From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Jun 11 02:11:45 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id CAA27262 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:11:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail-gw2.pacbell.net (mail-gw2.pacbell.net [206.13.28.53]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id CAA27255 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:11:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jackv@earthling.net) Received: from eliot.pacbell.net (ppp-206-170-1-16.snfc21.pacbell.net [206.170.1.16]) by mail-gw2.pacbell.net (8.8.8/8.7.1+antispam) with SMTP id CAA11179; Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:10:56 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jack Velte" To: "Wes Peters" , "Dave" Cc: Subject: Re: gartner group article Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 02:03:15 -0700 Message-ID: <01bd9517$c4f949a0$1001aace@eliot.pacbell.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.71.1712.3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.1712.3 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >Dave wrote: >> >> Forgive me if this has been discussed- I've been out of the >> mix for a bit. Just wondering if anybody had any thoughts on >> the gartner group article linked from the FreeBSD website. >> (This seems worthy of a 'chat'.) >> I refer specifically to >> http://advisor.gartner.com/inbox/articles/ihl2_6398.html >> >In it they say such things as: >"Unix systems at free or minimal charge will lack the performance >tuning, scalability and hardware platform support to make them suitable >for large commercial applications through 2002 (0.9 probability). there is only a 10% chance notFreeBSD, FeeBSD, will succeed. 'minimal charge' implies no free unix company yet services high end accounts at $250/hour or more. > Linux will not displace mainstream commercial Unix versions from IBM, >Hewlett-Packard, Sun Microsystems and The Santa Cruz Operation in the >next five years as commercial Unix vendors shift focus to Windows NT (0.8 >probability)." i like the probabilities on these predictions. i agree with this one, too. they don't say anything about FreeBSD, though. a serious FreeBSD would hurt sco, hwp, sunw, and msft. >While the >development of SMP support in -current has been herculean this is good news. are there any programmers writing hardware neural net code? >that even our intrepid -core members will have the time or machine >resources to tune FreeBSD-SMP for machines with 64, 128, or 256 >processors. even if they were paid $400/hour? >Their conclusions about NT in this arena are colored a bit by >Microsoft marketing hype. The 'trade press' at MIT's business school, they teach NT is 100% better than anything else. but it's such a fraud. > seems far too willing >to believe Microsoft has tamed the 'thousand monkeys' approach to >developing large software projects. In fact, I'll go so far as >to coin "Wes Peters corollary to Brooks Law:" > >"Adding thousands of programmers to a slow program makes it slower." how many people actually work on the FreeBSD operating system? -jack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message