Well they've forked it right? Which is practically the definition of co-opting something, which itself is as close to "stealing" as makes no difference. If the fork works, they could be considered to have taken something, bent it to their own uses and simultaneously (at least attempted) to torpedo the original.
Spin city at it best. What you do not understand/comprehand in FREE. You CANNOT steal free moron.
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
Linux is not a clone, it is free version of Unix. iOS is a Linux clone, and not that very good.
Linux is not a clone, it is free version of Unix. iOS is a Linux clone, and not that very good.
Linux is the very definition of a clone, it is not Unix, though it is Unix like and is build completely on open source. iOS is a BSD Unix and not a Linux clone.
[SIZE=18px]Honestly, I think the biggest problem with the Android v. iOS arguments across the web is the very idea that for one of the platforms to win then the other has to be losing. I think Android is winning in the areas they want to win while Apple is winning in the areas they want to win. </span>
[/SIZE]
Precisely: the whole iOS vs. Android thing is a stupid narrative fueled by fan boys of either camp and stock market analysts who love when the stock moves depending on the "news" so they can make speculative trading profits.
Android may have stolen ideas from iOS, but that's life. No viable profitable market will ever be owned solely by the inventor. Otherwise we'd only have Mercedes cars, Zuse computers, intel CPUs, etc.
So it's a fact of life, and in no way alarming that Apple loses marketshare in their markets until things stabilize at some level, because the inventor first owns the market, then competition shows up, and takes a part, until the various market forces (price, features, differing tastes, etc.) are in equilibrium again.
To think that Apple would forever hold its quasi monopoly in tablets, touch screen smartphones, etc. is just stupid. If it's not Android, it would be BlackBerry or Nokia or Sony...
...because one size does not fit all. There are enough people who want something different just for the sake of being different, they'd happily go and buy a worse product just to not have the same as the rest of the people around them. That market alone is big enough to take a sizable chunk out of Apple's market. And then there are the gullible people, the extremely price sensitive people, etc. so a bit of advertising and a lower price will get a huge chunk of these people too. And that's assuming Android is worse in all respects, but it's not.
e.g. screen size. I'm all for the current iPhone screen size, because bigger phones will not match my usage pattern. But a friend who uses the phone for remote video surveillance of his business bought one of the phablets, because he wants to see the details better, particularly since he's not always having his reading glasses with him.
It may not make sense for Apple to have all the costs of inventory, tooling, distribution, development, testing, etc. to have a bigger screen iPhone that only serves a sliver of their market. But that doesn't mean that this sliver of a market doesn't have legitimate needs, and if an Android phone can fill it, while Apple keeps its costs down and margins up, then everyone is served, including Apple.
The Freedom to customize is childish. I think if someone wants to make their own device, sure, but close the thing up once you're done so you can give great support to your customer if you take your product seriously, so will the user.
Many of your posts seem to have the underlying premise that if other people modify your product as they wish, they would ruin your design plans and prevent you from supporting the people who use your unmodified product. Is that an accurate inference? That would suggest for example that the iOS jailbreak community is interfering with apple's vision for the next iOS, or that people who install custom car stereos are preventing BMW from providing "great support" to its customers.
Precisely: the whole iOS vs. Android thing is a stupid narrative fueled by fan boys of either camp and stock market analysts who love when the stock moves depending on the "news" so they can make speculative trading profits.
Android may have stolen ideas from iOS, but that's life. No viable profitable market will ever be owned solely by the inventor. Otherwise we'd only have Mercedes cars, Zuse computers, intel CPUs, etc.
So it's a fact of life, and in no way alarming that Apple loses marketshare in their markets until things stabilize at some level, because the inventor first owns the market, then competition shows up, and takes a part, until the various market forces (price, features, differing tastes, etc.) are in equilibrium again.
To think that Apple would forever hold its quasi monopoly in tablets, touch screen smartphones, etc. is just stupid. If it's not Android, it would be BlackBerry or Nokia or Sony...
...because one size does not fit all. There are enough people who want something different just for the sake of being different, they'd happily go and buy a worse product just to not have the same as the rest of the people around them. That market alone is big enough to take a sizable chunk out of Apple's market. And then there are the gullible people, the extremely price sensitive people, etc. so a bit of advertising and a lower price will get a huge chunk of these people too. And that's assuming Android is worse in all respects, but it's not.
e.g. screen size. I'm all for the current iPhone screen size, because bigger phones will not match my usage pattern. But a friend who uses the phone for remote video surveillance of his business bought one of the phablets, because he wants to see the details better, particularly since he's not always having his reading glasses with him.
It may not make sense for Apple to have all the costs of inventory, tooling, distribution, development, testing, etc. to have a bigger screen iPhone that only serves a sliver of their market. But that doesn't mean that this sliver of a market doesn't have legitimate needs, and if an Android phone can fill it, while Apple keeps its costs down and margins up, then everyone is served, including Apple.
I agree, unfortunately everyone is going to rip you a new one for it.
Linux is not a clone, it is free version of Unix. iOS is a Linux clone, and not that very good.
Comments like these show why it's a waste of time to engage in discussions here. Regret it each time when I get suckered in.
Linux is a clone, read up on its history, or the definition of "clone" as it's used in the context of software.
iOS is certainly not a Linux clone, because it's Darwin, which is the same as NeXTSTEP. Actually the Darwin version numbers correspond exactly to the version of NeXTSTEP the product would have, did Apple not change the name to Mac OS X/OS X/iOS at some point in time.
NeXTSTEP existed BEFORE Linux. Development on NeXTSTEP started in 1986, I was working with NeXTSTEP 0.8 in 1989, Linux wasn't even released until 1991, and it was far from useful and popular at that time. Again, read up on computing history if you're too young to have been there.
Maybe all the teens posting here would do well consulting wikipedia before posting ridiculous claims...
Also if success is making money, why do you consider Apple to be successful despite their stock price being so low?
Because a company doesn't make money based on its stock price, but based on its profits.
Long term investors could care less about the price of Apple stock, they care about sustainable profits and sustainable dividend payments as well as no debt, plenty of reserves.
Speculators on the other hand, don't care about how healthy a company is, they just care about the stock price moving such as to generate a trading profit. As such the volatility of the stockprice, which is a nightmare for non-seasoned long-term investors, is what drives their profits. A stock that stays high is boring to a trader, and while traders could make a lot of money in a quick run-up to 700, they couldn't make much money if Apple had stayed there, and slowly had crept up to 725 or 750 with mostly sideways movement.
Shorting the stock or holding put options, and then talking the price down, that however generates massive profits, just as gaining again on the way up once people realize that all the analysts were producing was unfounded rumors and hot air.
The stock market, except for very long-term moving averages, is a horrible indicator of the success of a company in real terms.
From a technical point of view, the windows of today is just as secure as unix. It's had modern security elements, such as privilege separation, fine-grained file access control, DEP, ASLR, etc., since Vista. While Unix has always had privilege separation by design, its various implementations didn't adopt some of the other features until recently.
Depends what you men with "from a technical point of view". Security has a model, and then it has an implementation of the model.
The WindowsNT kernel's security model was always rather secure. However, there are constant issues with bugs in the implementation, and there were many issues with the default settings that were applied to that model to make e.g. the porting of Win95 software to WinXP easier...
Given the nearly endless stream of Windows security patches, wide-spread existence of Windows based bot nets, etc. the real world security of Windows remains questionable.
Everyone has their methods for buying something. You seem to buy based on popularity, that's going with the crowd mentality.
Market share is actually numbers just to show more social trends in something, or market acceptance, which is more of a social trend. It has nothing to do with the best or worst, or anything else. Typically things follow a bell curve where there are the select free on the far right and left and the masses in the middle.
There have been social behavior research that indicate that people get confused with the more products there are to choose from. They are more likely going to want someone else to tell them what to buy because they have a difficult time making a decision due to too many choices. So a lot of people will end up asking a sales rep, a friend, a family member, some one the look up (even if its their favorite movie star/celebrity), or what gets advertised the most on what they should buy. It's a human behavioral trait. Some, if money permits, or if they have a sub conscious addiction to hoarding, will start collecting, so if they have a lot of choices, they won't buy one, they'll start collecting because they might want to show off their collection or not be left out of any group because they can always have what everyone has or what no one else has. I think the same goes with customization. You know the saying "look at what I did, isn't it cool and it's my own custom design that I created that no one else has". That's not of interest to me either.
It would be interesting to see what the surveys would say if you asked EVERY smartphone owner how they arrived at their decision and if it was based on seeing an ad for something, a friend's recommendation, etc.
Do you REALLY want customization or is that you are trying to fit in with others that share the same mentality thinking that customization is the most important thing due to peer pressure?
Apart from the slight distinction that Linux has negligible consumer market share, where Android has the majority of the consumer market.
So basically, Android isn't in the same position as Linux at all.
What a load of bilge!
Android uses the Linux kernel.
Which means that Linux is the most commonly installed and used (by all users, from sysadmins down to people who barely need a feature phone) operating system kernel in the world.
What is the most popular amongst servers. What do the Top 10 run, in order? And what are they using them for? If I were planning on building a Super computer, I would first decide what the purpose was and then figure out which would be the best choices for that specific need. Super computers are where? Research labs, colleges. Well, I'm neither, nor interested in having what OS they use in a Supercomputer that can't run the apps that I plan on running for a desktop, laptop, smartphone or tablet. that would seem kind of dumb, don't you think?
Regarding the idea that no serious company relies on open source software.... Check the job listings for Linux Sysadmins sometime. Every company that's looking for one is a company that relies on open source software :-)
Really, if it wasn't for MS Exchange (which really is a wonderful mail server if you're looking at well-implemented feature sets. The OS alternatives I've tried simply haven't come close), I'd be hard pressed to see when MS servers are actually needed in any of the places I've worked. My current workplace probably simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't possible to take an open source OS (in this case, Redhat) and extensively modify it to our own requirements.
Might also like to look up Scientific Linux sometime and ask yourself why it's being supported.
Now, Ubuntu hasn't fulfilled its potential in the desktop OS market, and it's true that for home users it's a right bugger at times (I won't run it at home, but I won't run anything else at work)however... It's worth having a look here: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
And asking yourself what that's going to do to the laptop market over the next decade.
For database servers, MySQL (Open source. Not exclusively Linux, but I understand that MSSQL controls the Windows server market, leaving... Linux. Kind of like how Apache will run quite happily on Windows) controls 54% of the market.
Super computers are where? Research labs, colleges.
That shows just how little you know about the corporate and government IT space. Ever heard of the Amazon Elastic Computing environment? It was number 42 on the supercomputer list in 2011, don't know where it is now. How about NOAA and it's weather forecast data provided to the public (enabled by supercomputers)?
That shows just how little you know about the corporate and government IT space. Ever heard of the Amazon Elastic Computing environment? It was number 42 on the supercomputer list in 2011, don't know where it is now. How about NOAA and it's weather forecast data provided to the public (enabled by supercomputers)?
In addition to this, nearly every commercial VPS provider you find focuses on OpenVZ or Xen - Again, Linux-based.
The licensing costs of Linux and open source products combined with their flexibility has also meant that I can use backupsy to provide myself with two 500GB backup servers for $14 USD a month. I'd shudder to think what it would cost to support MS servers, including licensing and hardware requirements (given that Apple almost doesn't exist in the server market, we can really discount the idea of using OS/X)
Actually, on this, amusingly enough I had a Windows Sysadmin friend of mine make much the same arguments as are seen here against open source over the last few years.
Then he discovered a need for VPS servers and bought a Raspberry Pi at about the same time.
After losing a challenge to setup a Windows-based MX server on his Pi (Probably possible for the hardware specs, but MS doesn't allow it) he's been forced to use Linux and is coming around quite nicely.
Comments
No, try again. This time without breaking rules.
Quote:
Originally Postby Gazoobee
Well they've forked it right? Which is practically the definition of co-opting something, which itself is as close to "stealing" as makes no difference. If the fork works, they could be considered to have taken something, bent it to their own uses and simultaneously (at least attempted) to torpedo the original.
Spin city at it best. What you do not understand/comprehand in FREE. You CANNOT steal free moron.
Quote:
. oiginally Posted by rcfa
Ugh, wrong on so many counts...
I'm old enough to remember CP/M: it wasn't open, it was the product of Digital Research and MS-DOS was a fairly shameless clone of it, sort of like Linux is a Unix clone.
Second: NeXT was as "open" as Apple, the reason for NeXT's failure is the same as the reason for OS X' success: lack/existence of an installed base; the reason why OSX is not called NeXTstep is simply that Jobs needed to fool enough Apple fan boys into believing that it's a new version of Mac OS rather than the introduction of a new OS called NeXTstep.
If you really want to know what OS you're running look at the Darwin version numbers which correspond to the equivalent NeXTstep release.
NeXTstep was chock-full of proprietary technology, e.g. DPS, RenderMan, etc.
Pretty much the opposite of open except at the lowest levels at which OSX is open, too.
I could go on, but I rather have a beer on a Saturday night than waste me time educating the clueless...
Linux is not a clone, it is free version of Unix. iOS is a Linux clone, and not that very good.
Linux is the very definition of a clone, it is not Unix, though it is Unix like and is build completely on open source. iOS is a BSD Unix and not a Linux clone.
Precisely: the whole iOS vs. Android thing is a stupid narrative fueled by fan boys of either camp and stock market analysts who love when the stock moves depending on the "news" so they can make speculative trading profits.
Android may have stolen ideas from iOS, but that's life. No viable profitable market will ever be owned solely by the inventor. Otherwise we'd only have Mercedes cars, Zuse computers, intel CPUs, etc.
So it's a fact of life, and in no way alarming that Apple loses marketshare in their markets until things stabilize at some level, because the inventor first owns the market, then competition shows up, and takes a part, until the various market forces (price, features, differing tastes, etc.) are in equilibrium again.
To think that Apple would forever hold its quasi monopoly in tablets, touch screen smartphones, etc. is just stupid. If it's not Android, it would be BlackBerry or Nokia or Sony...
...because one size does not fit all. There are enough people who want something different just for the sake of being different, they'd happily go and buy a worse product just to not have the same as the rest of the people around them. That market alone is big enough to take a sizable chunk out of Apple's market. And then there are the gullible people, the extremely price sensitive people, etc. so a bit of advertising and a lower price will get a huge chunk of these people too. And that's assuming Android is worse in all respects, but it's not.
e.g. screen size. I'm all for the current iPhone screen size, because bigger phones will not match my usage pattern. But a friend who uses the phone for remote video surveillance of his business bought one of the phablets, because he wants to see the details better, particularly since he's not always having his reading glasses with him.
It may not make sense for Apple to have all the costs of inventory, tooling, distribution, development, testing, etc. to have a bigger screen iPhone that only serves a sliver of their market. But that doesn't mean that this sliver of a market doesn't have legitimate needs, and if an Android phone can fill it, while Apple keeps its costs down and margins up, then everyone is served, including Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
The Freedom to customize is childish. I think if someone wants to make their own device, sure, but close the thing up once you're done so you can give great support to your customer if you take your product seriously, so will the user.
Many of your posts seem to have the underlying premise that if other people modify your product as they wish, they would ruin your design plans and prevent you from supporting the people who use your unmodified product. Is that an accurate inference? That would suggest for example that the iOS jailbreak community is interfering with apple's vision for the next iOS, or that people who install custom car stereos are preventing BMW from providing "great support" to its customers.
I agree, unfortunately everyone is going to rip you a new one for it.
Comments like these show why it's a waste of time to engage in discussions here. Regret it each time when I get suckered in.
Linux is a clone, read up on its history, or the definition of "clone" as it's used in the context of software.
iOS is certainly not a Linux clone, because it's Darwin, which is the same as NeXTSTEP. Actually the Darwin version numbers correspond exactly to the version of NeXTSTEP the product would have, did Apple not change the name to Mac OS X/OS X/iOS at some point in time.
NeXTSTEP existed BEFORE Linux. Development on NeXTSTEP started in 1986, I was working with NeXTSTEP 0.8 in 1989, Linux wasn't even released until 1991, and it was far from useful and popular at that time. Again, read up on computing history if you're too young to have been there.
Maybe all the teens posting here would do well consulting wikipedia before posting ridiculous claims...
Because a company doesn't make money based on its stock price, but based on its profits.
Long term investors could care less about the price of Apple stock, they care about sustainable profits and sustainable dividend payments as well as no debt, plenty of reserves.
Speculators on the other hand, don't care about how healthy a company is, they just care about the stock price moving such as to generate a trading profit. As such the volatility of the stockprice, which is a nightmare for non-seasoned long-term investors, is what drives their profits. A stock that stays high is boring to a trader, and while traders could make a lot of money in a quick run-up to 700, they couldn't make much money if Apple had stayed there, and slowly had crept up to 725 or 750 with mostly sideways movement.
Shorting the stock or holding put options, and then talking the price down, that however generates massive profits, just as gaining again on the way up once people realize that all the analysts were producing was unfounded rumors and hot air.
The stock market, except for very long-term moving averages, is a horrible indicator of the success of a company in real terms.
Quote:
Once again, we have a dramatic battle where the "Open Source" role of Linux is now being played by Google's Android.
Apart from the slight distinction that Linux has negligible consumer market share, where Android has the majority of the consumer market.
So basically, Android isn't in the same position as Linux at all.
What a load of bilge!
Depends what you men with "from a technical point of view". Security has a model, and then it has an implementation of the model.
The WindowsNT kernel's security model was always rather secure. However, there are constant issues with bugs in the implementation, and there were many issues with the default settings that were applied to that model to make e.g. the porting of Win95 software to WinXP easier...
Given the nearly endless stream of Windows security patches, wide-spread existence of Windows based bot nets, etc. the real world security of Windows remains questionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What question? How was that even a question? My stars.
Bless your little heart, we had no idea you had such troubles with short term memory. Let's see if we can help you out.
Earlier in this thread, Vadania posted the following question:
Originally Posted by Vadania
Do you actually know anything about software? Just curious...
To which you replied:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Do you know anything about locks?
To which Durandil1707 replied, asking you the following:
Originally Posted by Durandal1707
So the answer to his question is essentially "no" then, I take it?
Next time, we'll try to be a little more careful in how we reply to you, what with your mental handicap and all. Poor thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Those numbers are for the top 500 supercomputers, I failed to realize and Linux servers is over 25% in 2013.
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2013/03/report-enterprise-linux-growth-outpaces-windows
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23974913#.UU-PJBm_SJJ
Source Date Linux Windows Unix z/OS Total
IDC Q4 2012 20.4% 45.8% 17.6% 12.3% 96.1%
Top 500 SuperComputers
Linux 93.8%
AIX 3.6%
Hybrid Unix/Linux 1.4%
Other Unix 0.6%
Windows HPC 0.6%
Everyone has their methods for buying something. You seem to buy based on popularity, that's going with the crowd mentality.
Market share is actually numbers just to show more social trends in something, or market acceptance, which is more of a social trend. It has nothing to do with the best or worst, or anything else. Typically things follow a bell curve where there are the select free on the far right and left and the masses in the middle.
There have been social behavior research that indicate that people get confused with the more products there are to choose from. They are more likely going to want someone else to tell them what to buy because they have a difficult time making a decision due to too many choices. So a lot of people will end up asking a sales rep, a friend, a family member, some one the look up (even if its their favorite movie star/celebrity), or what gets advertised the most on what they should buy. It's a human behavioral trait. Some, if money permits, or if they have a sub conscious addiction to hoarding, will start collecting, so if they have a lot of choices, they won't buy one, they'll start collecting because they might want to show off their collection or not be left out of any group because they can always have what everyone has or what no one else has. I think the same goes with customization. You know the saying "look at what I did, isn't it cool and it's my own custom design that I created that no one else has". That's not of interest to me either.
It would be interesting to see what the surveys would say if you asked EVERY smartphone owner how they arrived at their decision and if it was based on seeing an ad for something, a friend's recommendation, etc.
Do you REALLY want customization or is that you are trying to fit in with others that share the same mentality thinking that customization is the most important thing due to peer pressure?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
Apart from the slight distinction that Linux has negligible consumer market share, where Android has the majority of the consumer market.
So basically, Android isn't in the same position as Linux at all.
What a load of bilge!
Android uses the Linux kernel.
Which means that Linux is the most commonly installed and used (by all users, from sysadmins down to people who barely need a feature phone) operating system kernel in the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
Those numbers are for the top 500 supercomputers, I failed to realize and Linux servers is over 25% in 2013.
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news-media/blogs/browse/2013/03/report-enterprise-linux-growth-outpaces-windows
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23974913#.UU-PJBm_SJJ
Source Date Linux Windows Unix z/OS Total
IDC Q4 2012 20.4% 45.8% 17.6% 12.3% 96.1%
Top 500 SuperComputers
Linux 93.8%
AIX 3.6%
Hybrid Unix/Linux 1.4%
Other Unix 0.6%
Windows HPC 0.6%
What is the most popular amongst servers. What do the Top 10 run, in order? And what are they using them for? If I were planning on building a Super computer, I would first decide what the purpose was and then figure out which would be the best choices for that specific need. Super computers are where? Research labs, colleges. Well, I'm neither, nor interested in having what OS they use in a Supercomputer that can't run the apps that I plan on running for a desktop, laptop, smartphone or tablet. that would seem kind of dumb, don't you think?
Regarding the idea that no serious company relies on open source software.... Check the job listings for Linux Sysadmins sometime. Every company that's looking for one is a company that relies on open source software :-)
Really, if it wasn't for MS Exchange (which really is a wonderful mail server if you're looking at well-implemented feature sets. The OS alternatives I've tried simply haven't come close), I'd be hard pressed to see when MS servers are actually needed in any of the places I've worked. My current workplace probably simply wouldn't exist if it wasn't possible to take an open source OS (in this case, Redhat) and extensively modify it to our own requirements.
Might also like to look up Scientific Linux sometime and ask yourself why it's being supported.
Now, Ubuntu hasn't fulfilled its potential in the desktop OS market, and it's true that for home users it's a right bugger at times (I won't run it at home, but I won't run anything else at work)however... It's worth having a look here: http://www.ubuntu.com/phone/ubuntu-for-android
And asking yourself what that's going to do to the laptop market over the next decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
What is the most popular amongst servers. What do the Top 10 run, in order? And what are they using them for?
Unix-like (Which is mainly Linux) is at 65.6%
Windows is at 34.4%
And in third place is MacOS at <0.1%
http://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/operating_system/all
From the looks of it, that's mainly going off HTTP servers, but it really depends what you're interested in.
Bind is the most common DNS server (85% as of 2010, I doubt it's declined). Also running on Linux.
http://www.securityweek.com/defense-bind-open-source-dns-software-yields-better-breed-secure-product
For MX servers, Exim (Linux) is apparently the most common at 45.95% market share
Followed by Postfix and Sendmail at 35.82% between them.
Behind them comes MS at 10.27%
http://www.securityspace.com/s_survey/data/man.201206/mxsurvey.html
For database servers, MySQL (Open source. Not exclusively Linux, but I understand that MSSQL controls the Windows server market, leaving... Linux. Kind of like how Apache will run quite happily on Windows) controls 54% of the market.
1. I actually have memory problems.
2. I went back and read the question before even posting. And you're just a complete fool.
I ask again: how is that a valid question.
Did you bother reading my post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Super computers are where? Research labs, colleges.
That shows just how little you know about the corporate and government IT space. Ever heard of the Amazon Elastic Computing environment? It was number 42 on the supercomputer list in 2011, don't know where it is now. How about NOAA and it's weather forecast data provided to the public (enabled by supercomputers)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by runbuh
That shows just how little you know about the corporate and government IT space. Ever heard of the Amazon Elastic Computing environment? It was number 42 on the supercomputer list in 2011, don't know where it is now. How about NOAA and it's weather forecast data provided to the public (enabled by supercomputers)?
In addition to this, nearly every commercial VPS provider you find focuses on OpenVZ or Xen - Again, Linux-based.
The licensing costs of Linux and open source products combined with their flexibility has also meant that I can use backupsy to provide myself with two 500GB backup servers for $14 USD a month. I'd shudder to think what it would cost to support MS servers, including licensing and hardware requirements (given that Apple almost doesn't exist in the server market, we can really discount the idea of using OS/X)
Actually, on this, amusingly enough I had a Windows Sysadmin friend of mine make much the same arguments as are seen here against open source over the last few years.
Then he discovered a need for VPS servers and bought a Raspberry Pi at about the same time.
After losing a challenge to setup a Windows-based MX server on his Pi (Probably possible for the hardware specs, but MS doesn't allow it) he's been forced to use Linux and is coming around quite nicely.