Linus Torvalds gives Windows 7 a big thumbs up

[raj11650]

Microsoft tried to torpedo the success of the Japan Linux Symposium by launching their Windows 7 product that same day. They even had setup a big promotion booth across the street from the conference center.

During a break, we decided to make some fun of Microsoft and dragged Linus over there. When we arrived there, Linus was sold immediately on the product as you can see in the picture. At least that's what the sales guy thought. He obviously had no idea who he was dealing with. But in the end Linus surprisingly did not buy a copy. Wise man!

Source

 

[smarteyeball]

I like the fact the guy behind the counter probably has no clue who that foreign devil is

 

[Zidane24]

I like the fact the guy behind the counter probably has no clue who that foreign devil is

Would have been funnier if either Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer showed up...

There would have been Mice, Keyboards, and OS boxes flying everywhere...

 

[smarteyeball]

That would be worth the price of admission to see that

 

[Jordus]

"he obviously had no idea who he was dealing with"

Nor did he care. Nor does anyone care who linus torvalds is.

 

[sup3rsprt]

The only reason he gives a thumbs up is because those are all pirated copies of Windows 7. After all, it is Japan.

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

The only reason he gives a thumbs up is because those are all pirated copies of Windows 7. After all, it is Japan.

:sarc:

You're thinking of China.

 

[fseal]

I like the fact the guy behind the counter probably has no clue who that foreign devil is

Would have been funnier if either Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer showed up...

There would have been Mice, Keyboards, and OS boxes flying everywhere...

Bill and Linus would probably have an animated discussion on various technical topics over lunch. They are both reasonable people even if their philosophies are different.

Now Ballmer and Stallman, that would be a deathmatch... or maybe a matter/anti-matter implostion on contact.

 

[sup3rsprt]

:sarc:

You're thinking of China.

lol. I'm pretty sure Japan is high up on the piracy list.

Just making a silly joke anyhow.

 

[wpurcell]

"he obviously had no idea who he was dealing with"

Nor did he care. Nor does anyone care who linus torvalds is.

Ha ha! I care!What's your server running? Likely NOT Microsoft

 

[pparks1]

Nor does anyone care who linus torvalds is.

I beg to differ with you. I certainly care. His kernel powers more of my servers than that coming out of Redmond.

 

[Jordus]

"he obviously had no idea who he was dealing with"

Nor did he care. Nor does anyone care who linus torvalds is.

Ha ha! I care!What's your server running? Likely NOT Microsoft

Server 2003. Server 2003 R2. Server 2008. Server 2008 R2.

owned.

 

[Zidane24]

"he obviously had no idea who he was dealing with"

Nor did he care. Nor does anyone care who linus torvalds is.

Ha ha! I care!What's your server running? Likely NOT Microsoft

Server 2003. Server 2003 R2. Server 2008. Server 2008 R2.

owned.

err...

Check the figures for the entire server population...Linux is still #1

 

[Jordus]

Ha ha! I care!What's your server running? Likely NOT Microsoft

Server 2003. Server 2003 R2. Server 2008. Server 2008 R2.

owned.

err...

Check the figures for the entire server population...Linux is still #1

Source?

I know that apache dominates the WEB server market but the caveat there is that apache can and is run on Windows.

I don't really have anything against UNIX/Linux for servers, i think they are a robust set of OS' for many applications.

I think linux on the desktop is a joke, though. The useability just isnt there, and may never be.

Oh and he asked what MY servers run. Thats what we run at work. We do have a couple of linux servers but thats 2 out of about 400 servers, the rest running windows.

 

[pparks1]

There is no need to argue over which is better. I think the best server is dependent upon the need at hand. I know there are a ton of SQL Servers and Exchange Servers obviously running on Windows and there are a ton of Apache, mysql, bind, and sendmail servers running on Linux.

For example, if you run a hosting facility and host Windows applications it's quite obvious that you probably would run a ton of Citrix boxes on Windows. Everything is really dependent upon the need.

My shop uses quite a number of Linux servers to host LDAP, Apache, Tomcat, Exim, MySQL, FTP and a variety of other web services. The reason we use Linux is stability, ease of setup and administration and extremely low cost.

 

[Jordus]

A lot of ours are active directory supportive or relative. I find AD to be the most robust directory services platform available, plus we mostly have windows clients so it makes sense.

I think Server 2008 will start dispelling the "unstable" reputation of windows server. I installed many 2008 servers back in june and they havnt so much as hiccuped since.

 

[jimbo45]

The only reason he gives a thumbs up is because those are all pirated copies of Windows 7. After all, it is Japan.

:sarc:

You're thinking of China.

China might MAKE them but India and Pakistan is where you can BUY them almost in any Bazaar. Can't beat those guys for their selling skills.

'Psst - want a copy of MS SQL server, Exchange server, Complete SAP ERP system with BI and portals, IBM mainframe OS'es etc etc --- 35 USD the lot- cash only on unmarked DVD's so no probs taking them on the plane home' .

BTW Apache and MySQL run quite happily on Windows as does Tomcat

For the first two -- WAMP -- is the equivalent in Windows of LAMP in Linux, (Windows/Linux Apache MySQL Php) and a common system using Tomcat in Windows is vmware server version 2.


Cheers
jimbo

 

[Win7User512]

"But in the end Linus surprisingly did not buy a copy. Wise man!"

That's because he pre-ordered his!

Anyway, how long before we see "I'm a Linux (or Penguin) and I'm a PC" commercials?

 

[pparks1]

I think Server 2008 will start dispelling the "unstable" reputation of windows server. I installed many 2008 servers back in june and they havnt so much as hiccuped since.

I don't think that Windows servers are really regarded as unstable. Windows 2000 was good and 2003 has been solid as a rock.

BTW Apache and MySQL run quite happily on Windows as does Tomcat

While they can run quite happily on Windows...the real question is whether it's advantageous to do this. Overwlemingly I say NO...because of 1). cost of Windows licensing (Hundreds of dollars per box) 2). overhead of Windows versus linux 3). installed footprint on the server. (10GB+ for Windows Server, 1.5GB or less usually for Linux) 4). Ease of administration...with Linux it's just a couple of text files which contain the entire configuration of Apache, MySQL and Tomcat. Copy them over and you are done...none of that clicking here and clicking there and choosing this and choosing that. 5). ability to use tools like grep, awk and tail...which are all invaluable as a server admin trying to parse logs and gather information.

With a virtual server, i can run quite a few more Linux hosts than I can with Windows on the same server because the memory requirements are lower and the hard drive footprint is about 70% less.

 

[Jordus]

1.) cost is moot, if you buy support from the companies that distribute the version of linux or if you purchase an enterprise ready OS like redhat.

2 and 3 are the same thing, but both are moot because hard drive space is incredibly inexpensive these days and 10gb is nothing. RAM also isnt very expensive and besides that, Server 2008 64-bit uses about 400-500mb at idle in my experience.

4. I'll give you that one, IIS is a pain in the rear to config most of the time but I havnt used apache on windows much ever.