Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Oracle Rolls Out Latest NC - With Linux 96

Posted by Roblimo from the if-at-first-you-don't-succeed dept.
pants95 writes "It looks like Larry and the folks at Oracle are having another go at the world of Network Computers for $199 a pop. This time, they will run Linux and come with Navigator. Is it just me, or does the term `disposable' computer not sit right with you? I still get plenty of use out of a few old 486s!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Rolls Out Latest NC - With Linux More

Oracle Rolls Out Latest NC - With Linux

Comments Filter:
  • I think what is seriously mis-understood about NCs is that they should be used for running office like bloatware. In order to NC to flurish they do not need to be used like current desktop PCs.

    NC are good for people who need to run forms against a database. Or perhaps has simple access to email. All of these simple tasks can be joined together with some form of workflow implementation.

    You wouldn't use a digital camera to run video game, well most people, so why try to use a NC as a workstation?
  • AFAIK, most of the problems that cause netscape to crash are due to a bus error.. caused by a problem with netscape calling malloc() in the glibc version.... It was easily fixed for me, I downloaded the libc5 version and have been merrily browsing for months without a crash. This would tend to explain the slackware/netscape "uncrashable team" since it is the only distribution that still puts the libc5 netscape in their dist. The reason, it seems, that the glibc version is under the "unstable" directory in the netscape ftp archive is for this exact reason.
  • My university currently has a large NT network deployed, all authenticating and file serving off 2 servers (for 10,000 students). It takes upwards of 15 minutes to log in -- the 486s that were hanging around when I started here actually let me get my work done faster (but God do I feel old saying that).

    Does this affect student-owned hardware as well? Are students asked/forced to login by default?

    Please contact me.

    Yours Truly,

    Dan Kaminsky
    DoxPara Research
    http://www.doxpara.com

    P.S. He has no email address listed.

  • as far as the UI is concerned, Gnome/KDE are still very poor relations of windows and IMO will remain so for quite sime time.

    NB- this is not a troll. i use all three often, and this is an objective opinion.
  • And that's the real reason for bringing it out! If everyone could afford to buy one for the car, and one for the office, and one to put in the kids back pack, and one in your good suit pocket, then it would catch on like a crazed brush fire in a stiff breeze! But then think of the possibilities; if it could run xserver, why not xclient to your home or office xserver! You could extend Linux anywhere! Why bring your desktop on a trip when you could xclient to it? Why risk even a laptop on a subway when a cheep NC has all the power of your office machine (because it is your office machine!)?

    I will be buying a ton of them too!

  • >The good thing about Larry
    >is.....ummmm...well....

    his immaculate dress sense :O)
  • It ain't for the home, unless broadband service gets really cheap and even faster than it is now (do you really want to download netscape from the server everytime you want to run it?).

    I was under the impression that Netscape was on the local drive in this particular NC.

    Also, broad-band Internet is fast becoming the standard, whether it be Cable Modem, DSL, ISDN, or satellite ( see HNS' web site [hns.com]).

    fR0993R

  • Every time I see news about NCs, I can't help but be reminded of why the computer revolution came about in the first place - to fight the centralization of computer resources that was so prevalent in the 60s.

    Now, here we are, the industry is fomenting a counter-revolution to take power back out of the hands of the users. What happens if NCs are successful? Will we have to submit batch jobs to use a Word for Windows server? Important documants delayed a week because our priorty is too low?

    Mark Edwards [mailto]
    Proof of Sanity Forged Upon Request
  • Read my post above on the other netscape post.. putting it simply... get the libc5 version not the "unstable" glibc version of netscape.. it's supposedly a problem with glibc malloc() and netscape which causes the bus errors.
  • The price includes screen, keyboard, mouse, 16bit audio and I don't need a bootp server to boot the things.

    Root fs in flash, the rest of the system coda mounted.
  • How could oracle call a system like this an NC when it doesn't fit they're NC model?

    I mean oracle and SUN's "NC" model is based around small workstations, running from a central workstation.

    In oracle and sun's visions, this includes the ability to run Java applications, which linux doesn't include a Java "Plugin" so you can't use these little boxes to acceess your "Main server" running oracle applications since they havn't released nor have any plans to release the Jinitiator or Java Plugin necessary for this to work under there "Network Computing" Environment.

    just a ploy to scam more money.. doesn't even fit their business model since it doesn't support their own system.. bah humbug.

  • I can't really deny the fact that Win98/IE is a relatively stable combination, and much more so than in the past. Microsoft does have a number of well executed ideas, and my, and many others major objection to the winblows operating system is merely that if you expect it to run stably, you can only run M$ products on it. This is primarily rumor mill feed, but I've been told that there are bits and pieces involving the way win98 works, and interfaces with programs, (Can't remember what they're called. I'm a science geek, not a computer geek.) that are heavily useful for compiling things like browsers that M$ refuses to allow other companies to have information on, thereby destabilizing 3rd party apps. Yes, what Microsoft has is damn stable, if you only use Microsoft, but that deprives you of choice, and is economically unfeasable for an NC. After all, what's the cost of Office and Win for use in a commercial environment? I know it cost me $200 for my student editions last year...

    But, as has been pointed out in other places, there are conditions where Linux/Netscape are an extremely stable pair, and these conditions are replicable. With some four star apps, like Quicken and office(Honestly, a secretary is *not* going to want vim, as nice as it is.), and an intelligent set up at the beginning, a Linux NC could be more useful, faster, stabler, and far more inutitive than any Winblows box. I don't know about you, but I find the Explorer interface to be the clunkiest, and most non-inutitive I have ever ever worked with..

    /2 cents.

  • None of the Network Computers thus far have been priced under about $800 USD.

    Much of this has been because everyone was planning to build StrongARM-based systems where they knew the CPU cost only $25, failing to realize that the only way to get costs down was to have mass production of StrongARM motherboards and other components.

    Net result: They hadn't yet generated quantities of product, so price wasn't down to an economical level to allow it to be cheap enough for anyone to even consider.

    The sort of model that they need to follow is similar to that of the Nintendo 64/Sony PlayStation game systems; those units are getting sold these days for around $100-$150, and probably are sold at around cost. Several years ago, there was an April Fools Article on Linux on Nintendo 64; [heise.de] I've had a more serious assessment [hex.net] of this for a couple years now.

    Down to details...

    Way back when, everyone thought that they should be using "cheaper" StrongARM (or perhaps MIPS or PPC) chips that were greatly cheaper than the Intel stuff. The fact that you're left custom-building motherboards was the "kiss of death" to cheapness.

    Now that prices of IA-32 chips have fallen through the floor, an Intel Celeron or AMD K6 may be economical enough.

    The big deal is to have a compact IA-32 motherboard with integrated video, perhaps sound, and integrated Ethernet, along with some FlashRAM in lieu of a hard drive.

    If there's a Taiwanese vendor selling such motherboards for $50 in quantity, add in $40 for CPUs, $15 for a plastic case, $40 for a stick of RAM, and $5 for power supply, and you've got a $150 internal cost.

    That only leaves $50 for the costs of pushing the box through retail channels, which seems low. Of course, as with Nintendo 64 and Sony Playstation, the real money comes in selling software, and it will certainly be in Ellison's interests to have both service and software offerings for these boxes so as to extract more than $200 from the average user of them...

  • > As I understand it, VNC is less like X and more of a constant-screengrab thing

    Yes and no.

    The server part on UNIX machines is just like another X server, only it pipes data through the net instead of video). Of course, you can have as many as you want running on a UNIX system (provided you have enough resources).

    OTOH, on Windows and MacOS, it grabs the whole screen, so it may be useful only as a remote administering tool (ala Pc Anywhere).

    The protocol being used actually transfers images in a way which seems to be quite efficient (but far from the efficiency obtained transfering mostly primitives). Still, it's really usable on a LAN.

    There are platform-specific clients, and there's an implementation as a Java applet that just runs fine in a web browser. The interesting thing is that the VNC server part provides also an http interface that lets a user with only a web browser to authenticate and download&execute the Java client on the fly.

  • I've got a garage full of stuff like this that no school, charity or other organization is willing to take off my hands for free. To them it's just too old.
  • But they'll put "Linux?" in the head of many PHB's.

    Gee, do you think there's room?

  • Win/IE vs. Linux/whatever continued (Score:3)

    by timothy ( 36799 ) on Thursday October 28, 1999 @08:18AM (#1582036) Journal


    "What exactly do you like better about IE / Windows than Netscape / Linux?"

    Wrong question. It is not up to users to tell developers what they want. It is the developers job to figure out what the users want. This is MS in a nutshell. They do market research to figure out what people want, implement it market it and get rich. It's a simple model. They don't let some geeks drag some buttons together and call it a browser, they have researchers specialized in designing GUIs to do that sort of stuff.

    This question you asked is a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you". UNIX is not an end user OS. It may become an enduser OS only if developers succeed in completely hiding the kernel and config file mess from users. The original poster whas right in observing that at this point Linux is an inconsistent mess compared with the win98/ie experience.




    I hope these is one of the right questions that the GUI researchers you mention are asking. Sometimes they seem to make decisions about what people like wihtout asking them first.

    Microsoft does have (smart and worthy) people doing GUI research, but I think many people would argue that this is more of an art than a science. The *nix world now has thousands of people doing practical research by releasing themes to the several existing desktop environments. You can choose how you want your computer to look and act, starting from any of many decent possible points.

    People have different preferences and find different things "intuitive," not to mention their practical needs! So there are still "geeks dragging buttons together and calling it a browser," although probably with mandates for finishing dates, corporate aesthetics, etc. And while their result may be an acceptable choice (a lot of people like IE, say), expertise among designers does not equal acceptance or agreement of users. (Think Edsel.)

    MS is probably a good fit for some people; sounds like it is for you. Great! I wish I was as happy with my computer ... .

    This question you asked is a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you". UNIX is not an end user OS. It may become an enduser OS only if developers succeed in completely hiding the kernel and config file mess from users. The original poster whas right in observing that at this point Linux is an inconsistent mess compared with the win98/ie experience.


    I honestly don't see asking the questions is "a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you"" -- I'm not a developer by any means, but I actually would like those who are developing software (for any OS!) to both pay attention to users and create programs which respect what they want. If the original poster were to do say what features he likes best / dislikes most in the browsers he's used, it might help create a better browser.

    I think failing to ask enough people those questions, or expecting users to like software or live with it anyhow is a more arrogant attitude.

    And regarding the end-userness of UNIX / Linux ... that's a thorny issue, but I think it's more complex than you make it sound. If you want to install / run Linux, you can do it very techy ways, or drooling-easy ways. For instance, pop Mandrake 6.1 into any recent PC, make a few choices, and BOOM. Not lots of rebooting like installing NT or 98. Your mileage may vary, but I find Linux much nicer to work with as a desktop OS than Win98 or NT, and I find it suits my needs well. If you don't, you don't ... but you can change it, or in the case of a company, for instance, you can hire someone to change it without paying developers fees.


    Berlin at this point is an experiment, it is years away from becoming serious competition for windows. apple, etc. XFree 4.0 is an incremental update over XFree 3.0. Sure its much better, but good enough?


    Good question, but it demands a response of "Good enough for what?" X is Good Enough to run high-end graphics programs on workstations. I see comments on improvements to / problems with X all the time here on Slashdot, am unfortunately not savvy enough to understand most of these complaints -- but X has been refined over many years and (like I said, with my midle-to-low-end ATi video card) works charmfully.

    That there are fewer cards supported than under Windows is the biggest complaint I can see about X Window (and for many of them, the "lack of support" is not utter, but only of acceleration and other proprietary features). This is changing rapidly, though -- look at the support Linux has gotten from ATi, nVidia, Matrox ...


    users just want to plug their computer in and use it like you do with an Apple. That is the ultimate userexperience (neither windows or linux provides it at this moment).


    True that neither provides this at the moment, but then again, neither does Apple anymore, with the exception of the iMac. Apple's HI is leagues above MS's, but really ...


    I like to think of myself as somewhat more critical. I don't like MS as a company but I use their products anyway and not just because I absolutley have to. If I wanted I could install linux both at home and on my work. But I don't. Why? Windows provides all I need. It's the simple truth. From a ordinary user perspective a linux install would probably be a downgrade: flaky browser, decreased software functionality (WP for linux and star office are no alternatives for ms office for serious users), lack of games.




    If it works for you, it works for you. We all have different needs. I'm not much of a gamer, and I hate the way Outlook and Word seem to crash all the time, not to mention how Word creates documents in inherently non-portable documents by default, has poorly chosen default "fuzzy-logic" settings for grammar-checking, capitalization, bullets, etc.

    And as to whether StarOffice or WordPerfect are alternatives for "serious users," what do you mean? For several reasons, I don't agree, but what makes you say it? Some people may prefer the look / feel of WordPerfect to Word (I certainly do), but that aside there are alternatives of all sorts, and think one good clue of a user's seriousness would be his attention to portability and future cost. If I were to use Word for documents I wanted to share, I would be saving them in RTF or as HTML ... books can be / have been written in emacs and other editors. Application is everything!

    I've got no real trouble with MS as a company -- selling whatever they want to whoever wants it. Some of my favorite people work there, too. I object to threats and intimidation as poor sportsmanship and in some cases they seem to have broken contracts, reneged on promises, etc. (Ask anyone who bought an Alpha to run WinNT.) but my beef with Microsoft is mostly that they sell products which I find irritating and crash-prone. (I have no sympathy with AOL or Netscape whining that MS included a Web browser that they wrote and didn't want to install the competitors' products. That's not suprizing or immoral. Neither is integrating a Web browser with the OS. I also have no problem with them insisting resellers who want to load their OS. Tough cookies, contractural obligations, etc.)

    Cheers,

    timothy

    (all of this on the assumption that this was not flamebait :) )
  • Just replying to myself here, I just installed it and tried it out. It is truly amazing. I'm just going to kill my xserver right now....

    There we are, I'm still here, even after killing my XServer! Just start up the server again, enter my password, and *POOF*.

    The only thing that this is _SUPPOSED_ to change is your speed. I _DID_ notice a big speed difference, but, strangely, it was a POSITIVE one. X now runs about 2 to 3 times as fast on my system (not claiming I get it...).

    I even tried ssh2'ing from a solaris box into my Linux box over a (rather slow) ADSL without even setting up the transfer mode properly, and it was actually usable!!! (rather slow, but if I had bothered to fix my transfer mode... Or, if I had bothered running a client on their side instead of remote-X'ing it.).

    And I've even managed to get it fairly well secured (mind you, the dedicated firewall helps that;). I don't think there's any going back now... VNC has improved my system performance, and stability, all at the same time. I can just kill my XServer and keep running! (this helps a lot, the nVidia xserver is not that great stability-wise...).

    I'm REALLY surprised that this isn't more popular, AT/T did a REALLY good job here. And its all GPL (or was that LGPL, can't quite recall...).

    And it even lets you remote-X to windows or (gasp) Mac. Or remote-windows to your unix boxen! Or even remote-whatever to a java-enabled web-browser (if you enable that, which I did not.)

    Go ahead people, try it!

  • Ah, the ultimate would be the Gray Lensmen [wheels.org].
  • Just a small repair on your posting..

    Under *UNIX* the VNC server cna have an independent display for each client connecting.

    Linux is not the whole world, bub.
  • Haven't we seen this network computer idea from larry and the oracle gang before? Didn't it flop really badly the first time?

    I thought the "network computer" had been filed away in that box marked "Wired" cover articles that never materialised, along with things like Push technology.

    I wonder what made them think it's going to work again this time? Especially curious since Larry's still on the board of Apple, whose iMac is supposed to be the penultimate computer designed for use on the Internet.

  • Netscape ?

    Wouldn't that be a problematic combination, as Linux (Unix) Netscape normally crashes every few mintes ?

  • It has something to do with Larry's ego.

  • Still interested in the Suns (Score:3)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Thursday October 28, 1999 @12:52AM (#1582045) Homepage
    I remember seeing a demonstration of a thin client Sun on ZDTV that got me thinking, "yeah, that's how it should work". The thing had a card reader; you swipe your card, you get your session back exactly where you left off without much of a wait. Yeah, I do think the card reader idea is an exceptionally bad one. It's the other part that rocks.

    My university currently has a large NT network deployed, all authenticating and file serving off 2 servers (for 10,000 students). It takes upwards of 15 minutes to log in -- the 486s that were hanging around when I started here actually let me get my work done faster (but God do I feel old saying that).

    Anyhow, this NT network doesn't do this (unfortunately, neither does Linux yet). I still have to close my apps before I can log out and start them up again when I log back in. I *like* the idea of just sitting down anyplace and picking up exactly where I left off - the same documents, the same web sites, the same work.

    It seems to me that these things are mistargeted. They should be all about seamless desktop computing at an enterprise scale, not a "cheap" computer targeted at people who can't afford a machine. Chances are that if I can scrape together $200, I can afford to do something else (like one of those pimp-myself-to-Prodigy deals). After all, if I'm dropping my hard-earned cash on a computer, why not get one that my kids can play Quake on?

    NCs belong in the office. The first business that really seriously starts targeting them as such will make a killing.

    ----

  • Not a big friend of "things that won't work on their own". But they'll put "Linux?" in the head of many PHB's.


    LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
  • The good thing about Larry is.....ummmm...well....he, uh.....wait one minute.....ok....I've got *one thing*, Larry hates Bill.
  • Netscape normally crashes every few mintes (sic)

    I hear this alot and I have to say I regularly use Netscape (v4.51 [en]-99058) with Linux Slackware 4.0 and it has hardly ever crashed.

    So guys (& gals) - what is the problem people have with Netscape under Linux. Does anyone else have a problem with Linux & Netscape and what versions are you using (Netscape & Linux Distro), I wouldn't mind betting that the buggy Netscape that I keep on hearing about is some problem with a distro or particular Netscape version.
  • 199 a pop? Wow.... I need more processing time for distributed. and I wanted an imac... hmmm This wins This has to be the worst post ive ever posted
  • The Oracle CEO also staunchly defended his company's first foray into network computers--the Oracle brainchild formerly dubbed Network Computer Inc., which was roundly criticized as a failure. But the company changed its name to Liberate in May and went public in July. Now, according to Ellison, the company is worth almost $3 billion.

    "If every bad idea I have comes back with $3 billion, I've got to keep rolling them out," he quipped.
    --

  • NC's in the enterprise is rough...I worked for a company that had deployed 500-600 NC's, and initially we tried with AIX w/ CDE and winNT, the users were much more problematic with AIX (is this because they have been brainwashed?) but the NC's were much more problematic with NT...they've still got some maturing to do before the corporate market is targeted with them.
  • Disposable computing fits fine with me, it just has to be usable in the first place.

    Okay, it run's Linux on Intel with Netscape - Hardly anything ground breaking there in terms on technology is there? So Netscape is a little unreliable under Linux is it? Fine - the product would be supported by Oracle and they are not well know for releasing crap products are they? Okay there will probably be the usual grips of which Linux distro Oracle choose to base this box on but it really doesn't matter does it.

    I'm looking forward to this hardware hitting the stores, lets hope it doesn't crash out like a "...complicated and buggy..." desktop PC.
  • Opponents of NCs always point out that before PCs existed everything was done on NCs connected to micros or mainframes, and thus a move towards NCs would be a step backward which is doomed to fail.

    I, on the other hand, think that NCs may be the missing link to connect the portion of the population who still does not own a computer with the rest of the world, for two reasons: cost, and ease-of-use.

    For alot of people /* none of whom read "/.", BTW */ spending more than a couple hundred dollars on something which they will only use to (check e-mail || engage in some e-commerce || do a little research || do some word-processing) is out of the question.

    Server-side apps can easily be written to perform these tasks in an adaquate manner, with more complex apps in the woodworks /* Watch the Sun - StarOffice integration */. Plus, it's as simple as turning on the computer and opening the application home-page with (Netscape || Arena || IE). No apps to buy, install, upgrade, etc. Sure doesn't leave much for JoeBloeConsumer to complain about.

    I know it doesn't sound like fun to us technical types, but hey, we stopped being the target market for home computer manufacturers some time ago.


    fR0993R
  • Well, many systems including Terminal Server lets you keep sessions on the server, and log back on where you last started. you can buy all sorts of dedicated terminals for WTS from various hardware makers.
    Keeping sessions for 10000 users on a server may prove to be a big waste of memory.
    Do you have 500GB of memory spare?

  • NCs are a great idea but... (Score:3)

    by trims ( 10010 ) on Thursday October 28, 1999 @01:07AM (#1582057) Homepage

    ...they're missing that critical element: usable application software.

    Let's face it, the most viable NCs possible right now are stripped-down Linux/*BSD boxes that act as X-Terminals on steriods. The hardware and the base OS/operating environment (think GNOME/KDE) is there and ready-for-prime-time. However, think who the real end user is and what they want: Stupid User Apps.

    That's right. These things go on the desktop of secretaries, marketing droids, and PHBs. People who need really-simple-to-use software that allows them to do they're job in a completely non-technical way.

    In other words, they need a good Office Suite, a fully-integrated mailer/calendar/meeting planner, a reasonable draw/paint/photo editor, and random small apps that aren't immediately obvious, but nonetheless important (Quicken, anyone?). There are apps in all the above categories available for Linux (StarOffice, Netscape, GIMP, XPaint, etc.), but let's face it, none of them can really be considered ready-for-prime time. In a year or so for several, but not for awhile for many others.

    Also, there are all those nice little specialty programs that people need that aren't available yet. I mentioned Quicken. A good D-P program like PageMaker is also a need. As is something like Visio and MS Project. These are things that the target audience uses on a daily basis, and until 1st-rate programs are available for Linux NCs, the NCs are doomed to fail.

    A long step in the right direction would be for Oracle to seriously fund the Blackdown Java project (I mean, to the tune of a dozen developers and a $1m or so). Having a seriously good JVM for Linux would really help - it would stimulate the development of Java-based apps, since the ISVs could count on having both the NC and PC markets to sell to.

    The concept is sound. If Oracle really wants it to sell, then they need to either (a) create an evnironment that ISVs will willingly plug the needed holes, or (b) fund development of such work themselves. I don't see either happening, though I could be wrong. Until then, NCs will be a curiousity.

    -Erik

  • > Opponents of NCs always point out that before PCs existed everything was done on NCs connected to micros or mainframes, and thus a move towards NCs would be a step backward which is doomed to fail.

    Yeah. But then again, it was pointed out many years ago while I was at uni that the industry swings back and forth between integrating FPUs on CPUs, between putting networking, sound, graphics (in particular) into the CPU... so just because it's the same as something that's already happened doesn't mean that it's wrong, or "doomed to fail".

    I'm not sure where you're getting at with the >$200 restriction though. Unless it's that a lot of folks have already gone out and got far more expensive toys than that to do as little as that with. But something like $200 instead of $1400 is definitely lowering the boundary between the information-haves and info-have-nots, which is probably a good thing.

  • Netscape seems stable enough to me. (Score:3)

    by LizardKing ( 5245 ) on Thursday October 28, 1999 @01:09AM (#1582059)
    One thing I have noticed is that Communicator crashed regularily under Enlightenment 0.15. This was a fairly common event when closing a window when several browser windows were open. I first put this down to Communicator bugs, but when I switched window manager to Blackbox, the crashes were markedly decreased. From suffering a crash roughly three or four times a day, now I'm down to one or two crashes a week.

    Communicator is definitely crash prone, but I put this down to the difficulty in maintaining the 'classic' version. In fact, the convoluted nature of the classic code is what prompted the drastic rewrite of Mozilla (and the consequent ignorance about why Mozilla deadlines slipped).

    As for Network Computers, they are simply a repackaged version of things like X Terminals - and could even be seen as anextension of the old dumb terminals connected to a mainframe.

    Whether we really need dedicated NC's is questionable. A friend who works runs a medium sized PC and network installation asked me just this weekend about how viable stripped down PC's running Linux would be. As recently reported on Slashdot, a UK based financial firm did just this, so now my friend wants to try it as well.



    Chris Wareham
  • For the non-computer people that want e-mail, e-commerce and surfing it's not a NC they want, but a netTV box.
    All NCs are for is so Sun and others can sell their ASP services. It ain't for the home, unless broadband service gets really cheap and even faster than it is now (do you really want to download netscape from the server everytime you want to run it?).
    Remember dumb terminals need to connect to some backend to do all the work/storage, so maybe I could use this to put a small terminal in my kitchen and connect it to my servers in my basement, but it ain't for grandpa.
    The only place I see NCs working is in the enterprise. They have fast networks (or at least can afford to build them), backend machines and woefully ignorant users.

  • Elaboration on Win/IE vs. Linux/whatever browser? (Score:3)

    by timothy ( 36799 ) on Thursday October 28, 1999 @03:20AM (#1582062) Journal
    Anonymous Coward Sean wrote:


    I just recently switched back to 'Doze and I'm actually loving it! It's *ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE* more efficient than any *nix environment I've experienced. And I consider myself a semi-old-school geek. I think it's time some slashdotters sucked it up and admitted that Microsoft actually has a pretty damned tight desktop and have helped move computing forward a hell of a lot from the days of X-Windows/Obscure Config Files. I actually am feeling a little scared right now at how much better Microsoft's desktop/browser is than the nearest competition




    Sean:

    What exactly do you like better about IE / Windows than Netscape / Linux?

    Why do you like IE better? What features would you like to be supported in a browser for it to be as good as you find IE? Have you tried any of the other browsers available for Linux, and if so how did you think they stood up either to Netscape or to IE?

    What makes Windows more efficient for you? (Desktop style? Inter-application consistency? Does it crash less for you? Better applications available for what you use your computer for?) It would be helpful for developers reading this list to know what users would like to see. [Note: I fall only into the second and not the first group.]

    I think slashdotters in general (oh what a dangerous way to start a sentence!) do think Microsoft has a "damned tight" desktop, but that's not necessarily a compliment. It's so tight, in fact, that it can't be extended or modified as extensively as Linux or other GPL'd / UNIX-based system ... MS users can't (for instance) choose between competing desktop managers; to some people this might be a good thing, to others bad.

    Also, a lot of people would point out that "the days of X Window" are still in full swing -- XFree 4.0 is coming soon! :) But there are other movements in the *nix world as well; Berlin [berlin.org] for one. In the MS world, any alternatives to the accepted desktop (with the exception of hacked desktops like ... is it called "Light98"?) have to come from Microsoft, so it's harder to experiments to get off the ground.

    In contrast, my own experience is that Linux circa mid-1999 is easier to install and more easily supports both my video card (ATi Xpert@Play 98) and my modem than Windows 98 or NT did. [Another disclaimer: I'm supremely non-intuitive with computers in general; if I weren't maybe I wouldn't note that difference.]


    Cheers,

    timothy
  • Why is it that NC's have to "win" or "lose?" Anybody who thinks that only one type of computing device will dominate in the future is a fool.

    Computing in the future will see many platforms, with multiple OS's running on them. Developers and power users will still buy standalone desktops, while basic home users will get all they need from web-enabled game consoles.

    Network computers could be a great thing in many business settings where tens or hundreds of people use identical systems. Maybe the Linux/Netscape/Oracle vision isn't quite right, but the fact is the current model won't work forever.

    Microsoft will start bleeding when the cost of ownership starts rising faster than employee productivity. By some measures this has already happened for many people and shops, and will spread. No marketing or FUD will stop that tidal wave, only a radical adjustment on Microsoft's part which leads to a better, more maintainable product.

    And isn't that what we all want anyway?

    -cwk.

  • What happens if NCs are successful? Will we have to submit batch jobs to use a Word for Windows server? Important documants delayed a week because our priorty is too low?

    How is that different from Windows now, and where it's ultimately heading?

    Remember, Windows is CLOSED. "Where do you want to go today" is not a marketing slogan... it's a TAUNT. I've had *plenty* of Word docs delayed a week because either Word or Windows NT decided it was time to reveal it's DOS-based heritage with a Blue Screen of Death. The delay is every bit as annoying as timesharing on an underpowered mainframe. Actually, it's more annoying... at least on a overworked mainframe you can gauge how long things will take and adjust.

    Besides, Windows itself is heading towards a "subscription" model. This allows Microsoft to take yet more power from the users, because as a Utility Company they can "shut you off" when you don't pay the monthly bill. Not only that, but they have legal right to come onto your property and screw with the meter.

    They're truly clever, those Microsoft folks. It's all the things they're experimenting with that truly scares me, like TEMPEST-based serial number verification they've invested in.

    Besides, many of us put up with crap service from the phone and cable monopolies.. software is just on more. :-/

  • Wouldn't that be a problematic combination, as Linux (Unix) Netscape normally crashes every few mintes ?

    I've got a netscape 4.6 session on my home Linux box that has been running for weeks, and it gets daily use. So if you are getting crashes every few minutes you must have something screwed up on your system or something.

  • Guess who hasn't used Gnome then...
  • Now, here we are, the industry is fomenting a counter-revolution to take power back out of the hands of the users. What happens if NCs are successful? Will we have to submit batch jobs to use a Word for Windows server? Important documants delayed a week because our priorty is too low?

    You're making the mistake of confusing your own beliefs and priorities with those to whom this technology is targeted.

    Do you own all of the equipment you use on a day-to-day basis to do your job? No? Oh, that's right - your company, or University, or ohter sundry organisation does, correct? And guess what - he who pays the piper calls the tunes.

    Large organisations need standardisation. Wherever you hear the words "budget", "organisation" and/or "IT Department", it's a natural consequence that control is required of the IT infrastructure within that organisation. Standardisation of Hardware, Software and even configurations of same is the only way in which control can be exercised. Consider the plight of the IT manager who is organisationally responsible for the computing infrastructure, but not for the platforms on which that infrastructure is provided. Think s/he can support that? Think s/he can provide support under those conditions to the 90% of users who don't know computers but have to use them anyway?

    Now consider the plight of the IT manager who needs to enable his/her users to communicate both amongst themselves and with the outside world. Communication here includes such things as e-mail, file exchange (think documents, or presentations, or sales data), and probably access to shared information resources (think Web, or Notes, or Exchange, or any one of any number of custom applications). Care to imagine how that can be achieved without standards? Think how many dollars it costs to send someone to a PC to change it's settings away from whatever the User thought looked nice, into something that works. In a 300,000 employee company for example.

    Right now, to provide this infrastructure most IT organisations on the planet are forced to build, distribute, support and maintain for themselves a "common platform" made up from off-the-shelf PC software: pick an OS, a productivity suite and a connectivity suite. Even so, you end up with hundreds, or thousands, or hundreds of thousands of drones^H^H^H^H^H^Hemployees wandering the planet, packing processors, disks, batteries, memory and extremely complex software configurations. All of which can be broken, lost, corrupted or altered. But at least the IT organisation knows what it *should* look like.

    IT departments are all over themselves (or at least they should be) for anything which makes this easier. Enter the NC, promising "dumb clients, smart servers". And the servers not only sit in well-maintained, well serviced locations , but they're entirely under the control of the IT organisation.

    Of course, it's a new technology, and what's more it's got to fit in and build on what IT departments have already got - can't convince the finance guys to throw out what we've got and start again, can we? Makes us look incompetent. Which is why we see these mutant abortions of solutions like Metaframe, Windows Terminal Server et al. But consider these as stepping stones on the path to a true NC nirvarna. One which can be summarised with the catchphrase "Distributed Computing. Centralised Management".

    I've been peripherally involved in an unsuccessful pilot of an NC solution which failed because the technology was too immature, the goals (replace all desktop PCs) too ambitious, the organisation too process bound and politically motivated to adapt to new technology, and because the solution proposed really wasn't easier than giving people desktops - because the investment's already been made in getting that solution working.

    All of which means "NC" is a dirty word around here, which is great. Means I can lay hands on hundreds of the things - and they make excellent X Terminals. And X-Terminals are great for running web browsers, or e-mail packages, or as telnet clients to large numbers of unix machines requiring remote administration. Or as displays for network management applications. Even in a highly computer literate organisation!

    Are NCs right for everyone? No way. Are they going to replace PCs? No chance. Are they going to result in slimmed-down IT budgets and departments? Nope - they just provide organisations with different (not necessarily "better" or "more efficient") ways of using those resources.

    If you're one of the vast majority of computer users on the planet that doesn't actually understand the computer, or even want to, but just wants to write a letter, or send an e-mail, or surf the web, then an NC or NC-like solution may be the best for you. It's like TV ownership - why should you care about how the programs get made? you just want to watch them. Or Telephones - I don't care about echo cancellation, or plesiochronous digital signalling, or time-division multiplexing,I just want to call my Mother in Australia. Why should a user have to care about configuring a network connection, or a printer, or a web browser?

    It's not a "freedom" thing, it's not about centralisation of IT. It's about providing higher and higher levels of service, and IT infrastructure in a cheap, controllable way to a large population.

    henley

  • WARNING!! I work at SUN and may be biased.

    You were referring to this [sun.com] product. I happen to think it is fscking cool. The Smart card is optional, but that is what enables the "hot desking" that appeals to you and I. Oh well, incorporate the cards into your school or work ID and don't worry to much about it. The other cool thing is:
    "In addition, the Sun Ray 1 enterprise appliance also allows access to applications running on Microsoft NT 4.0 TSE via Citrix MetaFrame technology, other UNIX® platforms, and 3270/5250 environments."



    _damnit_
  • The scary thing about this "thin client" buzz is that PHBs think it's some new great thing. Half the IS managers here are ready to just use Windows Terminal Server to run all our apps. My question is "Why didn't we do this 10 years ago when X terminals were many times cheaper than buying a PC and get the same (or better)functionality?"
    Some people just don't get it.
  • To quote the article, "The new network-computer manufacturer, which, according to Ellison, will adopt the discarded Network Computer Inc. moniker, will unveil Intel-powered machines running the Linux operating system and Netscape Navigator." They discarded the NAME "Network Computer Inc." not the actual computer.

  • The good thing about Larry is.....ummmm...well....he, uh.....wait one minute.....ok....I've got *one thing*, Larry hates Bill.

    Larry Ellison/Oracle is no better than Bill Gates/Microsoft. Oracle has done nothing, nada, zilch for open source/free software. Nothing. Ellison, like his friend Scott McNealy (rhymes with Mr. McFeely) likes to give us lip service, but they never get past it.

    Oracle has a monopoly in the database server market, which they wield to set standards and prices. Larry Ellison hates Bill Gates, but it's simply jealousy.

    As for these NC's, sounds better than the last bunch of jokes. The last set were going to run on the vaporware JavaOS product, but that never materialized (gee, I thought it was Microsoft that did the vaporware thing, silly me). And I pity anyone who has to use Netscape Navigator on anything less than an Athlon 1000 with a dedicated gigabit fiber optic net connection straight to each individual website that they'll ever visit.

    Michael

  • Of course I was being a little provocative (I found out that you need to that in order to get people to respond to your posts here).

    Of course there are versions of linux that are very good for normal users. In all the cases where linux is succesfull as an enduser OS, you hardly notice you are running linux. Settop boxes for instance are often equiped with it.

    "If it works for you, it works for you. We all have different needs. I'm not much of a gamer, and I hate the way Outlook and Word seem to crash all the time, not to mention how Word creates documents in inherently non-portable documents by default, has poorly chosen default "fuzzy-logic" settings for grammar-checking, capitalization, bullets, etc"

    Word is quite stable on my PC, I can't remember having it crash. But you are right about its intrusiveness. That's the main reason I use framemaker (which has a really poor designed GUI but offers great functionality). Anyway both alternatives you mention are also available as windows versions (only they are probably more stable on windows because the windows market is larger than the linux market).

    I'm not saying linux is a bad choice for an OS, I'm only saying that the features it offers are not that compelling for most users, especially the office/browser users. Having to use star office or wordperfect would actually be a downgrade for me.
  • "Your response is absurd. On one hand, you criticise a Unix user for requesting clairification on user needs while simultaneously claiming that Microsoft researches this very thing. You unjustifiably flame a Linux Advocate for the same thing you credit Microsoft with doing."

    Doing research is quite different from just asking a user what he wants. It is more about anticipating what a user wants. Many unix developers think ok my user wants windows and buttons, start hacking in TCL/TK and are really surprised if the users are unhappy with the result. "What are you whining, you wanted buttons I gave you buttons". This type of developer simply doesn't understand the users real needs. I see a lot of postings like "but hey, we have wordprocessors on linux, or hey, emacs is a great editor". As long as the apps for linux remain on this level, most people will continue to use windows.

    "Furthermore, your attitude about 'special purpose GUI experts' is truely the elitist sentiment here. It's also quite ironic considering how much of the early PC software base was made up by users that were also developers"

    That was 15 years ago, companies developing at that time have grown up/were bought by another company/gone bankrupt. So linux is about 15 years behind in professional attitude towards software developement (and catching up real fast). 15 years ago there was no alternative, now there is.

    "You have no real awareness of what your needs and wants are. You are an incompetent consumer, like some moron who always votes with the party line regardless of the circumstances."

    A very cheap statement. It is in line with my earlier statement "shut up you stupid user, I know what's good for you". Quite funny, you are the living proof what I just said.

    "What microsoft really does is allow other players to take the risks, create the innovations, market them and then once someone else has established that something is useful and profitable, THEN Microsoft steps in.

    You are a big Microsoft proponent. We can see the blinders from here."

    I'm not a big MS proponent. I'm a java programmer (SUN's java not j++) and a framemaker user. I do use some MS products and am quite happy with them. Windows 98 is my biggest annoyance right now since it is a bit too unstable, but otherwise I'm fine.
  • replied to the wrong post :) one up: no 85

  • Re:Still interested in the Suns (Score:3)

    by redhog ( 15207 ) on Thursday October 28, 1999 @01:09AM (#1582079) Homepage
    Tried VNC yet? You start the VNC server at some server machine. In one end, it acts like an X server, and you start your normal clients with the DISPLAY set to it. Then you connect to the other end with a VNC client. If the client dies, or is closed, the VNC server does _not_ die. When you reconnect (possibly later on, or from another client machine), your X client programs are still running.


    There are UNIX and Windows VNC servers.
    There are VNC clients for
    * Any Java enabled web browser (Java Applet)
    * UNIX (X Windowing System)
    * Windows
    * PalmPilot (And yes, you have to scroll a lot using that small screen)
  • It's good and all that Linux is starting to get some notice, but I don't exactly like the direction of this. It seems like Ellison is just trying use the inclusion of a Linux OS as a gimmick to bring some life to his hopeless network computer push. Anyway, in response to the article... I thought it was a worthless briefing which would have benefitted from the actual inclusion of any details.

    Firts, maybe it's just the vagueness of this article, but I have a lot of unanswered questions here. How will he be able to price this at $199? Obviously the answer is by cutting down on the components' quality, but I think it would be of great interest to know what actually comes with the computer. It seems that Ellision is purposely trying to be sketchy with the details so that he can pass off his new plan without actually revealling the obvious cuts from the model. Maybe he's assuming that since Linux supports less than top of the line hardware, he can skimp like hell on components to be able to price the computer at an appealing price.

    Also I would like to know how Ellison plans to address the current questions about network computing. Namely this issue of data security comes to mind. Obviously the whole mess of data will have to be stored at some central location... and if so how are they going to secure that? How does he intend to insure that users will be able to feel safe about storing all their data away on a remote server? Not to mention the potential damage that could result if one of the main servers crashed, or got cracked, etc. I can see how this would work at an office or school, but on a large scale network computing is nothing more than a pipe dream. It's a lovely sounding idea, as apparently Ellison thinks, but the whole idea is so impractical that even his little Linux marketing gimmick won't help.

    Oh well I guess Larry is gonna have to realize the whole futility of the situation someday.
  • 500 GB? Nope, not even before Taiwan started sinking to the bottom of the ocean and memory prices skyrocketed.

    It wouldn't be too tough to come up with a more intelligent network setup, though. Picture a setup with a couple dozen smaller servers chewing up most of the processing connected to a disk farm by gigabit ethernet. It's not impossible to do.

    I just think it'd be killer. Picture walking anywhere on campus and having your desktop just a few seconds away - you could buy ten of these things for what my university pays for a standard desktop.

    All you should need it fast networks and a fairly intelligent clustered-server network design (of course, the "intelligent" part puts it forever out of the reach of our CNS department).

    ----

  • I rather have a real, old good X terminal instaed. And I do have one... But it's unfourtunately black and white only...
  • Maybe, but it's not really the same thing. As I understand it, VNC is less like X and more of a constant-screengrab thing.

    No it isn't! Where would it be grabbing the screen from? It is an independent X display.

  • I don't think many of us are personally interested in these NC's (for various reasons), but they could benefit a great lot of people. There are loads of people outthere shopping for a computer 'to get onto the Internet'. These people don't do anything serious with their PC's, but still need to pay big bucks for the latest K7 or Pentium III (because nothing else is available). What do they need blazingly-fast machines for, just to run Word and type a letter to grandma... (although MS makes sure they DO need this machine just to run Word!)

    Surely NC's are not ideal for power-users, but may offer an alternative between the current PC and for example Web-TV's. Of course you'd better not run the current applications on your NC because of the load you'll put on the network; but it would be useful to develop lightweight versions of a few popular programs, especially designed to be run over a network-connection.

    Another advantage may be maintenance. It's a lot easier to maintain an NC in a large network, than it is to keep a bunch of MS-machines up and running. I, myself, manage a university-network and I can tell you, the mess students can make on a PC over a day is huge! We even rewrite the disk-images of these PC's every day to keep the system up and running. NC's would certainly put an end to this mess...

    I guess my point is that NC's aren't suitable as a replacement for standalone PC's, but they certainly Do have their applications...

  • Hm, my Netscape dies with a bus error about every tenth time I close a window... Since I tend to use the middle-mouse button for link-clicking a lot (i.e., open link in new window), this really bugs me. I run a plain Navigator (not Communicator), version 4.6. I've only heard about this on Debian systems; the same version of Navigator runs just fine at home on my vintage Slackware system. I use the same window manager (fvwm2) config on both... It's simply weird, I guess. ;^)
  • Hi, ATT research have built a system that lets you pull the plug on your box and get your session back. It's an X-proxy which dumps your whole screen into an in-memory area. You can download it from http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc.
  • Oracles development tools such as Forms and Reports run using Java for the front end. I've used a Linux box as a Java front end to Oracle Applications (not supported at the time, but I had to try it) and it works quite well.


    This is the whole Oracle concept at the moment, Java at the front and back end and the db controlling it all.

    The problems start when you think about how the software runs the front end. It basically consists of a huge jar file that gets shipped from the server and is used to run the gui. It takes a little while to initialise but once thats done its relatively ok. On PC's you can switch it to cache the jar files. You have then the chance of missing out any updates made to the files so the administration of the client comes back again. Can you cache in a similar way on NC's?


    If not what you end up with is something that is relatively ok for most of the time, but at 9am you have a complete jam as every NC in the enterprise starts dl'ing java apps.


    The other big thing is the NN thing. Windows/Linux/Any Other OS, I just can't find any combination of browser/OS thats stable

    You're just gonna end up with a whole lot of bald order entry clarks as they constantly tear their hair out at having entered 100 items in an order only to have the browser die on them when they hit the commit button. Actually, most data entry people seem to prefer character mode, nothing beats it for speed of entry. Gui's are fine for people who just submit reports now and again or enter just a few transactions a day, but real data entry people just need a keyboard that works real well and an app that never fails. Hey, Larry, make sure this box has a telnet client.


    Z

  • Is it just me, or does the term `disposable' computer not sit right with you? I still get plenty of use out of a few old 486s!"
    I still get good use out of my 486 (and even my 386 until the motherboard went bad a year ago). But the term "disposable" is the correct term, and I have no problem with it.

    There's an old saying: "One man's trash is another man's treasure". People like us love to play around (and get good use out of) older machines. We prove day in and day out that they can still be useful. My Commodore is still, in many ways, the best game machine I've ever seen.

    But for most people, each generation of PC doesn't stand a chance of running the next generation of MS Windows/Offic, and they need to upgrade. The PC hardware market is both commoditized and making technical leaps at an astounding rate. This causes hardware to become real cheap, real fast.

    And after something becomes cheap enough, not only can you not sell it to somebody, but it often becomes a pain to even give it away. At that point, it's disposable.

    Please don't actually throw any hardware away. There are plenty of charitable organizations and even individuals who would love that old piece of equipment. Yes, it takes a little bit of effort on your part, but making someone happy can have its own rewards.

    99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
    fix one bug, compile it again...

  • Re: This is a real product... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    With a $200 price tag, and reasonable performance, this could work. The "sub-$1000 PC" battles made the first generation of network computers less cost effective; especially the Corel computer which is woefully overpriced now. If this $200 system has a browser, terminal emulator, and X server built in - it will be a complete winner... I will buy a ton of them. Mark
  • Why not? I still use a (20 year old I think...) green dumb-terminal made by HP, and I have a hacked up little 386 (with an SMC ultra and an ATI Mach 64) as an Xterminal. If I could get these suckers for $200 each, then I'd probably go for one or three.
  • "What exactly do you like better about IE / Windows than Netscape / Linux?"

    Wrong question. It is not up to users to tell developers what they want. It is the developers job to figure out what the users want. This is MS in a nutshell. They do market research to figure out what people want, implement it market it and get rich. It's a simple model. They don't let some geeks drag some buttons together and call it a browser, they have researchers specialized in designing GUIs to do that sort of stuff.

    This question you asked is a clear demonstration of the arrogant attitude of software developer: "shut up you stupid user, we know what's best for you". UNIX is not an end user OS. It may become an enduser OS only if developers succeed in completely hiding the kernel and config file mess from users. The original poster whas right in observing that at this point Linux is an inconsistent mess compared with the win98/ie experience.

    "Also, a lot of people would point out that "the days of X Window" are still in full swing -- XFree 4.0 is coming soon! :) But there are other movements in the *nix world as well; Berlin for one."

    Berlin at this point is an experiment, it is years away from becoming serious competition for windows. apple, etc. XFree 4.0 is an incremental update over XFree 3.0. Sure its much better, but good enough?

    "Linux circa mid-1999 is easier to install and more easily supports both my video card (ATi Xpert@Play 98) and my modem than Windows 98 or NT did."

    Good for you, but users just want to plug their computer in and use it like you do with an Apple. That is the ultimate userexperience (neither windows or linux provides it at this moment).

    "I think slashdotters in general (oh what a dangerous way to start a sentence!) do think Microsoft has a "damned tight" desktop, but that's not necessarily a compliment."

    I like to think of myself as somewhat more critical. I don't like MS as a company but I use their products anyway and not just because I absolutley have to. If I wanted I could install linux both at home and on my work. But I don't. Why? Windows provides all I need. It's the simple truth. From a ordinary user perspective a linux install would probably be a downgrade: flaky browser, decreased software functionality (WP for linux and star office are no alternatives for ms office for serious users), lack of games. I would have a hard time convincing non techies that linux was better for them (remember "I know what's good for you"). They would probably just shrug at the increased stability argument or better performance argument (ask a non techie to descrtibe the interior of their box and cry).

    It may seem that I am a big MS proponent. I'm not, I have seriously considered using other stuff then MS stuff. I abandoned office for framemaker for instance. I'm not ready to abandon their OS though nor their browser. IE is probably the best browser for the win32 OS at this moment. Mozilla has a large coolness factor which is why I will try it when it comes but nevertheless I'm sceptical about its succes.
  • Hrm, that sounds like a good idea. I'll just set it up right now...

    First, get the software [att.com]

    Then, with a bit of hacking around, and an ssh2 server, I should be able to get it working.... Hrm, (hacks madly)... Soon I'll be able to do this. THANKS!

  • A long step in the right direction would be for Oracle to seriously fund the Blackdown Java project (I mean, to the tune of a dozen developers and a $1m or so). Having a seriously good JVM for Linux would really help - it would stimulate the development of Java-based apps, since the ISVs could count on having both the NC and PC markets to sell to.

    Isn't IBM already developing a good JDK for Linux?
    They already have JDK 1.1.8 for linux out (anybody know if it's any good) and they claim to be working on a Linux JDK 1.2.
  • oooh - so it might be a glibc2 problem then?
  • I know, i know, it's called WakeOnLAN(tm). But anyway, But it should be possible to start starting them up erlier(7a.m. or so(so that ppl can begin work after lunch:)).


    LINUX stands for: Linux Inux Nux Ux X
  • I've got two words for this: Beowulf Cluster!

    Just kidding...

    Later...

  • Enlightenment began as a rewrite of fvwm, and although they are supposed to no longer share any code, there could be similarities. These similarities (possibly in the way they handle X events) could be the cause of your Netscape crashes under fvwm2 and mine under E. I suggest giving Blackbox a whirl (http://blackbox.alug.org/), and seeing if this solves your problem. If it does, then a bug report to the fvwm2 maintainer is in order.

    Just for the record, the Communicator crashes didn't seem to occur under E 0.16, but I have upgraded from Communicator 4.51 to 4.7 since I last ran E 0.15.


    Chris Wareham
  • Well, yeah, but what does this really mean? Has this company sold a single product yet? (Not sarcasm -- I 'm really asking.) Does high stock price == good product?

    And I keep remembering that high-profile NC demo that Ellison gave a few years ago which flopped because ...drumroll... the network went down. Just because it's a great idea doesn't necessarily mean it's anything more than a great idea.

    Anyway, call me jaded, but I'm totally unimpressed by new companies with a huge market capitalization built on pure speculation. Just say "internet" and you're a billionaire. Doesn't hurt that you're already a billionaire to start with. Sing along with me: "And it won't make one bit of difference if I answer right or wrong. When you're rich, they think you really know."

Slashdot Top Deals

Your own mileage may vary.

Close