Reiser4 for Ubuntu 9.04


Recommended Posts

Elv13

^^Linux use services based business model, if it was not the case, Linux would be dead since quite some time. It can keep up (in the hardware and under the hood side) because of its successful business model. KDE and XFCE (gnome is funded) are true community project, but would not survive without Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

They may be commercially funded, but if they are released under an open source license they are not considered to be commercial software

Link to post
Share on other sites
Elv13

Most open source software are commercial. Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse, RedHat, Linspire, Xandros, Asian, Turbo, RedFlag and Mandriva -are- commercial product. They are made by enterprise and developper are paid by them to code/debug making them commercial software. Other software, like MySQL, Xen, VirtualBox and OpenOffice are even more commercial, those apps are just demo for the real version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tilt090

so essentially linux business model is cost effective as it uses existing infrastructure (homes) from where programmers gather to execute projects, it uses both employed and unemployed people, and it provides equal opportunity to everyone where the most talented can rise up to be lead programmers (survival of the fittest) and at the head of the movement is a neutral man linus who ensures politics takes a backseat to quality. a board of corporations list out their requirements and linus sits with them both for brainstorming vision and ensuring executibilty of the vision.

if thats the understanding of linux i have is right then pre requisite of linux adoption worldwide would be a reduction in piracy in third world where people self righteously understand the legal agreements i.e. eula and reject them for that education and more literacy will be needed. and in the first world consumption will need to be more frugal. so that something cheap effective and efficient catches peoples attention. with the global slowdown and rise of china india this seems like where its headed.

the external enviornment for linux to flourish is building worldwide. now linux inc needs to pull up with more userfriendly administration and installation routines and a more attractive UI to take advantage of this.

MS too will be under pressure if linux goes in this direction, to reduce its prices. its going to be a worthwhile battle in the near future! what do you guys feel?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

I would be surprised if Linux ever takes off in a big way, especially considering how good Windows 7 is likely to be. At the moment Linux is still a niche OS and I don't see that dynamic changing much, and unless MS monumentally cocks up over the next 10 years, I doubt Linux usage in the home market will go above single % figures.

As for Piracy, I don't think it makes much difference. If people want to run Windows, then they will come what may whether they pirate it or acquire it legitimately.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled
I would be surprised if Linux ever takes off in a big way, especially considering how good Windows 7 is likely to be.

For the home consumer I agree, most of them will move to 7. With businesses things are a bit different. Cost is a factor there, with buying licenses and re-training and in some cases buying new hardware and upgrading your software. It might make more sense in some cases to move to Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tilt090

also as piracy brought control users will be forced to make a choice many will move towards open source. and another point where as IT industry matures the international standards organisation will move towards open standards which will make ms lose quite a bit of its grip/stranglehold on the computer market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

Linus is about as Neutral as Russia.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The_Decryptor
Linus is about as Neutral as Russia.

And a bit angrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen

But much more neutral and less angry than, say... Steve Ballmer :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
But much more neutral and less angry than, say... Steve Ballmer :p

at least Ballmers is usually angry at the other guys, not his own people :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen

Yeah, Ballmer doesn't throw chairs in his meetings. He allows his family to purchase Apple products if they want.

:shifty:

Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer
ReiserFS will be community supported from now on, the company (Namesys) went under after the owner killed his wife. It's also not in the kernel (unlike a lot of other, popular filesystems). Most people would pick (if they even bothered picking) an FS like Ext4 or XFS (and another one I'm forgetting)

And don't forget Nokia, they bought TrollTech (the makers of Qt)

Nokia even released their own Linux powered phone (using GTK funnily enough :p )

Edit: Oh yeah, JFS and in the future, Btrfs (looks interesting)

Or even ZFS (which is standard in OpenSolaris).

But still, what's wrong with NTFS (other than it being closed and associated with Windows NT)?

NTFS is, in fact, the direct descendant of IBM and Microsoft's original HPFS (LAN Manager/LAN Server and OS/2 and is thus quite old (in fact, NTFS predates FAT32).

It's entirely possible to use NTFS as a base for nesting another operating system (Wubi amd its descendents use filesystem nesting to enable running Linux inside an existing NTFS partition) without running a kludge such as xVM or VMware (or even Virtual PC or Parallels). While Linux distributions can't *create* NTFS partitions, they can certainly read (and/or write) to them, right now (via NTFS-3G). However, in most cases, users could care less about the operating system's FS underpinnings.

What will matter most? The same thing that has mattered: apps, apps, apps. Given identical hardware support (even though we both know there's often no such thing when comparing operating systems), it's the application support that will be the deciding factor for *most* users.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tilt090

from where i see it (looking at the business models of ms and linux) linux seems more in the spirt of jeffersons declaration of independence of 1787 and bill of rights of 1789 than MS! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled
also as piracy brought control users will be forced to make a choice many will move towards open source.

Good point. I think in the long term companies are only hurting themselves by their current methods of stopping piracy. If a person is forced to use Gimp or Paint.Net instead of Photoshop, for example, chances are they may never see the need to move to PS later on. They'll keep what they know. Same with Windows vs Linux.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tilt090

loose grip on piracy (being a hypocrite that its controlling piracy but actually letting it be) helps MS have a large user base which ensures dependency on proprietory standards of ms (like wmv docx etc) which prevent people from freely moving between linux and ms! these covert tactics employed in the business are immoral to say the least. its good international standards are being developed and maturing now. eg open office standards...

and linux/international governments are indeed giving a rough time to Ms with MS adopting open standards for office from SP2 onwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Elv13
It's entirely possible to use NTFS as a base for nesting another operating system (Wubi amd its descendents use filesystem nesting to enable running Linux inside an existing NTFS partition) without running a kludge such as xVM or VMware (or even Virtual PC or Parallels). While Linux distributions can't *create* NTFS partitions, they can certainly read (and/or write) to them, right now (via NTFS-3G). However, in most cases, users could care less about the operating system's FS underpinnings.

Linux can create NTFS partition, but it can not run on it. It is mainly because NTFS support in Linux with a trustable and fast writing is recent. FAT32, on the other hand, is fully supported since quite a while. You can install Linux on a fat32 partition if you really want, even with windows on the same partition! It was popular in the late 90's (for the few Linux user), some distribution were giving that option, like Mandrake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta
For the home consumer I agree, most of them will move to 7. With businesses things are a bit different. Cost is a factor there, with buying licenses and re-training and in some cases buying new hardware and upgrading your software. It might make more sense in some cases to move to Linux.

Not entirely, think of the costs of re-training all the employees. Would probably cost more than the Windows licenses

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
Not entirely, think of the costs of re-training all the employees. Would probably cost more than the Windows licenses

Funny, but Microsoft used to use training as cost benefit of staying with MS Office.

Then they came out with the "ribbon" and suddenly, you didn't hear them cry "Think of the Training!" at that point. :p

At my old job, they rolled out the new Office, and everyone had to go to a class on it. It stank. And what made it worse, is that all the laptops still had the older office, so there was a mixed environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

Yep, I agree with you, but the fact is that moving from Windows to Linux is a massive change that would IMO require more intensive training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Zapadlo
Not entirely, think of the costs of re-training all the employees. Would probably cost more than the Windows licenses

I really don't see it. If employees use computers for documents, presentations, research, basically everyday basic things, then no training would be needed.

If primarily uses are specific programs, then once again if they work on Linux, they work the same way. And if they don't, well that is not employees' concern.

And if its a tech savvy company most employees would feel comfortable enough adopting on the go.

The user side of Linux is simple, look down some menus, click on some programs. It is the managerial side that differs vastly, and frankly I don't think cost of re-training IT support (statement itself seems ridiculous) would be greater then that of Windows' licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta

That point makes the assumption that all these people would be able to adapt, and knowing what a lot of computer users are like, I don't see it as being that easy personally

Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan
I really don't see it. If employees use computers for documents, presentations, research, basically everyday basic things, then no training would be needed.

If primarily uses are specific programs, then once again if they work on Linux, they work the same way. And if they don't, well that is not employees' concern.

And if its a tech savvy company most employees would feel comfortable enough adopting on the go.

The user side of Linux is simple, look down some menus, click on some programs. It is the managerial side that differs vastly, and frankly I don't think cost of re-training IT support (statement itself seems ridiculous) would be greater then that of Windows' licence.

you obviusly have very little experience with real world users ability to adapt to even apparently transparent change.

and you're forgetting that you're not only changing for the users, but you hange the entire support and tech infrastructure which needs training.

Link to post
Share on other sites
markjensen
That point makes the assumption that all these people would be able to adapt, and knowing what a lot of computer users are like, I don't see it as being that easy personally

Meh. My wife and kids can all use my Linux PC.

They didn't need "training" since the apps are pretty much the same. Email in Thunderbird is about the same as checking in Outlook. Browsing in Firefox is eerily similar to browsing in IE. Opening an emailed flyer in .doc format in OO.o, and making some changes and sending it back is not very different than if you used an earlier version of MS Office.

Most home users don't really even administer their systems at all. Ask them about setting up another user as a limited account, and you get a deer-in-the-headlights look.

I think you presume most home users are like Neowin members. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.