|
Patch reliability is unclear. Unless you have an immediate, pressing need to install a specific patch, don't do it. |
MS may be “out pricing” themselves if CERN is ditching Windows and others may follow.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/368987/cern-is-ditching-microsoft-due-to-10x-higher-license-fees
The largest particle physics laboratory in the world and home of the Large Hadron Collider can’t afford Microsoft’s software licensing fees anymore.
Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
All W10 Pro at 22H2,(2 Desktops, 1 Laptop).
It just say’s “Many open Source programs” so I would guess that Linux may among them.
Don't take yourself so seriously, no one else does 🙂
All W10 Pro at 22H2,(2 Desktops, 1 Laptop).
so I would guess that Linux may among them
CERN is using Linux for ages and even developed some like CERN CentOS..
Charlie #1844183 : I am part of the “scientific community” in question, and that information is exactly right, particularly for those scientists and engineers working in Europe. Not only we use Linux but, as in my case for example, working for the government in the USA, we also use macOS quite a bit, as it is a UNIX-like language supported by a large organization (Apple in this case), the kind the government IT watchdogs prefer to have contracts with. The macOS UNIX-like command-line is ready accessible through the “Terminal” application (the equivalent of Windows DOS application “cmd.exe”). These days, I do most of the work that requires writing software using macOS, and when necessary move the source to a LINUX machine and compile it there, to obtain an executable I can share with those collaborating colleagues that run some LINUX distro. Most system calls are identical, making it very easy to port the source code, often unchanged, from macOS to LINUX (or also to BSD/FreeBSD) and vice versa.
Windows is available in the US government, as well (it being supported by another big organization: MS) but many groups, including the one I work with, prefer to use LINUX and, or macOS.
Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).
MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV
IBM reported switching to Macs, and they say they saved money despite the higher initial cost.
Ernie Ball, manufacturer of guitar strings, switched to Linux after BSA (Business Software Alliance, founded by Microsoft) operatives “audited” them and found what they consider to be violations of their arcane, Byzantine licensing requirements, coerced a settlement out of them (would you want to go to court against Microsoft lawyers if you were a relatively small company like Ernie Ball?), then chose to name and shame the company to make an example of them in their advertising.
This is how Microsoft treats its supposed corporate “partners?” They write licensing rules and contracts that make US IRS (Internal Revenue Service) regulations look simple and straightforward, then they send enforcers to your place of business to look for a reason to coerce even more money from you, then use the example to try to scare other businesses into paying? And as a Microsoft customer, you’re expected (and obligated to, by the terms of the contract, presumably) permit this to go on?
Are these racketeers running a protection scheme? It’s hard to tell the difference, other than that this racket runs under the guise of legality. At least with actual mobsters, there was a chance that some law enforcement official somewhere would be willing to stand up to them. No such help here, though.
With “partners” like this, who needs enemies? Everyone likes to say that Linux can’t do this or Linux can’t do that… but what about what the makers of Linux won’t do to you that your existing “partner” will, cheerfully? New software that does do the things that are needed can be developed, or existing software can be modified, especially when it’s open source. It takes money, but how much is it worth to not have to play the protection scheme game and to be dependent on a predatory entity like Microsoft?
Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)
..and so, the abandoning of Microsoft has begun. Can’t say this couldn’t be seen coming years ago and they deserve what they have coming to them.
According to Ascaris #1844661 : “IBM reported switching to Macs, and they say they saved money despite the higher initial cost. ”
And here there is something about that:
IBM was the original home of Bill Gates’ DOS operating system, before he was “The” Bill Gates. So such a turnabout would be rather historical, I would think.
Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).
MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV
After I wrote that post yesterday, I looked for some more info on the former joint venture between Microsoft and IBM that was supposed to provide us with OS/2 and propel IBM back to the top of the PC market they invented, but that instead got us MS Windows and a PC market with no IBM PCs (by that name or by the newer PS/2 moniker) nor OS/2 in it.
I found this Ars Technica article, and it’s an interesting read. I’d seen the story before from other sources, but there are always new angles and details that come up, and this one highlighted IBM’s inability to fully conceptualize the PC as a standalone computer that didn’t need a big (IBM) mainframe somewhere to reach its full potential. IBM was the mainframe king, and the role they envisioned for their PC was as a more capable kind of terminal that still had its tether to the mother ship, and they failed to grasp what Microsoft was doing, and why.
The article says that IBM didn’t even perceive that MS Windows 3.0 was a threat, even though MS was supposed to be developing OS/2 with IBM. After all, Windows 3.0 would be adding to the capabilities of their PS/2 offerings, right? When IBM proposed to MS that Big Blue get exclusive rights to Windows, though, the way that IBM could only wish they’d had the foresight to do with PC-DOS/MS-DOS, Microsoft refused. From the way it was described in Ars, it seems that IBM genuinely expected MS to agree to this.
MS had made a fortune selling MS-DOS to every OEM in the PC market except IBM, which had purchased the rights to the IBM-only version “PC-DOS” outright, with the stipulation that MS would also be allowed to sell it to anyone it wanted. It had initially seemed like a sweet deal for IBM, almost a “sucker” move from what must have seemed like the “lightweight” Gates. Who would buy MS-DOS if PC-DOS came with every new PC sold anyway?
Who indeed. IBM was thinking like Big Blue, the mainframe maker, and they didn’t grasp where Gates was coming from when he asked for the rights to distribute MS-DOS independently as part of the PC-DOS agreement in lieu of a per-copy royalty as IBM had expected.
From that perspective, it would have been foolish for MS to grant exclusive distribution rights for Windows 3.0 to IBM. Gates had bet big on a PC market outside of the IBM offerings, and it had paid off in spades. MS knew all too well that there was a pile of money to be made in the clone market in addition to the “genuine” PS/2s, which would also be able to run Windows, so it almost seems quaint that IBM would ever have thought otherwise.
Finally, IBM “got” what was going on. They considered MS to be a partner in developing an OS for their new PS/2, just as they had for the PC series before, but their own partner became their greatest competition in the OS space. It was a battle that IBM lost, and they lost on the hardware front also, with the PC market that had flourished because of openness rejecting a return to the proprietary dungeon IBM was trying to put them in. The genie was already out of the bottle, and it was not going back in.
IBM’s example of not locking down the architecture to prevent clones on the original PC series was something Apple had learned quite well by the time they released their first Macintosh.
Dell XPS 13/9310, i5-1135G7/16GB, KDE Neon 6.2
XPG Xenia 15, i7-9750H/32GB & GTX1660ti, Kubuntu 24.04
Acer Swift Go 14, i5-1335U/16GB, Kubuntu 24.04 (and Win 11)
Ernie Ball, manufacturer of guitar strings, switched to Linux after BSA (Business Software Alliance, founded by Microsoft) operatives “audited” them and found what they consider to be violations of their arcane, Byzantine licensing requirements, coerced a settlement out of them (would you want to go to court against Microsoft lawyers if you were a relatively small company like Ernie Ball?), then chose to name and shame the company to make an example of them in their advertising.
This is one of the reasons that I read every EULA for every piece of software that I install on any of my computers: if it contains the word “audit” in it, the software is immediately disqualified from consideration.
It’s a mystery to me why these audit clauses are included even in supposedly free (non-paid) versions of software; the first time I ran across one of these Audit Clause critters was for VMware Player. There was no exception in their EULA for the free Player. I tried calling them to ask why they would demand that I keep records of my usage of the software, and that I let them audit such usage, if I had not even been required to pay for the software. The first couple of secretaries or whatever that I reached, insisted that they would not audit a user of their Player. But then I would ask why they don’t state that unequivocally in the EULA for the Player, and all I got was further reassurance not backed up by anything.
I tried to reach a variety of VMware sales and other offices; eventually they stopped answering the phone, even new VMware offices I was trying to reach in different parts of the country. It’s as if they had placed a company-wide block on my phone number.
A reasonable question would be why they would want to audit the user of a free product; my response to that question would be to ask why they would put an audit clause in the EULA for a free product in the first place.
.
.
Seriously? “The CERN Data Centre is the heart of CERN’s entire scientific, administrative, and computing infrastructure. All services, including email, scientific data management and videoconferencing use equipment based here.
The 230 000 processor cores and 15 000 servers run 24/7. Over 90% of the resources for computing in the Data Centre are provided through a private cloud based on OpenStack, an open-source project to deliver a massively scalable cloud operating system.”
Donations from Plus members keep this site going. You can identify the people who support AskWoody by the Plus badge on their avatars.
AskWoody Plus members not only get access to all of the contents of this site -- including Susan Bradley's frequently updated Patch Watch listing -- they also receive weekly AskWoody Plus Newsletters (formerly Windows Secrets Newsletter) and AskWoody Plus Alerts, emails when there are important breaking developments.
