Re: www.microsoft.com sure needs a lot of silicon

Michael Parson (mparson_at_roloc.bl.org) wrote:
: In article <5kvjll$fv6_at_panix.com>, Bryan Althaus <bryan_at_panix.com> wrote:
:
: >Where is Oracle, Sybase and Informix? If I want 'Office-suites' I'll
: >run Windows 95.
:
: I've never used Oracle or Informix, but I have run the SCO version Sybase
: under Linux (iBCS). The native RDBMS have proven to be better suited for
: our needs. Empress has a rather nice SQL engine.
:

I not a big RDBMS person, but most companies RDBMS means either Oracle, Sybase or Informix. Oracle is of course king.

So an OS that can't run one of the above is at an advantage. All 3 have ported to NT to make sure MS SQL makes no inroads.

: >: >Call me when an IDE like Java Workshop or Visual Workshop C++ show
: >: >up on Linux. This is professional tools for professionals. And what
: >: >does Linux have compared to say Solstice on Solaris?
 

: >: It's not all point-and-clicky like Visual-foo from MS, but Emacs is
: >: a pretty damn robust development environment.
 

: >Now I see why you run Linux! Visual Workshop is from Sun as is Java
: >Workshop.
:
: I run linux cuz I don't know about a particular Sun product? Oh...
: Thanks for letting me know why I do what I do.
:

It was tongue in cheek. I read Emacs and saw you ran Linux and I thought it was funny. Just that Linux people tend to get by with what they have.

:
: >: Linux installed the first time, had X11 up within minutes of the first
: >: reboot.
 

: >Ok, no one has ever had problems installing Linux!? Please. I'm sure
: >the people at Microsoft are saying how can we make Windows 95 as
: >simple to install and use as Linux.
:
: Sure, people have problems everyday installing Linux. People seem to
: have problems installing just about any OS out there, depends on how
: stupid-proof you make the install, or how intelligent the person
: doing the install was. Hell, the first time I installed Win95 I had to
: start over 3 times. I don't even want to think about my first Linux
: install.

Agreed. You just make it should like Solaris is hard to install but Linux is not. Every revision of an OS tends to be easier to install than the last. Solaris 2.6(beta) is easier install than 2.5 is.
:
: >: Once I recompiled the kernel to include only the hardware that he had,
 

: >Why recompile? On Solaris boot -r. It's a dynamic kernel. Why should
: >you ever need to recompile a kernel? This went out with SunOS 4.1.3.
:
: I'll admit, this is a nice feature of Solaris, kinda surprised me that
: this was all I had to do when I installed the SCSI/WD controller.
:

Well in somewhat of a defense of Linux, HP-UX 10.20 (latest) still needs you to recompile the kernel for everything. We hit a nproc limit of 275. Instead of just editing /etc/system and rebooting like on Solaris, we had to change a file and rebuild the kernel. Just ugly. And since development machines are Admined by us developers, error prone.

: I'm backing out of this thread now... I have nothing against Sun
: or any of it's OSes (ok, I wasn't too fond of Solaris 2.0/SunOS
: 5.0, or Interactive UNIX). I'm not even much of a fan of Linux,
: but I like to be flexible and be able to work with whatever UNIX
: varient the company that pays my rent decides to run. Holy wars
: prove nothing about the OS and often prove much about those that
: get involved in them, flexibility gives me job options. =)
:

I have nothing against Linux. But you were pointing out all the problems your friend was having with Solaris x86. I started running Linux before Mosaic was even out. I like Linux, I just don't like it as a development platform.

: From a JAVA and C++ developer's point of view, maybe all the visual
: tools help you get your job done better.

Exactly.

: As a sysadmin, I'd rather
: install and maintain RH Linux. As a Perl developer, I'm pretty happy
: under any OS that has a decent perl ported to it.
:

Sounds good... Received on Fri May 09 1997 - 00:00:00 CDT