Reinventing Productivity

A big CEO has been reported to claim his company will “reinvent productivity”. For the greater certainty, this is the company that forced a very unproductive OS (full of vulnerabilities and just plain bugs) on the world by means legal and illegal. I have news for him. Productivity in software was invented long ago. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Richard Stallman came up with the beautiful concept that Free Software should be defined by a licence to permit use, examination, modification and distribution, abolishing all kinds of barriers to productivity:

  • bugs can’t hide,
  • no corporation can tax your use of your hardware, and
  • no irrelevant restrictions on what you can do with hardware you own sap your time/money/energy.

The concept is beautiful still and underlies all the hot technologies out there: GNU/Linux on just about everything and Android/Linux on a thousand million small cheap mobile computers and nearly doubling every year. It’s the right way to make software. Everyone needs it. Everyone can create Free Software and share it with the world. There isn’t any better way to be productive with computers than to start and end with software that works for you and not for someone else. It’s your computer. It should work for you. Free/Libre Open Source Software guarantees your computer will work for you.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Reinventing Productivity

  1. DrLoser wrote, I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the ratio of Linux LAMP servers to Windows WAMP servers …is …
    … er …
    … roughly one to one.

    LAMP:WAMP = 1:1 is pretty strange. If one has already paid the tax for that other OS on the server, why not use IIS? Why use Apache at all? OTOH, if using GNU/Linux one can’t use IIS so LAMP makes a lot of sense (NGINX works too). Of course, I and many others hate that other OS and IIS with a passion because we want to control our servers and not let M$ mess with them. Further Apache runs about 60% of web servers serving active sites. Go to Netcraft’s list of the million busiest and see how many run that other OS. Also, the top 43 hosting sites use that other OS only 4 time compared to 27 time for GNU/Linux. So, I think DrLoser is out to lunch.

  2. oiaohm says:

    DrLoser due to more complete support of virtio than windows in hyper-visor setups more Linux solutions can run than Windows. Items like zram resulting in Linux avoiding using slow swap like harddrives of either form(ssd or old spining disc). More heavier usage of RCU in drivers in Linux compare to Windows.

    All these differences add up so a Lamp server in fact will support more connections than a wamp server if it configured correct. There have been in fact broad compares using Durpal and the like that even have put IIS into the mix.

    There are a lot of bad Linux bench numbers out there that are done inside virtual machines on Windows. One of the other things to watch is IIS on Windows will return by default when it gets overloaded error pages. Most Linux Distributions by default is stubborn and responds to all possible this is bad at times but is also good if running in a load balanced setup where the load balancer does the error pages when the cluster gets overloaded. Why is it good in the case a server responding hey I am not processing this forces the load balancer to reallocate request and if it has to do this many times welcome to serous traffic mess.

    Linux Distributions are better in clusters of HTTP servers out box not perfect for solo servers.

    The bench numbers showing windows doing better than Linux can be as simple as one setting on Linux to tell it to give up on packets when its over a particular load point so it does not get major-ally behind. Of course in a load balancer setup send to load balancer don’t send me more packets for a while instead and catch up.

    Its not very simple to benchmark web server properly at all. Why web-servers operating in 2 major-ally different configurations cluster or solo. What is required in cluster is different to solo.

    DrLoser the answer roughly one to one is not even close. Untuned a Linux could be appear way worse than Windows or way better depending on if the test is cluster or solo. Linux can be tuned many more ways to match the workload. Its very hard to tune to workload when you are missing options like zram. Its the missing features that makes Windows under performs this is not fixable. What makes Linux under perform is incorrectly configured in most cases. Cluster configuration on solo not good. In solo web-server Linux can always be made match or exceed Windows. Cluster web-server Windows cannot be made match Linux.

    One to One is Linux worst state not its best. Its really anywhere between One to One to 4 to One. With 4 to 1 in Linux favor. One of the interesting 4 to 1 is running ASP.NET webpages if they work under mono implementations.

  3. oe says:

    “A big CEO has been reported to claim his company will “reinvent productivity”. Yeah…right…like I would entrust cloud data to these clowns, after MS Danger’s fiasco, hotmail going belly up as malware rebroadcasting central after MS took it over, added with a dash of NSA cozy-up a small business would be insane to drink this Kool-Aid.

  4. dougman says:

    1:1??? LOL….what are you smoking??

    As Robert mentioned Largo, I remember Dave stating that Windows craps out after about 40 users, but with Linux and on the same hardware he could deploy 100s of users, of course that was sometime ago, but I suspect the real reasoning behind this is the software either could not handle the load, and/or M$ made sure that only a certain number of users were able to use it, so as to derive increased revenue.

    Windows servers have stupid user limits and worthless access licenses, in addition to the thousand-dollar server licenses.

  5. DrLoser says:

    (That ratio being an efficiency ratio, btw. The numbers in use may very well be different. You can crow about that, but it’s absurd to crow about a mystical advantage in efficiency, aka CPU and other resource usage.)

  6. DrLoser says:

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the ratio of Linux LAMP servers to Windows WAMP servers (I’m struggling for a neutral comparison, and I’m ignoring any other reason to buy either one) is …

    … er …

    … roughly one to one.

    But then again, I’m not a biased lunatic like Dougie. I just happen to work in an area where people provision servers without recourse to snake-oil salesmen.

  7. dougman wrote, “Linux can do the work of many Windows servers, I reckon to say on a scale of 20:1 at best. So that 100 server count using Windows, now becomes 5 using Linux.”

    The guy at Largo, FL, Richards, wrote that the ratio was 3:1 but that was a while ago. There have been huge upgrades in CPUs these days. Back then 4-fold was in. Now, folks can do way more than that in a tiny box. In my own experience, I’ve seen a school with 7 servers running that other OS and one GNU/Linux server could do everything better. They just seemed to want to throw money at M$ and tolerated that from time to time servers would “pause” for up to 30s. I couldn’t believe it… Consolidation was obviously desirable but they felt helpless because changing anything meant making budget proposals and going up and down 7 levels of the bureacracy. That’s the place where the principal told me it would take 2 years to improve the ventilation in the server room. We had to leave the door open and post guards instead…

  8. dougman says:

    To see where open-source is taking us, read: The Open-Source Everything Manifesto: Transparency, Truth, and Trust

  9. dougman says:

    Always changing crap, so as to appease the stockholders, but upsetting your user base is NOT the way to do things.

    Has anyone noticed in the latest CEO for M$, that his hair is balding and greying? I bet the stress is killing him deep-inside and that he wont last past 5-years.

    Embracing “mobile first” and “cloud first” will not work, no one uses a Windows phone, no one.

    The thing with the cloud, ties in with a cloud-based OS, cloud-based software works with their software model for leasing over ownership.

    Nothing new to see here really, options for M$ are slowly drying up.

    Re: “We will reinvent productivity to empower every person and every organization on the planet to do more and achieve more.”

    LOL…. do more and achieve more? Not gonna happen..

    Seriously, with the end of support for Server 2003, do you they honestly think that businesses will flock to the M$ Cloud? NOPE, bean counters will find Linux approachable and at considerably less cost, with less maintenance over perhaps fire a few M$ IT IDIOTS, as they wont’t be needed to manage all 100 servers.

    See Linux can do the work of many Windows servers, I reckon to say on a scale of 20:1 at best. So that 100 server count using Windows, now becomes 5 using Linux.


Leave a Reply