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

In article <5l03s5$qgl_at_panix.com>, Bryan Althaus <bryan_at_panix.com> wrote:
>Michael Parson (mparson_at_roloc.bl.org) wrote:
>: In article <5kvjll$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.

Having two computers just so you can write up your reports in fancy fonts can be a pain. I'm guessing that you don't wanna do it in TeX though... =)

>: 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.

I know that Sybase will run under Linux, but I never stress tested it, I've heard that it is robust enough to stand its own against SCO. I've heard rumors of Oracle running under Linux/iBCS, but I've not seen it.

>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.

The SQL engine from MS /is/ ported Sybase code... it is the visual frontend that is MS. =) Thankfully, MS, for the most part, left the SQL engine alone

>: >: >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.

Hmm... 'getting by' with emacs... =)

>: >: 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.

Oh, I don't know that 'newer' means 'easier'... I seem to recall that DOS 3.3 was much easier to install than Win95 ;)

>: >: 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.

Nothing against you, but having had to support shops like that, I much prefer it when they have a sysadmin that I can talk to about their netowork problems than a developer that only knows that it isn't working ;)

/proc filesystems are your friend.

# echo 4096 > /proc/sys/kernel/file-max

oooh... on a live system even ;)

>: 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.

But for me, I like being the first person to do what I do under Linux. Or under any OS, for that matter.

>: 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...

*sigh* but to end this thread, I'm going to have to call you a nasty name or something... =)

-- 
Michael Parson
BL.ORG
DNRC