DescentBB

Perhaps another nail in the economic coffin of M.S.?

"Project Columbia, a collaboration with two technology giants, will mean Nasa's computing power will be ramped up by 10 times to do complex simulations.

It will be one of the world's biggest Linux-based supercomputers."

woodchip wrote:Perhaps another nail in the economic coffin of M.S.?

Here here!
I use Windoze, just cause every game made is for windoze. If not for that I woulda gone over to linux eons ago.

Naw, I don't think MS is making much in the supercomputer market.

Market share is slowly slipping away, however. The entrenchment of Microsoft Office will be any opponent's biggest hurdle; replacing Windows is one thing, replacing the gazillion plug-ins and value-adds for Microsoft Office just isn't worth it, and won't be for many years to come. This is one of the reasons Microsoft pulled back from full XML support in MSO 2003... they make it too open, they make it too easy to duplicate elsewhere.

And to think I'm a Linux advocate stuck in a Microsoft shop where management spends $900,000.00 on Commerce Server, which, alone, is costing the company a loss of $400,000.00 per year in opportunity revenue due to how badly it performs (random crashing, random lost sessions, half-baked clustering, etc). As soon as somebody talks about a re-write, the CIO clams up and threatens people -- he doesn't want to lose his job. HELP!

I have 3 machines. Two are Linux based. One of the Linux box's is a Server that does file operations for me. AKA it has extremely large HDDs from which I write files to, and retrieve files from all the time. The other Linux box is my Desktop computer which I use to post to this forum, and just do Desktop stuff. I even use it to play Linux based games such as Descent 3. Lastly my 3rd box is Win32, and it's only this way so I can play the games that I can't play in Linux.

I'm sure one day Linux will become the Cat, and Microsoft the Mouse, but it may be sometime yet. So until that time I will most likely have to keep using Win32 on atleast one machine.

every app I use is windows based, and there is almost nothing reasonable on any other platform.

It is also clear(unless you are just looney) that any platform taken to the place MS has gone at a consumer level will see problems.

I am pro Linux also. There server platform just plain rocks and MS blows, but the Linux desktop GUI still needs work to catch up to windows. Its good, very good but windows is still better - IMHO

I'll go to Linux when all the games and software are being made for it.

Sickone wrote:every app I use is windows based, and there is almost nothing reasonable on any other platform.

That's what happens when you design an entire OS on the premise of trying to come up with better stuff than Windows. Let's face it, as long as they are coming up with alternatives to Windows programs, how are they ever going to measure up? Why use GAIM when I can use AIM, or GIMP when I can use Photoshop, or OpenOffice.org when I can use MS Office? Every day those GAIM programmers strive to make GAIM half the program that AIM has become, and, maybe, years from now, they will succeed, by making a version # greater than or equal to 1, but by then it will have become AIM in every aspect, and then you have to ask yourself, WHY? And, if your Linux alternatives don't provide a Windowsy enough feel, go ahead and spend hours configuring Wine (and its iterations) to try and run your programs and games, since that's about as close to Windows as you're going to get without actually using it, without using a program labeled with "Microsoft."

Jeff - given that I use a ton of engineering apps, compilers, debuggers, enulators, etc.

You just don't try and run crap like that through a 'Win'-U-lator.

They are tough enough already without buying into more trouble.

I agree that Linux is not a competitor when it comes to desktop/client/consumer applications. However, I feel it excels with solid server applications; well known stuff like Apache, PHP, FTP, DHCP, email (Qmail/SpamAsassin), Perl/CGI, Java (e.g. Weblogic/Tomcat), etc, etc. I feel more safe running Linux (Slackware! ) than any MS platform in a server environment.

This discussion is why we have a split IT team where I work. I'm the Windows Boy, the other two guys manage the server farm, which is almost entirely Linux. Those servers are incredibly stable. The only ones that give us trouble are, you guessed it, the Windows boxes. Beyond that, I'm pro Windows for home desktops. XP is, in my humble opinion, a step in the right direction for MS as far as reliability. 2k is probably my favorite OS, though...

Sage,

This is why we have a catch-22. If you're not going to run Linux, then what's the point in making games for it?

Any Linux game that comes down the pipe will not be bought by you, and therefore the game publishers will find it un-profitable to produce Linux games.

Jeff250,

It's to bad that you don't see those alternative programs are better or equal to the aforementioned. Take gAIM for example. It was not meant to mimic AIM like you say. It was created to allow users of various network protocols to use a single Client. It does this with flying colors.

I'm not an artist so asking me to compare GIMP to Photoshop is like asking Joe Blow to compare C to C++. Going off of price tag, well the GIMP wins hands down.

Lastly, the OpenOffice.org. I will continue to use this product or some other product of my liking until MSOffice loses that $600+ price tag. Infact, even if they were to lose that price tag, I would still use some other product because I support open standards.

BTW you assume that Linux uses are looking for a Windowsy feel when Windows is the last feel I want. I don't think like a typical Windows user, and this is evident in my Desktop. Unlike Windows users I run Multiple desktops, and have applications tabbed together in groups of Windows or standalones. Lets not forget about the programs that run in the background either that I can pull up through my terminal. There is no such thing as a start menu such as Windows, and what you would consider my toolbar only acts as Windows in such that it can hold icons. There are people out there who like choice, and there are people out there who like to mess with their computers. I'm one of those people.

For those of you Windows users that claim that Windows desktop is better then Linux desktop then I would recommend trying out Redhat, Mandrake, or SuSE Linux when you do as they will give you the most Windows like default desktop with as little hassle as possible.

In my eye's the Linux desktop is superior, but it's not for everyone. I typically tell a non-computer geek to use Windows instead of Linux because it's supposed to be easier to install etc... the biggist reason I say this is because it's easier to install applications on Windows as a general rule. This is not always the case. Distro's such as Gentoo, or Debian, and I even think maybe Redhat. They make installing easier then Windows.

Well if we're all throwing our opinions in here: I consider myself a computer geek. I also won't use linux because windows is much more convenient, a lot easier to get working, and has a much better user interface. Yes, I've used KDE3 and all that jazz, and it just felt hacked together to me.

Jeff250 wrote: That's what happens when you design an entire OS on the premise of trying to come up with better stuff than Windows.

I should have answered this too, but seem to have forgot. Anyway, Linux wasn't designed with the intention to compete with Windows. It was created in order to give the world a free UNIX operating system. At the time of it's conception AT&T, and whatnot controlled UNIX and it was very pricey. Also note that UNIX has been around far longer then Windows.

I would suggest looking up the history of UNIX followed by the history of Linux. Incase you're wondering what Linux stands for it's Linus Unix named after Linus Torvalds the creater of Linux. Also TuX the mascott stands for Torvalds Unix for those that wished to know.

Here's a link to the History of Linux

Interesting article. I like some of the quotes at the end .

As a very basic computer user, I appreciate Linux and its philosophy of an open-source, free operating system. Unfortunately, I'm much too computer illiterate to either understand or really grasp exactly how it works. Besides, like most casual computer users, I have no need for something like Linux, since I've used Windows all my life, and all of the programs and games I use are made for it. Maybe someday, if I have the money to get a second computer, I'll consider learning more about Linux and trying it out.

Why do that? There are several bootable CD distros to choose from. Knoppix, Knoppix STD (security tools distro), Mandrake Move, etc.

Download an ISO, burn it to CD and boot off of it. Nothing gets written to the hard drive so you can do whatever you want and not worry about screwing up windows.

Wow, it looks like I've been accused of bashing Windows *and* Linux with the same post! Well, hopefully it's all gonna cancel itself out, cuz I love all operating systems!!!

My beef with Linux is its cobbled-together nature. I much prefer the BSD philosiphy of having one central Ports package. This is why I've started to appreciate Fedora and RPM's more and more; by downloading only RPM's from Fedora, I'm much less likely to run into problems than if I installed from source (and some wacky apps that require weird compile schemes *cough*qmail*cough* are either simplified or just ommitted).

DCrazy wrote:My beef with Linux is its cobbled-together nature. I much prefer the BSD philosiphy of having one central Ports package. This is why I've started to appreciate Fedora and RPM's more and more; by downloading only RPM's from Fedora, I'm much less likely to run into problems than if I installed from source (and some wacky apps that require weird compile schemes *cough*qmail*cough* are either simplified or just ommitted).

the correct answer is either Debian or Gentoo.

I didn't have that choice with the dedicated server I got.

MD-2389 wrote:Why do that? There are several bootable CD distros to choose from. Knoppix, Knoppix STD (security tools distro), Mandrake Move, etc.

Download an ISO, burn it to CD and boot off of it. Nothing gets written to the hard drive so you can do whatever you want and not worry about screwing up windows.

Why? I don't even know what an ISO is . I also don't see any need to go fooling around with a foreign OS, regardless of its lack of risk. For the casual user like me, there's simply no need for Linux. As I continue to learn more about computing (a very slow process ), I may finally have the guts to try it out.

Tried it, didnt use it much, fucked up my Windows boot record (thank you LILO), havent touched it since.

While I can understand all the pro and con debate going on, the bigger view is with NASA going LINUX the curiosity among larger corporations may be such that they will start looking at LINUX in a more serious light. If they impliment LINUX then their office workers will have to learn how to use it with a eventual cascade effect of more and more consumers finding out that LINUX may actually be better to use.
Where goes the consumer, so do the games.
Hows dat for a little econ 101?

Open will prevail over closed. Open minds will prevail over closed minds. Open source will prevail over closed source.

Eventually Microsoft's tactics to defeat their competition will be realized. Most of the time, people just say, "Bad Microsoft... Here's some more money."

Oh, well. I'll stick with Linux, at least on the money-making, mission-critical servers.

Nasa going over to linux? so f'en what, i dont see that herting MS at all cause 99.999999% of all the supercomputers out there use Unix or a form of and all of thoes eggheads at Nasa probley know unix inside and out.

i think its a good idea for them to use it cause all there doing is running there software on top of every thang so thus u get rid of the gui and all the other stuff so more of the cpu power goes to that progy running insted of half to progy and half to the os.

Top Gun wrote:

MD-2389 wrote:Why do that? There are several bootable CD distros to choose from. Knoppix, Knoppix STD (security tools distro), Mandrake Move, etc.

Download an ISO, burn it to CD and boot off of it. Nothing gets written to the hard drive so you can do whatever you want and not worry about screwing up windows.

Why? I don't even know what an ISO is . I also don't see any need to go fooling around with a foreign OS, regardless of its lack of risk. For the casual user like me, there's simply no need for Linux. As I continue to learn more about computing (a very slow process ), I may finally have the guts to try it out.

An ISO is just a disk image. Its basically an image of the contents of a CD in one convenient package. All you do is open it up in your CD burning program of choice and hit burn.

I think the news here is not that NASA is using Linux, but what they're building. That's going to be one bad a$$ computer. Linky

Jim could sure ramp up his folding@home with that unit

With Project Columbia, NASA plans to integrate a total of twenty 512-processor SGI(R) Altix(R) systems with a 500-terabyte SGI(R) InfiniteStorage solution to create the Space Exploration Simulator, which will be among the world's largest Linux(R) OS-based supercomputers. Powered by a total of 10,240 Intel(R) Itanium(R) 2 processors, the Space Exploration Simulator will equip NASA scientists with one of the most sophisticated and capable supercomputers in history.