My employer completed migration of apps to Linux - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on My employer completed migration of apps to Linux - Ubuntu ; "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message news:5E6Pk.82837$XB4.79915@bignews9.bellsouth.net. .. > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out > this bit o' wisdom: > >> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available >> for general purpose computers ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 250

Thread: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

  1. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux



    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:5E6Pk.82837$XB4.79915@bignews9.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >> other scripting environment out there.

    >
    > You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    > check-boxes, *on Windows only*.
    >
    > So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and
    > zsh
    > don't have?


    It doesn't really matter as windows also has Pearl, Python, ruby, bash, etc.
    so power shell is in addition.
    You must realise that all the good open source is exactly that open source,
    and it runs on windows and other OSes not just the linux kernel.




  2. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 09:08:17 +0100, John Kloosterman wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0500, Ignoramus27079 wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Interesting. You seem to live up to your name. See below:
    >>>

    >> [snipped a lot of crap]
    >>
    >> Dot't you get it in your thick scull?
    >>
    >> He Likes Linux and don't want to use Windows. Thats it!
    >> Nothing more, nothing less.

    >
    > I think the thickness is on yours. You've just succinctly stated my point.
    >
    > He had a pre existing prejudice against Windows, and he seemed to
    > deliberately engineer his solutions in ways that would make them perform
    > worse on Windows.
    >


    How you come to that conclusion i'm not sure. Looks to me like he
    (and his staff) have written some very transportable apps to avoid being
    locked in to any one solution - and that for him, Linux does the best
    job of running them.

    >> Why does he have to defend his choice as Linux is obviously
    >> working for him? Is it a crime not to use windows?

    >
    > Of course not, but don't claim Linux is "better" when you didn't use
    > Windows in the way it was designed to be used. It's like someone claiming
    > they tried to use Linux for their apps (running under Wine) and that things
    > just work better under Windows.
    >


    When the OP says under Windows CPU usage is ~60% and under Linux CPU
    usage is ~5%, that sounds like a hell of a lot of code rewriting just
    for Windows performance. And that's the obvious problem with
    Micro$oft... everything seems to have to be proprietary.

    > That's not the fault of Linux (though it may be partially the fault of
    > Wine).
    >
    >> It looks to me like you are trying to say that...

    >
    > That's because you can't seem to understand the point.
    >
    >> Seems to me like you are a arrogant (and maybe paid?)
    >> windows user trying to bash a Linux user for his (also in my
    >> opinion) good choice. Now - go home to your beloved Richmond
    >> an go play with the other brainless guys over there...

    >
    > Yes, of course. Why is it whenever peoples conceptions are challenged,
    > they immediately start calling people paid shills? Talk about "arrogance"
    > to believe that you matter so much to a company like Microsoft that they
    > would pay people to argue with you.



    --
    Norman
    Registered Linux user #461062

  3. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    > for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    > other scripting environment out there.


    Wanting to learn more about powershell, I went to the FAQ
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv....aspx?pf=true#

    I clicked on "How much will Windows PowerShell cost?"

    and it refused to answer. (It just pointed me to
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv....aspx?pf=true#
    again. Clicking on "View all answers" doesn't help. )

    I'm using Firefox on Linux.

    > Sounds more like you're either ignorant (thus your name) or lying or maybe
    > both.


    Perhaps it's a conspiracy by Microsoft to keep us Linux people
    ignorant . :-)



  4. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > The problem is that standard C functions do not map well to the Windows
    > Async API's. The same is true of using Async API's under Linux or Mac. If
    > you want the best performance on any platform, you have to ditch portable
    > API's and use the platform specific stuff.


    Please drink this Kool-Aid.



  5. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > He had a pre existing prejudice against Windows,


    Perhaps it's better to say that he has a prejudice against proprietary
    single-vendor solutions.


  6. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 09:08:17 +0100, John Kloosterman wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0500, Ignoramus27079 wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Interesting. You seem to live up to your name. See below:
    >>>
    >>>

    >> [snipped a lot of crap]
    >>
    >> Dot't you get it in your thick scull?
    >>
    >> He Likes Linux and don't want to use Windows. Thats it!
    >> Nothing more, nothing less.
    >>

    >
    > I think the thickness is on yours. You've just succinctly stated my point.
    >
    > He had a pre existing prejudice against Windows, and he seemed to
    > deliberately engineer his solutions in ways that would make them perform
    > worse on Windows.



    Huh?

    I prefer Linux over Windows, but that certainly doesn't make me
    "prejudice" against Windows.

    What it makes me is very experienced. No "pre"judging whatsoever.

    Same goes for some 10 years experience with Macs even before Windows.

    I prefer Linux, and I'm certainly not "prejudiced" in my wisdom from
    hands-on experience.

    Oh, the stupid advocacy crossposts (flame bait) were removed.


    --
    John

    No Microsoft, Apple, AT&T, Intel, Novell, Trend Micro, nor Ford products were used in the preparation or transmission of this message.

    The EULA sounds like it was written by a team of lawyers who want to tell me what I can't do. The GPL sounds like it was written by a human being, who wants me to know what I can do.

  7. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 20:45:55 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    >> check-boxes, *on Windows only*.

    >
    > Yes, it's windows only.
    >
    >> So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and zsh
    >> don't have?

    >
    > Actually, you are mixing shells with scripting languages. They're two
    > different things, though shells do have scripting languages in them (often
    > quite capable, but limited.. which is why full blown scripting languages
    > exist)


    No, I'm not mixing them up. Python and Ruby have their own shells you can
    run.

    > Also, you can use Perl, Python, Ruby, C#, VB, Eiffel, or any of the dozens
    > of other .NET languages with Powershell as well.
    >
    > The thing that makes Powershell so.. well.. powerful is it's universal
    > binding system (comparable at a certain level to the old Amiga ARexx
    > system) as well as it's object oriented nature. Powershell can use objects
    > from any .NET compiled library.


    There's the deal-killer.

    > Here's a quick review by a Linux oriented person.
    >
    > http://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/7...PowerShell.pdf


    Cool two-pager.

    Conclusions

    In one respect, PowerShell relies on the Unix concept that many small
    utilities are preferable to one large, custom-ma utility. At the same
    time, it adopts an o ject-oriented approach that makes larg scale
    projects simpler at the cost of a steeper learning curve. The major problem
    with objects is that you need to invest significant time in
    discovering which function or object you need. The Get-Member cmdlet is
    likely to see much use in PowerShell.

    Bash is useful as a plain but straight-forward tool for most daily
    tasks. If it comes to the need for advanced uses and complex data
    structures, you can branch out into object-oriented Python or the
    graphical capabilities of Tcl/Tk.

    > While the actual shell window itself is pretty crude, there are several
    > replacements such as:
    >
    > http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/


    I tried that one on XP. It was a bit krufty, so I didn't use it for long.

    >
    >
    >> An extension repository such as CPAN? Numerical libraries like Python?

    >
    > You can use all of them.


    That's cool, but I think I'd rather use them standalone.

    >> Looking at this feature matrix, it looks comparable to zsh, Python and
    >> Ruby.
    >>
    >> Blows the doors off of any other scripting environment out there? Sounds
    >> like you're drooling again. It's a Windows-only tool.

    >
    > If your only requirement is cross platform capability, then maybe you've
    > got a point. Personally, I don't care, i'd rather use the best tool for
    > the job on any given platform.


    Well, I'd bet that PowerShell is a great tool for the post-Windows-2000
    sysadmin, once you get past the learning curve.

    However, for dealing with a broad set of tasks (e.g. dealing with
    file-manipulations or data), I'd rather have something I can take with me.

    I'm not sure either of our groups at work are using Powershell. I'll have
    to ask the "other" group. Our group uses DOS batch (with extensions that
    won't work for the die-hards that still use Win 2000) on the Windows side,
    and bash and perl on the Linux side. One of our perl tools that converts
    our source code to new coding conventions was developed on the Linux side,
    but works on Windows, too.

    --
    The only thing better than love is milk.

  8. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    > news:5E6Pk.82837$XB4.79915@bignews9.bellsouth.net. ..
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    >> check-boxes, *on Windows only*.
    >>
    >> So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and
    >> zsh don't have?

    >
    > It doesn't really matter as windows also has Pearl, Python, ruby, bash, etc.
    > so power shell is in addition.
    > You must realise that all the good open source is exactly that open source,
    > and it runs on windows and other OSes not just the linux kernel.


    Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    "Well, I'm under house arrest, but at least I have internet connectivity."



    Damn, this sigmonster reads my mind so often it is positively *freaky*!

    --
    It is better to wear chains than to believe you are free, and weight
    yourself down with invisible chains.

  9. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux



    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..


    > Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?


    Why not?
    There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.




  10. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Cork Soaker illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
    > Christopher Hunter wrote:
    >
    >> Bizarrely, a recent Windows port of an app that I wrote ran /much/ better
    >> under Wine than it did on Windows XP!

    >
    > I've seen this with many applications. I assume it's because my screen
    > isn't full of pointless effects, and my page file isn't being hammered
    > every time I open a file, change an application, breathe and so on.


    Indeed. Photoshop CS2 seems to run *far* quicker under WINE for me.

    --
    "Chopsticks are one of the reasons the Chinese never invented custard."
    Spike Milligan

  11. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    > news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >
    >> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    >
    > Why not?
    > There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.


    Because it works better on Linux.

    Trust me.

    --
    Advice from an old carpenter: measure twice, saw once.

  12. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >> news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>
    >>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    >>
    >> Why not?
    >> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.

    >
    > Because it works better on Linux.
    >
    > Trust me.
    >


    Apart from the fact that not "most OSS" runs fine on windows (I seriously
    doubt that *anything* runs fine on Vista). OSS running fine on windows is
    for the most part *not* of the GUI type. Only the very best GUI apps are
    ported to windows, since until relativly few years ago it was quite some
    work to have a GUI app running on windows and X.

    So, most "fine on windows working OSS" is not GUI. And far from being "most
    OSS". I guess it is not even half of it
    --
    A fool-proof method for sculpting an elephant:
    first, get a huge block of marble; then you chip
    away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.


  13. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:58:34 -0500, Maxwell Lol wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >
    >> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >> other scripting environment out there.

    >
    > Wanting to learn more about powershell, I went to the FAQ
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv....aspx?pf=true#
    >
    > I clicked on "How much will Windows PowerShell cost?"
    >
    > and it refused to answer. (It just pointed me to
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv....aspx?pf=true#
    > again. Clicking on "View all answers" doesn't help. )


    It's a free download. You need a windows license, of course, but there's
    no additional cost for it.


  14. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux



    "PeterKöhlmann" wrote in message
    news:490dea03$0$31862$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >>> news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>>
    >>>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?
    >>>
    >>> Why not?
    >>> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.

    >>
    >> Because it works better on Linux.
    >>
    >> Trust me.
    >>

    >
    > Apart from the fact that not "most OSS" runs fine on windows (I seriously
    > doubt that *anything* runs fine on Vista). OSS running fine on windows is
    > for the most part *not* of the GUI type. Only the very best GUI apps are
    > ported to windows, since until relativly few years ago it was quite some
    > work to have a GUI app running on windows and X.
    >
    > So, most "fine on windows working OSS" is not GUI. And far from being
    > "most
    > OSS". I guess it is not even half of it


    Trying to prove how little you know?

    Gimp, OO, pan, and loads more all work fine on vista.
    Maybe you want to state which don't?
    > --
    > A fool-proof method for sculpting an elephant:
    > first, get a huge block of marble; then you chip
    > away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.
    >


  15. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?
    >>>
    >>> Why not?
    >>> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.

    >>
    >> Because it works better on Linux.
    >>
    >> Trust me.

    >
    > Apart from the fact that not "most OSS" runs fine on windows (I seriously
    > doubt that *anything* runs fine on Vista). OSS running fine on windows is
    > for the most part *not* of the GUI type. Only the very best GUI apps are
    > ported to windows, since until relativly few years ago it was quite some
    > work to have a GUI app running on windows and X.


    Well, cygwin helps a lot with that.

    > So, most "fine on windows working OSS" is not GUI. And far from being "most
    > OSS". I guess it is not even half of it


    It would be interested to see some numbers.

    Do you think what you said is true even if you subtracted out the obvious
    system-specific stuff (drivers and stuff like Valgrind)?

    By the way, speaking of Cygwin:

    http://x.cygwin.com/

    Cygwin/X is without a maintainer and is currently in an unsupported
    state.

    How did this happen?!

    http://www.starnet.com/info/X-Win32V...FQIfswod_Evb1g

    X-Win32 vs. Cygwin/X

    At StarNet, we frequently hear that people download X-Win32 and then
    settle for Cygwin/X, despite its limitations and buggy performance. When
    we ask these users why they have made this decision, we typically hear
    "...well, Cygwin/X is free!"

    But, why give an engineer, developer, or network administrator who you
    are paying $100,000 or more per year a buggy X server with limited
    functionality and capability...just because it's free?

    As these users begin to realize this, we find that they come back and
    purchase X-Win32.

    So, if you are considering going with the free option of Cygwin/X,
    consier the following:

    * With X-Win32 you are getting the top-rated PC X server for about
    $200 or less
    * The increase in raw speed and the productivity gains through
    X-Win32's many features make it pay for itself many times over
    * At StarNet, we stand by our products and back them with
    superior technical support

    Cygwin/X was developed by a couple of brilliant X11
    programmers. We should know because we hired them, and they
    continued to develop X-Win32 into the best PC X server
    solution, offering unmatched performance, security and
    innovative features not found in other PC X servers such as
    the ability to suspend and resume sessions, recover sessions
    after a Windows or network crash, move sessions to another PC
    and share your sessions with others.

    --
    You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the
    Titanic had paying customers.

  16. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux



    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:JgnPk.60339$De7.52072@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >>
    >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    >>> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>>
    >>>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >>>>
    >>>>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?
    >>>>
    >>>> Why not?
    >>>> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.
    >>>
    >>> Because it works better on Linux.
    >>>
    >>> Trust me.

    >>
    >> Apart from the fact that not "most OSS" runs fine on windows (I seriously
    >> doubt that *anything* runs fine on Vista). OSS running fine on windows is
    >> for the most part *not* of the GUI type. Only the very best GUI apps are
    >> ported to windows, since until relativly few years ago it was quite some
    >> work to have a GUI app running on windows and X.

    >
    > Well, cygwin helps a lot with that.
    >
    >> So, most "fine on windows working OSS" is not GUI. And far from being
    >> "most
    >> OSS". I guess it is not even half of it

    >
    > It would be interested to see some numbers.


    You won't get them from kolman.
    He has already altered the quotes to suit his trolling in case you failed to
    notice.
    It started as most of the *good* OOS runs on windows but that doesn't suit
    his trolling.




  17. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:59:21 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    > news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >
    >
    >> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    >
    > Why not?
    > There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.


    So do viruses, trojans, DRM, WGA, and probably more than a few Microsoft
    and US government back doors.

    --
    Slackware: An ancient geek word meaning, "Ubuntu is too easy"

  18. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Jim Moss wrote:
    > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:59:21 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >> news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>
    >>
    >>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    >> Why not?
    >> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.

    >
    > So do viruses, trojans, DRM, WGA, and probably more than a few Microsoft
    > and US government back doors.
    >

    The truth is that Linux is a great server, but struggles as a dektop due
    to lack of apps.

    Windows is the other way round, mediocre desktop, but preferred cos all
    the apps do run on it. Lousy as a server. Which it was never designed to
    be. really, despite all the NT bollocks

  19. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux



    "Jim Moss" wrote in message
    news:rPKdnWg72tGJkpPUnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.co m...
    > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:59:21 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >> news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>
    >>
    >>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    >>
    >> Why not?
    >> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.

    >
    > So do viruses, trojans,


    They also run on linux despite what you may think.

    DRM,

    Ah yes the lack of the stuff stops linux from playing things like hi def
    downloads on the bbc.

    > WGA,


    A waste of time.

    > and probably more than a few Microsoft
    > and US government back doors.


    Care to name any?
    I bet there are lots of people looking for them but no one has found them
    yet.





  20. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On 2008-11-02, dennis@home wrote:
    >
    >
    > "Jim Moss" wrote in message
    > news:rPKdnWg72tGJkpPUnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@supernews.co m...
    >> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 16:59:21 +0000, dennis@home wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >>> news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?
    >>>
    >>> Why not?
    >>> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.

    >>
    >> So do viruses, trojans,

    >
    > They also run on linux despite what you may think.


    Under Wine? Name one single in-the-wild virus that runs on Linux.

    > DRM,
    >
    > Ah yes the lack of the stuff stops linux from playing things like hi def
    > downloads on the bbc.
    >
    >> WGA,

    >
    > A waste of time.


    Time you don't have to waste on Linux.

    >> and probably more than a few Microsoft
    >> and US government back doors.

    >
    > Care to name any?
    > I bet there are lots of people looking for them but no one has found them
    > yet.


    Just look in C:\Windows\sources ... wait ... how should someone find a
    hidden backdoor without the source code?

    --
    v4sw5RUYhw2ln3pr5ck0ma2u7Lw3+2Xm0l6/7Gi2e2t3b6AKMen5+7a16s0Sr1p-5.62/-6.56g6OR

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast