Red Hat Invades Washington 133
Paul Coe Clark III writes: "I caught Michael Tiemann, CTO of Red Hat, in Washington yesterday and grilled him about the DMCA, the SSSCA, the Sklyarov case and the future of Linux."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Red Hat Invades Washington
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
...there can be no public or private virtue unless the foundation of action is the practice of truth. - George Jacob Holyoake
Grilled? (Score:1)
Well, we really have our own little Matt Drudge [drudgereport.com] here, now don't we?
Re:Grilled? (Score:1)
Re:Grilled? (Score:1)
That's for sure! His site is shit. They have the latest breaking headlines BECAUSE they do not care who or what their source is. If you called Drudge up on the phone and told them Osama Bin Hidin was found in Pakistan and is now aboard the USS Baatan...it would make the headlines on Sludgereport, they would take it down after a while. But they do that nonstop. That is not journalism. Journalists actually care about their integrity (though it may oft seem they don't). They make a concerted effort to be able to back up what they say with facts...Sludge does none of this. BTW, the ticker tapes on the CNN channel are controlled by interns who are supposed to "Ensure CNN is the first to break a story" If you watch, often times Drudges misinfo gets put on the ticker-tapes.
Re:Grilled? (Score:1)
Re:Grilled? (Score:1)
First, wether or not I respect Matt Drudge as a journalist has nada to do with political orientation. The very fact that political orientation may play into it though suggests the site as a slant (that is strike one) BTW I am a republican thanks for asking. The headlines today include these sources:
http://www.townhall.com
Boston Daily news
etc... The man searches for outlandish news (sources are often times good) and prints it. Notice many BREAKING stories off the wire on his site NEVER make CNN...Hmmm Anyway, I enjoy reading sludge now and again but I NEVER take it to serious.
Good points, but *how* is the market different? (Score:5, Interesting)
that he thinks the PC desktop market is dead, and that other markets (embedded, appliance-led products, networked devices) are the way forward, was not picked up by the interviewer IMHO.
'...all show high projected growths, except for PCs. Tiemann taps the dismal PC projection] That is what I'm saying is dead..'.
How is RH addressing these markets? I am sure they are, but more clarity would be nice. I work with Interactive TV boxes in the Uk, and we dont care about the OS, and neither do the consumers.
It's the middleware that counts. Pace boxes running Liberate [liberate.com] middleware run VX Works OS, but as a developer for the Interactive box I'm not allowed anywhere near that level of code. So, is RH gonna go for the OEM market, or is it going to what is the *equivalent* of the desktop and build OSs that fit nicely with higher level code?
Nope, I'm not making much sense, but as this is, after all, as he has said, an entirely different market than the one he's used to, I'd like to know more.
Re:Good points, but *how* is the market different? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good points, but *how* is the market different? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it in the kernel level improvements in speed and rendering time they need to power a DSAT receiver?
Or is it the ability to mass manufacture distros for one (ish) platform, in which there's already a hacker culture that can be tapped into, where the hardware guys have started sticking 'red hat ready' stickers on new peripherals.
Or maybe just being veryveryvery good at runing apache?
How good are they at winning big, f*** off hardware contracts - how many PCs come shipped with RH? How many different appliance level versions are they going to produce? DO they want the GUI market for appliances or the end user? So that end users with box X running digital platform Y care about neither cos it's got RedHatInside?
Which appliance OEMs are they talking to? Who are their competitors? Are they interested in the OS fight? Who is the fight with?
The above markets are not imposible to dominate *as well* as making the desktop software that's EZ to install and packed full of apps, but it's a different ball game. I am not questioning their ability to do that, in fact I'm keen for them to do it, but more detail is needed. I'll check the RH embedded site out, though, thanks
let's look at what he said (Score:5, Interesting)
Translation: we could do it, but we won't make any money on it, M$ has effectivly blocked us there so we are going to look elsewhere.
He's wrong. Packaging a slick easy to install set of desktop software was a great Red Hat strength, and there is great demand for what they offer. They need to position themselves as the solution to the problems of propraitory code: programs that don't talk to each other, shifting "standards" that waste work, poor security, and massive IT budgets that churn junk all day without being able to fix anything. They have not done a good job of getting the word out about specific issues and how they have a solution. No one else in the US has the training network, name recognition and ability to do what they can. The market is there, you just have to make it happen. Think of Sony and the Walkman. The demand was there, despite a downturn in consumer electronics. Sony just created the product that people really wanted. Red Hat will only be defeated if they give up, or start acting like M$ themselves.
Re:let's look at what he said (Score:2)
Good Interview (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the other factor is that the machine itself doesn't seem to be a limiting factor anymore, it's the connection to the internet. Most people can't take advantage of their fast processors, because everything these days is focused on the pipes to the network. I've got to give McNealy at least partial credit for the whole "the network is the computer" deal, it's become very true. People seem to just use their machines as emailers, browsers, and muedia downloaders/players. True, all the other stuff like word processing is there too, but the fact that communication has become the real killer app of the industry shows where improvements need to be made.
I think he's right to focus on the devices that need embedded Linux, since those markets will continue to grow through phones, PDA's, and whatever niche devices people will come up with for specific industries. However, to say that the PC is dead is a little shortsighted. It's just stalled and waiting for the bandwidth to catch up.
Speaking of which, I think the big killer app for linux, if someone can come up with one, will be a new, or at least cheap and easy, way of communicating. Apache, PHP, and SAMBA are all focused on this, and they are the apps we always point to as big successes. I mean, the whole movement is successful because of the ability for us to communicate and cooperate to make an OS! Shouldn't the apps really reflect that? Maybe it's that we're all geeks and not so good at communicating (just browse -1 to see that
I don't know, this is all pointless rambling. I'm obviously no better, or else I'd have some actual idea in mind rather than half-baked theories. Still, I believe that the PC is now a tool for communication rather than productivity. The productivity is still there, but it's not the primary purpose any more.
Re:Good Interview (Score:2, Insightful)
So Microsoft is responsible because people are satisfied with their computers? I don't think that's really what you were getting at.
As for the interview, where's the beef? It's fine to sit and grouse about how Microsoft has "killed" the PC market (whatevah), but promising set-top boxes and interactive hoo-hah isn't going to impress anyone these days. Bigger companies than Red Hat have Ahab-ed that whale, and he doesn't strike me as particularly visionary.
Re:Good Interview (Score:4, Interesting)
And I think that the point about set-top boxes is mistaken. He's not really promising on any of this, he's delivered a package that people can use. I'm betting most all of the devices that use embedded linux won't be consumer-oriented. They'll be for corporations and engineers and such, people doing highly specialized work who need something more than a palm pilot. That's where I think Linux will make inroads. It won't be something most of us see or really care about, but I think he's right to go there.
Re:Good Interview (Score:5, Insightful)
They may be in the process of killing it with their media convergence plan for the spawn of the Xbox, but nothing to date has done that.
What will slow (but not kill) the PC industry is exactly what has been said before... nobody wants to upgrade because their computers already to what they want them to. Anybody with a Pentium class machine can run Win9x reasonably well, email, Word, internet. If that's all you're doing, why the hell would you upgrade??
Microsoft, and in particular, Win9x, brought all of these apps to the masses. (And by that I do NOT mean that MS did all of these cool things themselves... more of a chronological and technological corelation.)
The PC hardware industry will eventually become like the Auto industry. The average person will buy a new one in X number of years depending on his budget and when the parts happen to crap out, but there will always be an assload of computers on the internet. Individual companies will die, but there will always be a few who provide new hardware when the old stuff isn't cutting it anymore. The differences between the 200x and the 200x+10 year models will not be huge in terms of basic functionality until significant AI and voice recognition improvements have been made. Microsoft's current OS monopoly will have little bearing on the future of the PC hardware industry (Xbox comments aside). Apple boxes on par with the original pentium will have equivalent functionality. If there were a hundred different major OSes out there, they would all basically do the same thing. (though some would crash less often than others...)
The future I have described may be more conducive to Linux as users will want updated software and not want to pay for it... as MS will eventually cut off support for products as they age...
Re:Good Interview (Score:2)
What you state is certainly right, but it's IMO not a complete characterisation (sp?) of the PC market.
Take for instance BEOS. I'm *not' a BEOS advocate (I don't even know how to capitalize it right) - but I had it installed one time.
Beos already did a lot of things better than windows, but as the market is, it was more or less clear that beos would fail. This is not solely MS' fault, the whole market has the problem of hardware compability, software compability, application file format compability, distribution problems (preinstallations on new hardware) etc.
To abuse the particularly loved car analogy, if every new market entrepreneur had to build it's own " compatible" roads,
What MS does is to do abuse it's power to keep these barriers as high as possible.
Re:Good Interview (Score:1)
...so I can have an art deco computer?
Re:Good Interview (Score:2, Insightful)
MS is desperately trying to force people to upgrade their OS's (subscriptions, dropping support for win9x, etc...) because for most business users there is no technical reason to upgrade. Remember, most MS customer are businesses, not home users. Only gamers need to upgrade their hardware more than once every three or four years, and even then, upgrading the video card will make an older machine good for another year or two. CAD, and some engineering and scientific applications are the only business apps I can think of off hand that benefit from something faster than a P800.
My old PII 350 runs everything I need for business, under win98, just fine. The only reason I am even considering upgrading is to play the newer games.
Re:Good Interview (Score:3, Interesting)
This does seem a little absurd in a way, but I don't think it's far fetched. We all know how little Microsoft innovates, and now that there is no other real game in town, how much innovation is happening? There is a reason people advocate competition in the marketplace, and I think we're seeing the reason for it, as well as the dangers of monopoly.
Re:Good Interview (Score:1)
I think the big killer app for linux, if someone can come up with one, will be a new, or at least cheap and easy, way of communicating
I think this would fit the bill [jabber.org]. Not so much the instant messaging part, but the concept of using it as a generic XML router.
Re:Good Interview (Score:2)
I have played online games (Wildtangent, hell even some Shockwave games!) that have pushed my 1ghz computer with 32meg video card to their limits.
Besides, wait until we REALLY start getting some bandwidth, heh.
Can you say Total Immersion VR?
Course we might all likely be dead by then, but. . . . gotta keep them minds open.
In the end (Score:4, Funny)
All OSes are evolving towards the same ultimate endpoint: An embedded control system for TVs.
Somehow, I am disappointed. I had thought that computers had more potential than that.
Re:In the end (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the 70's and 80's not many people had a home PC, but those that did knew something about what they were running. It seemed to do a lot of things then, and it does even more now.
But the PC has grown into an overblown Internet applicance, and it remains the biggest barrier to the Internet for most people. Getting on the Internet is enormously complicated when you think of how simple it should be. If it were only as simple as getting an appliance, plugging it in, entering a username and password, and you're on the 'Net - there would be many more using the Net.
At this point, the OS is irrelevant. Most people just can't get a handle on what an OS is, because they can't touch it or see it. IMHO, linux will be a success anywhere it doesn't get noticed. When people notice the OS, it's probably not a good thing.
Re:In the end (Score:1)
Wow. For whatever reason, that actually seems pretty profound to me.
Er, thanks, you just gave me something to think about for a while.
Re:In the end (Score:2)
Hmm? How f*cking complicated.
I just turn mine on, yeesh.
(9x machine, my real machines have
One good thing about always on cable modems, heh.
Music? No problem, I just goto mp3.com hit classical hit the style I want and then hit play all. A shortcut on my desktop to the link would likely work much better, but hey, I'm lazy.
TV? Got that too. TV-IN card. Cruddy quality though, and why? I can just goto my p2p app of choice and. . . ah, better not mention THAT one. Might make companies more eager to take away certain, uh, 'freedoms'. (ok so its theft, but damnit, 2.5minute commerical breaks every 10 minutes on a tv show SUCKS.)
Re:In the end (Score:1)
so pay a share of the production cost, so they don't need to.
Re:In the end (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, I am disappointed. I had thought that computers had more potential than that.
First off, this comment was moderated as "Funny". I don't think it's funny nearly as much as it's poignant and interesting.
And I'd like to make a counter-statement. I won't discredit Waffle Iron's opinion; it's a valid one that many people share. But my vision of the future of computing is different.
Nowadays, most of the family units with disposable income have a TV and entertainment center in their living room, family room, or den, and a TV in their bedroom. They also have a spare bedroom, office, or a nook in the same room as their TV that has a desk with a computer on/under it. Often, older children still living in the household will have their own TV in their room and a computer under their own desk. Most of the time, the home computer will be used primarily for entertainment, much as the TV is used.
That's a heck of a lot of devices devoted to entertainment in each household. In many of these rooms it would make sense to combine the units, but there are some primary issues that we, as consumers, can't decide on.
The question that needs to be answered is whether we would prefer to have the TV move to the computer, or the computer move to the TV. This is the same as asking whether we want to sit in a desk chair and watch our scheduled content and videos from three feet in front of a 17" screen at 1200x800 resolution or whether we want to sit back on our couch in order to type our e-mail on a 540 scan line CRT.
Time and technology changes all things. Over the next decade, most of these people will replace their TVs for a new one with 1080 or 1200 scan lines. That's adequate resolution for computing. And User Interfaces are much more accessable from the couch nowadays. But I can't ever imagine wanting to watch all of my entertainment from a desk chair three feet from a 17" screen.
In the end, there will be computers and TVs, separate, for purchase by consumers like Waffle Iron, because he represents a market that would buy such products. I represent the market that would buy a unified product, and I believe that my perspective will become more ubiquitous as time and technology advances, so eventually we will see all of our computing technology being built (modularly) into our TVs. I don't find this the least bit disappointing, I see it as an inevitable reality.
Re:In the end (Score:3, Insightful)
First off:
TV is often times a MULTIPERSON activity. More then one person can watch TV at a time.
Hard to surf with 2 people at once on the web, after that it becomes almost impossible. Unless you have a GIGANTIC monitor and one heck of a multi-input setup going on with lots of browser windows open at once. Personaly I think that just buying another few computers would help out more though, hehe.
When one person uses the computer the MONOPOLIZE that compters use time.
People can democraticaly vote on what to watch on TV. More then one person can participate at a time. The very SOCIAL aspect of watching TV is different, and ANY sort of individualized or personalized medium is going to have this effect.
You think Mr. Smith is just going to walk up to the family TV set and start surfing for pr0n in the middle of saturday morning cartoons?
Or that the kids are going to peacefuly coexist surfing the site at the same time? For any decent length of time at least? (at least to whatever extent kids ever do peacefuly coexist.
Hell why should I _WANT_ to combine the two devices?
Do you realize that it is EASIER for me to play DVDs on my COMPUTER then it is to play them on my dedicated DVD player? Hell on the computer I just pop in a DVD into the DVD-ROM drive and it plays!
On my TV I have to change over audio and visual inputs and then manualy on the DVD player select the type of audio compression that the DVD uses and some other junk. Bleh. it is a ROYAL pain in the ass that can take up to five minutes.
Then I have to switch it all back to continue to watch TV. Another five minutes. Doh.
Computer, when I am done watching a DVD I just close the program down (one mouse move one click) and eject the DVD. Tada, all done. Yah.
Re:In the end (Score:2)
I don't know what sort of television setup you have, but on my sub-£800 television/DVD setup, I just stick the disk in and press the play button. The DVD player requires absolutely zero configuration, and the TV automatically detects the new signal on one of it's inputs, and switches to it. Makes me wonder if the A/V technology is better here in the UK, or at least cheaper...
Convergence... of what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Convergence has been an occasionally surfacing buzzword for years now. Its been attempted by shoe-horning a PC in an entertainment center. Its been tried with internet appliances / set-top boxes. Meanwhile the technically elite have been changing the face of entertainment media and attempting to shoehorn better hardware in to their desktops to match. In every case, the interface ultimately fails. And its obvious why - all tasks do not work well with all interfaces.
This is why I believe you've arrived at the wrong conclusion. A "TV" does not make a good computing interface.
The folks at Moxi have taken a step in the right direction with their Moxi Media Center [moxi.com] product. It basically becomes a central hub for entertainment media / data. Everything else (TV, speakers, etc) become satalite devices feeding off a wireless link. It even becomes a central hub for your data connection. So how does this solve the "computing from the couch" interface problem?
Moxi has made the first step. TVs will stop being TVs and become remote monitors. Strip out everything else. Slap it on a flat screen - a big flat screen. And then also create smaller versions of the device - webpads. The more personal size for handling email, taking notes, web surfing, etc. A slightly larger (something simular to the new iMac perhapse?) version provides an interface that's comfortable for desktop computing / work. Keyboards, pointers (mice, trackballs, etc), game controllers, and other such peripherals could talk to all such devices to create the right interface for any environment from balancing a spreadsheet to console gaming.
In short, computing (a centralized media server) absorbs all other devices (desktop, console game, TV, stereo, etc). Convergence moves away from the TV. And your experience is defined by what modular components you use to communicate with that central media server.
Re:Convergence... of what? (Score:1)
Re:In the end (Score:1)
I realize now that I made it seem funny with my "Good one:-)", when I really thought it was just a good way of putting what things have come down to with respect to the value of computers.
The question that needs to be answered is whether we would prefer to have the TV move to the computer, or the computer move to the TV.
Yup, I think that's what it boils down to. I think in 2-3 years we're going to see how this is going to play itself out. Probably affluent households will have a computer and TV, while the less affluent will just have a TV. However, as one poster has replied, they are functionally different in that only one person at a time can use the Internet (not strictly speaking, but for the most part), while the TV is often shared with more than one person.
I think for the Internet applicance idea to really take off a few things have to happen:
A large manufacturer has to mass produce an appliance that is cheap with a decent screen. They would then partner with a large ISP provider who would sell them or rent them out as part of a high speed package. The appliance would come pre-configured for the ISP, and would contain all the apps the user would need. The OS could be linux, *BSD, but it wouldn't matter - the user wouldn't even notice. The whole thing would be almost as plug and play as getting a telephone.
This is the way I see it. As long as people will need a PC to connect to the Internet the Internet's growth will be limited by the PC. I remember in the mid-90's, before I knew a damn thing about computing and the Internet, people were telling me I needed the latest low-end machine loaded with Windows 95 to connect to the Internet. Then, that meant at least a $1500(CD) investment. In the end, I wound up connecting with a Toshiba T3200 286 lap top with a 40 MB hdd and 2 MB RAMand a 2400 baud modem. Got a shell dial-in account, and the Internet was available to me. My barrier to entry (to the Internet), instead of being $1500, turned out to be $250.
Oh, and I got to learn the basics of a Unix shell, and instead of getting entertainment, I got substance...
why Apple can't compete (Score:2)
The focus on computers that look cool or have everything in one form factor is a dead end. Most people don't want to look at a computer; that's too intrusive. If they can use it without thinking about it, that's good. They will be happy when "Windows" is just another channel on their TV.
Re:In the end (Score:1)
Current media technologies just focus in the one-way entertainment content. You listen music, but don't sing it, and your friends don't listen to you singing. You see films, but you don't appear in them, and nobody is looking you.
But Internet and computers enable a multi-way entertainment content.
Just remember why some very smart and imaginative people like too much the Role-playing games, using sheets of paper and so on. And of course! the holodeck!
The future of entertaining will be much more like the evolution from text based adventures towards today 3d first person shooters or the sims. It's the chat what will evolve.
People will be addicted to interactive fantasies in the future just like they are addicted to tv. And whoever can make this interactive content the right way will be the next multibillion industry.
How many of us will pay money for seeing something as good as LoTR and be the protagonist?
(and don't have any clue of what's next!)
Re:In the end (Score:2)
Digital Hub (Score:1)
By now, we all know the "digital hub" strategy that Apple's brining about. You see, the Mac (and in a larger sense the PC) is not dead. It's just shifting its usage.
DCMA (Score:2, Insightful)
What the DMCA does with the anti-circumvention machinery kind of ties your hands in getting access to information. The SSSCA goes a step further and says it's absolutely required to install anti-circumvention on copyrighted digital works.
The logical extreme is that it would be illegal to produce any digital media that couldn't be controlled. I think there are places in the world where governments would find that attractive. I don't think the U.S. should be one of them.
Opportunity or opposition? (Score:3, Interesting)
A: I think it's a build-up to meet the opportunity in the UNIX-to-Linux migration and embedded systems. Those are the two priorities.
Building up to meet the UNIX-to-Linux migration or the migration to UNIX that is OS X? RH basically conceded the desktop in the face of M$ monopoly. Embedded is certainly the place for growth. But aside from that, is Apple the real competition?
OS X is one of the widest installed distribution of UNIX, has an elegant desktop solution, and has the potential to be an elegant server solution for many purposes. Rumors of the possibility of OS X for other hardware also stir the pot.
Don't get me wrong. I really appreciate what Linux has done for me personally. As a (past) RH customer, I can't say the same for that particular company. What direction is RH really going to go, and can they do it successfully?
Embedded; Maybe.
Desktop: No.
Servers, Telcos: Maybe.
Re:Opportunity or opposition? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, when he said UNIX, he meant it. Like you said, Apple isn't really a competitor, they're a niche market. OSX Server ain't bad (used it plenty myself) but it's really going to be a minor player in relation to 2k (and whatever follows) and other *NIXes. Everyone knows Linux is a great server OS, there's no denying it,and that's where the meat of Redhat's income will be coming from for now. The way to make that income grow is to gather more of the server market, and the easiest way for them to do this is to make it easy to transition from their HP's and Solaris servers.
And as for rumors of OSX Server on other platforms, I'll believe it when I see it. There's no way, given Apple's past, that they'd do this now.
Re:Opportunity or opposition? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, Apple isn't competition for the serious server market. Yes, money is to be made by getting people off HP or Solaris. But why should Red Hat be making that money rather than other companies? HP may cannibalize their own market by bundling Linux and services with their hardware. IBM is far more capitalized than RH's "top public software company in North Carolina". What does Red Hat really provide that is compelling enough to win in that market? I'm not sure I see what Red Hat will do that will let them win there.
They seem to be going in many directions at once. Maybe that will give them a chance to do everything well, or maybe not. Will companies that focus on one area do better? Despite some lackluster experiences with RH, I don't really want to run Red Hat down. They've done a lot for Linux. But, they can't deliver on the desktop. Will they be able to deliver top solutions/service on both embedded and server at the same time?
If OS X wants to compete... (Score:4, Informative)
1) Transparent filesharing with MS. Sorry guys, but it's not there yet. Opening the "Connect to Server" dialong in Finder and using the syntax smb://2kwksation/share to attempt to access my 2k Workstation fails. It does work with 2k Server/Advanced Server w/File Services for Macintosh installed, though.
2) Flesh out the OS with control panels to do functions that are currently available only via the command prompt. Specifically, there's no reason an Apple operating system shouldn't allow some configuration of the swap file from the System Preferences. The only method I'm aware of involves a trip to the terminal, something many novice mac users are wont to try.
3) Multiple desktops.
Additionally, Apple will need to motivate developers to move their biggest products into the new Mac OS. They would be wise to approach developers that don't currently develop for the Macintosh but do work with other variants of Unix or Linux. Games would be nice, and completion of OpenOffice for X would be nice, but any little bit helps.
Re:If OS X wants to compete... (Score:2, Informative)
sure...
2) Flesh out the OS with control panels to do functions that are currently available only via the command prompt. Specifically, there's no reason an Apple operating system shouldn't allow some configuration of the swap file from the System Preferences. The only method I'm aware of involves a trip to the terminal, something many novice mac users are wont to try.
exactly, so those darn novice users would care about swap files for what reason? ninety-nine percent of them don't even know what it is, let alone how to configure it.
3) Multiple desktops.
to go with their multiple-button mice? remember that whole simplicity thing?
it's not a competition - it's apple doing their own thing - some of us appreciate it - some don't.
Additionally, Apple will need to motivate developers to move their biggest products into the new Mac OS. They would be wise to approach developers that don't currently develop for the Macintosh but do work with other variants of Unix or Linux. Games would be nice, and completion of OpenOffice for X would be nice, but any little bit helps.
sorry, but i believe apple is happy with m$ office being released for OSX. it gives OSX credibility as a veritable system - unlike OpenOffice.
Re:Opportunity or opposition?After 2k? (Score:1)
Re:Opportunity or opposition? (Score:1)
Commodity hardware and a rough-neck OS (Linux or one of the BSD's) is THE way to go where IT spending has been hacked and services need to grow. Some companies have already figure this out. The rest are being stupid and/or blind.
You bet UNIX is a big area of growth for them.
This about copyrights breaks my heart (Score:2)
That often even those who accept that there is nothing wrong with copying, think that it is some kind of sin to profit off of anothers work. Why? even fair use is not fair.
The desire to profit and prosper is so human, and so is the desire to copy and immitate. Copying another persons work and profiting from it does not deprive the originator of any of the same opportunities. In fact, perhaps it would be a motivator, or benefit the creator because it would bring them reputation.
Computers Evolving, or Changing. (Score:3, Interesting)
I say it now and I know I'll eat my words in 10 years, but "Who wants a box that can change channels, play every type of media, connect to the internet and play games?" Well the X-Box and PS2 have almost made the perfect component for that, but daddy wurbucks isn't putting one in his new home entertainment system quite yet ...
Why are PC sales dropping? Everyone and their brother has one ... I mean lets face it ... everyone has a computer, or they at least can name 50 people they've met that have one. When the television came out no one thought anyone would ever have a need to have more than one TV in their house??? But low-and-behold multiple TV's are something that most middleclass to uperclass people have in their homes now.
Multiple computer homes are starting to become the standard for joe-public, but they aren't as common as they will be in the future. Will embedded low-priced systems be the key to this. You bet your ass they will. Will they run ( insert favorite free OS here ) ??? who knows ... I mean does that really matter anymore. If people want to run ( insert favorite OS here ) on their systems ... they will.
Computers aren't going away ever ... the home computer is so big that we have made billionaires out of the craze. Will there be a bigger craze ... of course ... will it make new billionaires? ... of course.
So is the interview all bunk? ... Is the CEO of RedHat lying when he says he believes that personal computers are becoming a thing of the past? ... NO ... but I don't think the home computer is leaving any time soon ... people like the ability to upgrade their computers ... even if they have no idea how ... so long as they believe they can upgrade without having to actually buy a whole new product ... even if buying a new better product really isn't that much more than the cost of the new product.
I dunno ... I'm weird ... and hell ... this is all just opinion ... I can be wrong :-)
Disappointed - a shallow, hurried interview... (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, RedHat's not about the desktop, OK? Did this interviewer not know it going into this? Where were the deeper questions about RedHat's working with IBM, HP, Compaq-Alpha-et-al, even Sun in the server space? Where were the clustering, scaling, fault-tolerance, instrumentation (performance and capacity monitoring) questions? No question about RedHat's broken GCC 2.96 compiler and what they're doing to fix it in later releases? This was just a joke, a parody of a real interview. What a shame.
Re:Disappointed - a shallow, hurried interview... (Score:1)
*rant mode on* FUD, FUD, FUD. Sure gcc-2.96 was a little buggy in its initial release (with redhat 7.0), but since then, most (all?) the kinks have pretty much been worked out. It's no longer an issue. Move on. Nothing to see here.
And, FYI, it appears as though redhat's next major release will be based on some gcc 3.x variant (perhaps 3.1), though they (redhat) will never give details like this publically.
*rant mode off* OK, I feel better now.
Re:Disappointed - a shallow, hurried interview... (Score:2)
For one, they don't have a "supported" file system that scales well to the multiterabyte range. EXT is a joke performance wise when you make it that large, and reiserfs has some major bugs that aren't considered high proirity by either Red Hat or Namesys (since namesys is working on their "Next big thing".)
To me, it looks like Namesys is less interested in making a good file system anyway, they are more interested in revolutionizing the way we think about data and namespaces, which is all well and good, but we need a good scalable file system in the mean time.
XFS is an excellent scalable, journaling file system, but neither Linus or Red Hat wants to include it by default in their kernels. At least the SGI people make it very easy to add in, even providing kernel RPMs that match Red Hat stock kernels with XFS added.
This is just one thing, but it Red Hat hopes to start to capture "higher end" server markets, multiterabyte file systems are something they are going to have to work on, and soon.
Re:Disappointed - a shallow, hurried interview... (Score:2)
No question about RedHat's broken GCC 2.96 compiler and what they're doing to fix it in later releases?
It's not broken. It was a move we had to make at the time: gcc 2.95 was badly broken (e.g. didn't compile glibc 2.2), had severe lacks in C++ conformance and didn't support the architectures we needed. Also, performance was abysmal on other architectures we cared about (in particular, the alpha). Here are more details. [bero.org]. Right now, gcc 2.96RH is a very mature and solid compiler
Gcc 2.96RH has served us well for three releases now. We're not going to "fix it" (it's not broken, it's better than the current alternatives and we don't want to break binary compatibility), but at
some point we'll switch again. You can find some hints at that in the current Rawhide.
Re:Disappointed - a shallow, hurried interview... (Score:1)
Such insightful questioning.. (Score:3, Troll)
The PC is not dead, and it's not going to die (Score:2)
Web appliances were a dismal flop because they cost about as much as a general-purpose PC, but did less. You can't write a letter or do homework on a web appliance.
The PC industry is terrified because they can't sell new models every year any more, and they don't know what to do next. But that doesn't mean it's over; it's just becoming a mature market. A mature market is one in which most new units replace an existing one. Cars reached that point in the 1950s. TVs reached that point in the 1960s. VCRs reached that point around 1990. Those are now all mature products, which means they're cheap, they work reliably, and there's competition.
Re:Hat (Score:4, Funny)
Quite dashing I think... but he looks like the devil. Maybe it's Gates' hat.
Re:Hat (Score:4, Funny)
Response from "loser author" (Score:1)
Re:Hat (Score:2)
Is this why I have clinical depression? Sometimes I do hate myself.
Thanks for the revelation; when we set up the new world gov't we'll give you a high post.
Maybe first post.
Re:Case in point (Score:1)
So why is this a troll? (Score:2)