember that Microsoft hauled one
>> > > benchmark publisher into court for publishing the fact that SQL Server
>> > > 7 ran faster on NT 4.0 than on Windows 2000, that would have been
>> > > around 2002, IIRC.
>> > >
>> > > I remember that the issue came up as part of the DOJ Compliance
>> > > hearings as well.
>> >
>> >
>> > Did you notice Microsoft Research supports work on Xen?
>> I've heard that.  I'm curious how that's working out.  The good thing
>> is that Xen uses linux as the host, but if Windows can run under Xen,
>> and run well, it's a nice alternative to a "single platform" solution.
>> Microsoft's top executives know that it is only a matter of time before
>> multiplatform machines become an unavoidable fact.  They need to make
>> sure that they don't dissappear from that landscape entirely.
>> VMWare Player has made it a "no-brainer" to put Linux on somebody's
>> laptop.  I can build a VM using Workstation that includes a few
>> strategic applications, and they start up Linux like they were starting
>> up a Web Browser.
>> Hybrid machines are spreading almost as fast as Firefox and OpenOffice,
>> just a few months behind in the numbers.  It wouldn't take much
>> > Do you like apples?  How 'bout them apples?
>> I've been very impressed with Apple's OS/X.  And I totally love the
>> ads.
>> The irony is that everything being said about the Apple, also applies
>> to LInux.
>> The big difference is that Linux doesn't have that artistic genious
>> that Steve Jobs has mastered so brilliantly.  If Jobs decided to take
>> the same strategy as Microsoft, selling OS/X to every OEM who wanted to
>> make a PC, he could probably bury Microsoft in about a year.  He'd
>> probably sell more copies of OS/X in the first year, than Microsoft has
>> EVER sold of Windows XP.
>> What OS/X suffers from is lack of hardware support.
>> It took Linux almost 10 years to reach the point where it could run on
>> 95% of the hardware EVER built.  Today Linux can run on more platforms
>> than XP.
>> > >>> Even Microsoft's Virtual server was actually from a company -
>> > >>> Concentric, which started out making virtual machines for Linux as
>> > >>> well as Windows.
>> > >
>> > > As you pointed out earlier, it was Connectix.  Thanks for the
>> > > correction.
>> >
>> > Anytime.  In fact, most times you post I'll follow behind with a series
>> > of "corrections."
>> > > I don't see much of that from Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer.
>> >
>> > I don't know about Ballmer, but Gates was upfront about missing the
>> > impact and growth of the Internet.
>> Interesting irony isn't it?
>> I'm pushing the internet, talking to anywhere from 10-15 people every
>> day in person and on the telephone, posting 5-7 articles in mailing
>> lists, telling people how they should put themselves on the Internet -
>> from 1992 to 1995 - and Bill completely missed that.
>> I certainly can't take the credit for "inventing it" or even "creating
>> the commercial internet".  I just sold it to millions of people who
>> sold it to lots of people - much like a multilevel marketing campaign.
>> I was just one of thousands of players out to enroll millions into
>> using the "open source powered" Internet for commercial purposes such
>> as publishing, marketing, and business transactions, including
>> commercial e-mail.
>> I did have to leave Colorado and move to New Jersey so I could work for
>> Dow Jones and McGraw-Hill for nearly 5 years.  That did get me
>> connected to thousands of publishers and thousands more would-be
>> advertizers.
>> But then again, that's another very long story.
>> Rex
> Nice post Rex.
> - LQ

I second that. Thanks for an always-enjoyable read.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index