I would wager that those people you talk of are not very productive, even if they had an anally-retentive organize their desks.
I am one of those who have a "messy" desk. But it is only messy to the untrained eye. I *know* where things are. Some neurologists have theorized that those who have a "messy" bedroom or desk, but can remember pretty much where everything is, can do so because the "mess" is something we created.
In any case, people such as myself, tend to be non-lateral thinkers. It took years to convince my mother that my room wasn't messy. What finally worked was that she said something to the effect of "you can't find anything in there". I replied with "No, mom, YOU can't. I can find anything."
After twenty minutes of her asking for something and me demonstrating I knew exactly where it was, she finally gave in.
Still, a messy desk *is* a "sign" of productivity, but it is not a positive proof of it. After all, there have been "signs" of bigfoot and aliens, but you still have to look at other factors. Those people you run in to confuse "sign of" with "cause of". While we're being pedantic, productivity can not be a sign of productivity.;^)
324 if you are using the transmeta powered RLX blades. 24 in 3u.
Low power consumption, low cooling costs,. minimal cables, and two available 10/100 ports per cpu after the management port is taken (another 10/100). Not to mention the system imagiung capability.
GTK has Glade, which will develop the UI, and export the code in a variety of formats. Furthermore, with use of libglade, one can alter the UI without recompiling. Since I don't use Qt, I cannot say if it has something similar.
As far as code writing, I've found that with glade, I basically just write my back end.
Personally, if I were a C+fuss nut, I'd just use wxWindows. IMO, though, I think the question is more appropriately GNOME vs. Qt, but that is just MO.
If the same functionality under the same WM has a feel of faster feedback with a Qt application than with a GTK-- application, that kind of eliminates the role of the WM, doesn't it?
Not Necessarily. If the WM uses SM, and one app is made with a toolkit that doesn't participate in SM, whilst another is made to use the SM routines, one will tend to load faster than the other. Which one is left as an exercise to the reader.
Furthermore, if a WM loads, say, the GTK libraries or daemons/widgets/services (perhaps it uses them), and you load a GTK app, then load a Qt app, for example, one will certainly load faster, and that will be an effect of the chosen WM. The situation could easily be reversed, so, yes the WM can be a determining factor.
Additionally, how an app's toolkit is tied into the WM would have an effect, which would make the "snappiness" change with respects to the WM currently in use.
You continue to repeat yourself over and over, but that does not change the fact that Congress has not declared war on any nation, nor is there much provision in the Constitution for declaring war on a person, or on a group of persons, or on an organization, or on an ideology. This "war" on terrorism is a war in name only, like the "war" on drugs, the "war" on poverty, the "war" on cancer, and so on.
Yet, you will also see no restriction on the government, saying it can only declare war on a country. Specifically, the section to which you refer says "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". Nowhere does it say who can and/or can not be declared war upon. The US should have declared war, and has the precedence for it, see "The Barbary Pirates episode in early American history (then note the similarities).
...but how hard would it be for Bush to help out these hawallas and open up alternate methods of transfer?
It wouldn't matter to would-be, or existing terrorists. if the Us were to open an alternative, and close down the linked one, we would be accused of replacing a "native provider" with a western provider for purposes of furthering it's business interests withing somalia.
The fact of the matter is, that regardles of what was done, the ignorant would accuse the U.S. of acting in a prejudiced way to the Somali people. If we did nothing, we would late rbe accused of allowing to happen. This, like nearly all such situations, is a no-win scenario for the US in the political front. When that happens, you ignore the no-win aspect and use the most effective solution.
Essentially it would have been either the crap we see here, or "There they go again, destroying businesses that aren't theirs? Where will this economic imperialism end? "
Furthermore, most terrorist don't think about these things, they only react. Anything the US does, including nothing, is seen as an excuse to kill innocents, period. When someone has been raised to believe someone else is pure evil, and the enemy, it takes a helluva lot of major convincing to change their mind, and even then, it is a long shot.
The facts that demonstrate reasons to not hate a given country are never acknowledged by the terrorists. For exmple, the mid-east terrorist never acknowledge that the very oil sites that provide the dictatorial governments with their resources are of western design, build, and disovery. of course, that fact is ususally not taught in schools either. Not much mention is ever made about how the Arabian countries took the oil fields from the western countries (and that the western countries just let it slide for fear of being called racist or something).
In the final analysis, the US does have a major weapon in the fight against middle-eastern terrorist that is not being talked about. Science and Research.
Since the terrorists are funded by oil revenue, if the US, and western worlds were to dramatically cut, or eliminate it's importation of crude form the countries knwn to harbor, fund, or promote terrorists, it is undeniable that the terrorists would dramatically suffer funding issues. Furthermore, there would be an inability to cry "it's for the oil", when there is no import of oil from said countries.
But, alas, this has yet to permeate the western thought space.
Cowardly and Ignorant. gee, that's a suprise (not).
Like many of you ACs, your post was devoid of facts, and a plethora of ingorance demonstrations.
if you have 50 exchange servers, you *will* need more than one person to manage them. Since you've never worked in a real environment like this, you are clearly ignorant of the fact.
Disk space? Ever heard of NFS/SMBFS/AFS/Coda? That's right, you are ignorant of the fact that we can store data in a central location too; hell, Unix was doing it before Windows.
"Hey, here is the lates file update:
/net/sales/docs/foo.pdf"
nice, short, sweet, and saves disk space.
Exchange is a server, not groupware. It requires client software. This can range from simple email to scheduling. Whippity do dah. MS was not the first, and is not the only with scheduling.
E2K servers require very steep, recurring license costs. Want to use more than just email on those exchange servers? Fine, but remember to calculate the costs of that MS OFfice suite too? Want to do *just* MS Outlook? Remember that it costs too.
Oh, and the costs should be figured against 2k, since you are all but forced to use it come october 1.
I don't have time to discuss this further, just wanted to point out your ignorance and cowardliness.
Easy. YOu factor in all the lost time and problems due to the wonderful viral transport system called Outlook, and realize that costs are a lot higher than believed.
Then, you take a look at nearly every MS-using company, and see that they spend a helluva lot of money on training users to use the app. Then, wait a year, and watch them do it all over agin with the new version.
Meanwhile, the Linux solution is chugging away, users were 'trained' once, and are not being constantly warnes to install the lates virus software, for there is a new virus out, and waiting for IT to rebuild their system, because like the rest of the users, their machine was just infected.
How can I say these things? Because I've seen it. i watch it happen all the time. I've watched non-technical users be quickly trained. You made mistatement. Non-technical users don't have Exchange skills; unless you let non-technical people manage your servers.
Insightful?? Puhlease, more like ignorant. The parent needs modded back down.
So, you don't want to backup those 700+ PCs? I suppose your users store EVERYTHING in email?? What about normal PC backup? If the CEO hoses his machine, you are expected to recover it. If the latest Windows virus/trojan/worm, infects your 700 computers, you are expected to be able to recover to, at most, a few days prior to the infection. You do that with *backups* of the *clients*.
In IMAP, unless you configure your client to automatically purge email when you delete it, you take two steps to delete an email: mark and purge.
As someone who has worked for a very large corporation, no, you are *not* expected to recover deleted email. Deleted *files*, yes, but not email. Your strawman burnes brightly.
You back up PCs fo rmore than just data recovery.
Your #2 is handled by 99+% of email clients. Duh
Your #3 goes with any solution.
I've personally witnessed the situations you describe, and the Linux solution simply works *better*. What happens when your sysadmin 'oopsies' on the exchange server, wiping it out?
Are you so ignorant and niased you don't see that you use backups regardless of the system in place? Mistakes are much easier to recover from on a Unix/Linux system, in general, than on an MSW based system.
Take your MS-SBS, and the new licensing, and wait for the *next* trojan/virus/worm to cause you to rebuild your entire network. I suppose though, that would fall under your 'predictabe' criteria. Sure, MS costs are predictable. They will predictably increase though at uncertain rates, they will predictably cause more problems, cuasing a predictable increase in costs.
You are missing some numbers in your TCO. TCO for exchange must include the licensing for Outlook, part of Office. Let's face reality here. If your company is using Exchange, it is using Outlook. If it is using Outlook, it is most likely doing so from Office.
The new costs of Office are a couple hundred *per year*, *per user*. The exact figures per user are variable due to the myriad of options available. They range from a 40% to a 70% increase in annual costs, just for the licensing of Office.
From Gartner's Director of Research:
"We ran through a calculation for a typical organization with 5,000 desktops running Microsoft Office that upgrades every four years. The increase in upgrade costs was between $900,000 and $1.6 million more under Software Assurance".
Over a period of four years, this represents an increase of 255,000 to 400,000 per annum. Note, that these costs are borne by the aforementioned annual license rental.
Of course, some could say your analysis is a bit skewered, given that NT, come October first, will not be on the list of "current", or even "not current" software versions allowed. As a result, thast NT license is fairly useless for your new Exchange server, as you'll be needing to upgrade to 2k or XP. More costs involved.
The catch is that Microsoft is dropping perpetual use licenses. So, if you want to run MS servers legally, you'll have no choice but to incur the costs.
I;'d be interested in how you come up with this 35$/CAL figure. The info I have shows that for a 5000 CAL set, you will be paying 67$/CAL (MS is droppng valume CAL discounts, apparently). This would have put your 5000 licenses for Exchange access at $333,325; Note this is for 4975, as the server license comes with 25 CALs. Nearly double your figure, and we have just covered the CALs. The server license, for Exchange2k, is ~700-3000 USD. If you are running with 5000 clients, that will put you into the category of people running Exchange Enterprise, thus, the cost of your server license (exchange only) is more akin to 3000, not the 600 you gave. (Costs taken from win2000 magazine.)
It is quite possible, you are working off rather old data, especially given your reference to the NT licesne, as opposed to the 2k license. That only illustrates the increase in licensing cost, which should be factored into a three year TCO. Your TCO does not cover this, nor does it cover the new MS licensing scheme (from what limited data they have put out).
With per annum costs for maintaining the Office (for Outlook) licensing, you are looking at (212 x 5000) = 1,060,000, plus the cost of the initial purchase or uppgrade of the office suite.
Now, before you spout off about the client being unneccesary in TCO, a TCO analysis, when done properly, will inlude both ends of a client server. If you intend to use a mail client that does not utilize the Exchange server's features (at least those which other, much cheaper of free servers offer), you will have to justify the server choice. For this reason, proper TCO must include the client access software costs.
It may be possible to substitute office for the web-access outlook, but there you begin to lose functionality, changing the comparison yet again.
In any event, your numbers fall short of simple reality by at a historical minimum of ~ 162,325 dollars. Given that the history use din thos enumbers will be just that as of Oct 1, your numbers are severely under reality. Even figure the Outlook part of the 1,060,000 at one fifth, then you still have per annum licensing costs of ~ 212,000. That is assuming MS does not put per annum costs on the Exchange server license, and/or the CAL. Before saying that would not happen, consult the recent changes that represent the same level of cost model change.
Your three year TCO for the Exchange is more on the order of ~1.5 million USD.
Under the Clinton administration, there was a new agency assigned for this task, the SCS
Hey brainiac, the first link on your referenced page says the SCS was established in the 70's. News flash, Clinton was in no position to form something as the SCS in the 70's.
One key reason to care about what goes up and comes down is that 99.9% of all ammunition is depleted during training, on your own soil.
Do this, and you will be less efficient in war. Projectiles, such as bullets, will not behave the same. Different gasses used, different materials in the bullets, will inevitably lead to different accuracy, different characteristics. Train with materials that behave differently than those that you use in combat, and you will be less experienced at precisely the time you need it most.
For example, consider the use of DU rounds in American tanks. The DU has different 'flight' characteristics. By practicing with rounds that do not have the same characteristics, we found the need for computer adjustments in the computer controlled targeting, in order to continue being accurate.
To understand this better, go practice swordplay with a stick. Now, pick up a real sword and go fight with it.
For the majority of rounds expended, there is no, and will be no, computer assistance. Sure, for weapons firing, you can work on the basical mechanical skills, but we already work on those without firing a single shot, not even blanks. The US Army, anyway, doesn't use live fire in many ground troop exercises. A 'blank' charge is not a weapon, so those are not addressed by this issue, anyway. If you wanted to make the full argument that this is aimed at practice rounds, which is not indicated, then you would apply your argument to it's efficiency by laying claim to rockets and artillery. In these realms we see even more dependence on knowing the characteristics, and having experience with the proper characteristics. Switch the components, and you change the behaviour. Change the behaviour, and you will lose efficiency.
I suppose this is just part of having limited space with which to work. You can't just scorch the earth while you slay your enemies, or else you'll be left with nothing but unusable burnt dirt.
EXACTLY!
Look, as we continue to sanitize war, to make it easier, or less dangerous, we will approach a maddening increase in the frequency of war. Whether or not you like nuclear weapons, for example, you cannot deny ther efficacy in preventing their use. They are so devastating, and for such a long time afterwards, that they make their use mostly pointless.
This effect is not limited to nuclear weapons, either. Many bio and chemical weapons are withheld for precisely this same reason. Sanitary weapons do not give pause to those who would instigate a war.
You don't nuke your opponent's farmland if you want to use it, for it would do you no good. Now, if you could nuke him and his farmland, and then move in, it certainly lowers the deterrent, now doesn't it?
A trend towards 'green' weapons would be another steap down a very slippery slope. Sure, just weapons that kill people, yeah, that will provide a lovely level of deterrent. Yeah, right; pull the otehr one.
Let us not get to the point that the only deterrent is the life of humans. There must exist consequences to war that extend beyond human life. Dictators care little, if anything for lives. Power crazed governments, likewise.
So called 'green weapons' pose another threat. A dictator is certainly less inclined to nuke or bomb his own people if the consequences involve land destruction, and/or resource destruction. Give him or her weapons that do not carry those consequences, and you will see a rise in those incidents.
Lest anyone confuse themselves, mankind is natures check and balance to mankind's growth. Of all the beings on this planet, we are perceived (by us) as having no check to our growth. Anyone with a critical mind and observant eye will see that our greatest enemy is ourself. We war upon ourselves unlike virtually any other creature on this earth. So, what is my point? Simply that the threat of human lives lost is not enough of a deterrent to prevent wars. Without the threat of, say, absolute annhilation, or the reality of resource destruction, war will be more frequent. Do we really want that? We should have as many consequences to war as possible, for that is the best deterrent to war.
You should read the article. This is not about flash. It is about using the x-over plugin to run _multiple_ kinds of netscape-style plugins built for Windows on Linux.
Re:For every action, there is an equal and opposit
on
Quicktime In Linux
·
· Score: 1
The only thing that will convince Apple to make Quicktime for Linux is a dramatic increase in the amount of desktop end-users running Linux.
Not true. All it would take is the number of people running Linux desktops to exceed the number number of macs in the same use.
ou have to know to type "rpm -iv quicktime_plugin.i386.rpm" to install it.
And you apparently do not care about knowing that you do not have to do that. Point of Fact: There have been, and are, usefull GUI tools for manageing RPMS. "OH, I just have to click on this quicktime checkbox? That's easy!"
Oh, and 99% of the computer using population can understand a CLI. I would say, that at least 99% of the computing population certainly can, and most of them do, understand the CLI.
Availability of apps is a means to the end, but there also needs to be a bridge in the meantime. I am sure Codeweavers does not see this as a long term source of revenue. I am sure they long for the day these products are not needed. In the meantime, however, there needs be a crossover, or migration procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
Depending on the facilities, network boots, NFS mounts, etc. can work wonders as well.
Informative? Hardly. Humerous, perhaps, but not informative.
Informative woudd have been detials on what *exactly* the poster had troubles with, and what he or she was *trying* to do.
Call it a nit if you want, but of the "scripting languages" you listed, only one is a scripting language: Python.
If that wasn't bad enough, the ACS went towards an object model, proprietary markup language, and content management - just like Zope -
Just to clarify, Zope doesn't use a proprietary markup language and started with an object model.
You know, my problem with that page (the Nokia page), is that after little more than a cursory glance, you can see the picture is completely false.
I would wager that those people you talk of are not very productive, even if they had an anally-retentive organize their desks.
;^)
I am one of those who have a "messy" desk. But it is only messy to the untrained eye. I *know* where things are. Some neurologists have theorized that those who have a "messy" bedroom or desk, but can remember pretty much where everything is, can do so because the "mess" is something we created.
In any case, people such as myself, tend to be non-lateral thinkers. It took years to convince my mother that my room wasn't messy. What finally worked was that she said something to the effect of "you can't find anything in there". I replied with "No, mom, YOU can't. I can find anything."
After twenty minutes of her asking for something and me demonstrating I knew exactly where it was, she finally gave in.
Still, a messy desk *is* a "sign" of productivity, but it is not a positive proof of it. After all, there have been "signs" of bigfoot and aliens, but you still have to look at other factors. Those people you run in to confuse "sign of" with "cause of". While we're being pedantic, productivity can not be a sign of productivity.
*snicker*snicker* he doesn't know how to use the three shells. *snicker*
Here is on esuch experiment, though no mention of babies.
http://wearcam.org/tetherless/node4.html
324 if you are using the transmeta powered RLX blades. 24 in 3u.
...
Low power consumption, low cooling costs,. minimal cables, and two available 10/100 ports per cpu after the management port is taken (another 10/100). Not to mention the system imagiung capability.
Now, if they only had fibre channel ports
GTK has Glade, which will develop the UI, and export the code in a variety of formats. Furthermore, with use of libglade, one can alter the UI without recompiling. Since I don't use Qt, I cannot say if it has something similar.
As far as code writing, I've found that with glade, I basically just write my back end.
Personally, if I were a C+fuss nut, I'd just use wxWindows. IMO, though, I think the question is more appropriately GNOME vs. Qt, but that is just MO.
If the same functionality under the same WM has a feel of faster feedback with a Qt application than with a GTK-- application, that kind of eliminates the role of the WM, doesn't it?
Not Necessarily. If the WM uses SM, and one app is made with a toolkit that doesn't participate in SM, whilst another is made to use the SM routines, one will tend to load faster than the other. Which one is left as an exercise to the reader.
Furthermore, if a WM loads, say, the GTK libraries or daemons/widgets/services (perhaps it uses them), and you load a GTK app, then load a Qt app, for example, one will certainly load faster, and that will be an effect of the chosen WM. The situation could easily be reversed, so, yes the WM can be a determining factor.
Additionally, how an app's toolkit is tied into the WM would have an effect, which would make the "snappiness" change with respects to the WM currently in use.
Yet, you will also see no restriction on the government, saying it can only declare war on a country. Specifically, the section to which you refer says "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;". Nowhere does it say who can and/or can not be declared war upon. The US should have declared war, and has the precedence for it, see "The Barbary Pirates episode in early American history (then note the similarities).
It wouldn't matter to would-be, or existing terrorists. if the Us were to open an alternative, and close down the linked one, we would be accused of replacing a "native provider" with a western provider for purposes of furthering it's business interests withing somalia.
The fact of the matter is, that regardles of what was done, the ignorant would accuse the U.S. of acting in a prejudiced way to the Somali people. If we did nothing, we would late rbe accused of allowing to happen. This, like nearly all such situations, is a no-win scenario for the US in the political front. When that happens, you ignore the no-win aspect and use the most effective solution.
Essentially it would have been either the crap we see here, or "There they go again, destroying businesses that aren't theirs? Where will this economic imperialism end? "
Furthermore, most terrorist don't think about these things, they only react. Anything the US does, including nothing, is seen as an excuse to kill innocents, period. When someone has been raised to believe someone else is pure evil, and the enemy, it takes a helluva lot of major convincing to change their mind, and even then, it is a long shot.
The facts that demonstrate reasons to not hate a given country are never acknowledged by the terrorists. For exmple, the mid-east terrorist never acknowledge that the very oil sites that provide the dictatorial governments with their resources are of western design, build, and disovery. of course, that fact is ususally not taught in schools either. Not much mention is ever made about how the Arabian countries took the oil fields from the western countries (and that the western countries just let it slide for fear of being called racist or something).
In the final analysis, the US does have a major weapon in the fight against middle-eastern terrorist that is not being talked about. Science and Research.
Since the terrorists are funded by oil revenue, if the US, and western worlds were to dramatically cut, or eliminate it's importation of crude form the countries knwn to harbor, fund, or promote terrorists, it is undeniable that the terrorists would dramatically suffer funding issues. Furthermore, there would be an inability to cry "it's for the oil", when there is no import of oil from said countries.
But, alas, this has yet to permeate the western thought space.
Cowardly and Ignorant. gee, that's a suprise (not).
Like many of you ACs, your post was devoid of facts, and a plethora of ingorance demonstrations.
if you have 50 exchange servers, you *will* need more than one person to manage them. Since you've never worked in a real environment like this, you are clearly ignorant of the fact.
Disk space? Ever heard of NFS/SMBFS/AFS/Coda? That's right, you are ignorant of the fact that we can store data in a central location too; hell, Unix was doing it before Windows.
"Hey, here is the lates file update:
/net/sales/docs/foo.pdf"
nice, short, sweet, and saves disk space.
Exchange is a server, not groupware. It requires client software. This can range from simple email to scheduling. Whippity do dah. MS was not the first, and is not the only with scheduling.
E2K servers require very steep, recurring license costs. Want to use more than just email on those exchange servers? Fine, but remember to calculate the costs of that MS OFfice suite too? Want to do *just* MS Outlook? Remember that it costs too.
Oh, and the costs should be figured against 2k, since you are all but forced to use it come october 1.
I don't have time to discuss this further, just wanted to point out your ignorance and cowardliness.
Easy. YOu factor in all the lost time and problems due to the wonderful viral transport system called Outlook, and realize that costs are a lot higher than believed.
Then, you take a look at nearly every MS-using company, and see that they spend a helluva lot of money on training users to use the app. Then, wait a year, and watch them do it all over agin with the new version.
Meanwhile, the Linux solution is chugging away, users were 'trained' once, and are not being constantly warnes to install the lates virus software, for there is a new virus out, and waiting for IT to rebuild their system, because like the rest of the users, their machine was just infected.
How can I say these things? Because I've seen it. i watch it happen all the time. I've watched non-technical users be quickly trained. You made mistatement. Non-technical users don't have Exchange skills; unless you let non-technical people manage your servers.
Insightful?? Puhlease, more like ignorant. The parent needs modded back down.
So, you don't want to backup those 700+ PCs? I suppose your users store EVERYTHING in email?? What about normal PC backup? If the CEO hoses his machine, you are expected to recover it. If the latest Windows virus/trojan/worm, infects your 700 computers, you are expected to be able to recover to, at most, a few days prior to the infection. You do that with *backups* of the *clients*.
In IMAP, unless you configure your client to automatically purge email when you delete it, you take two steps to delete an email: mark and purge.
As someone who has worked for a very large corporation, no, you are *not* expected to recover deleted email. Deleted *files*, yes, but not email. Your strawman burnes brightly.
You back up PCs fo rmore than just data recovery.
Your #2 is handled by 99+% of email clients. Duh
Your #3 goes with any solution.
I've personally witnessed the situations you describe, and the Linux solution simply works *better*. What happens when your sysadmin 'oopsies' on the exchange server, wiping it out?
Are you so ignorant and niased you don't see that you use backups regardless of the system in place? Mistakes are much easier to recover from on a Unix/Linux system, in general, than on an MSW based system.
Take your MS-SBS, and the new licensing, and wait for the *next* trojan/virus/worm to cause you to rebuild your entire network. I suppose though, that would fall under your 'predictabe' criteria. Sure, MS costs are predictable. They will predictably increase though at uncertain rates, they will predictably cause more problems, cuasing a predictable increase in costs.
So, then you don't consider Hewlett packard a "real" company? That sorta discredits your whole analysis.
You are missing some numbers in your TCO. TCO for exchange must include the licensing for Outlook, part of Office. Let's face reality here. If your company is using Exchange, it is using Outlook. If it is using Outlook, it is most likely doing so from Office.
The new costs of Office are a couple hundred *per year*, *per user*. The exact figures per user are variable due to the myriad of options available. They range from a 40% to a 70% increase in annual costs, just for the licensing of Office.
From Gartner's Director of Research:
"We ran through a calculation for a typical organization with 5,000 desktops running Microsoft Office that upgrades every four years. The increase in upgrade costs was between $900,000 and $1.6 million more under Software Assurance".
Over a period of four years, this represents an increase of 255,000 to 400,000 per annum. Note, that these costs are borne by the aforementioned annual license rental.
Of course, some could say your analysis is a bit skewered, given that NT, come October first, will not be on the list of "current", or even "not current" software versions allowed. As a result, thast NT license is fairly useless for your new Exchange server, as you'll be needing to upgrade to 2k or XP. More costs involved.
The catch is that Microsoft is dropping perpetual use licenses. So, if you want to run MS servers legally, you'll have no choice but to incur the costs.
I;'d be interested in how you come up with this 35$/CAL figure. The info I have shows that for a 5000 CAL set, you will be paying 67$/CAL (MS is droppng valume CAL discounts, apparently). This would have put your 5000 licenses for Exchange access at $333,325; Note this is for 4975, as the server license comes with 25 CALs. Nearly double your figure, and we have just covered the CALs. The server license, for Exchange2k, is ~700-3000 USD. If you are running with 5000 clients, that will put you into the category of people running Exchange Enterprise, thus, the cost of your server license (exchange only) is more akin to 3000, not the 600 you gave. (Costs taken from win2000 magazine.)
It is quite possible, you are working off rather old data, especially given your reference to the NT licesne, as opposed to the 2k license. That only illustrates the increase in licensing cost, which should be factored into a three year TCO. Your TCO does not cover this, nor does it cover the new MS licensing scheme (from what limited data they have put out).
With per annum costs for maintaining the Office (for Outlook) licensing, you are looking at (212 x 5000) = 1,060,000, plus the cost of the initial purchase or uppgrade of the office suite.
Now, before you spout off about the client being unneccesary in TCO, a TCO analysis, when done properly, will inlude both ends of a client server. If you intend to use a mail client that does not utilize the Exchange server's features (at least those which other, much cheaper of free servers offer), you will have to justify the server choice. For this reason, proper TCO must include the client access software costs.
It may be possible to substitute office for the web-access outlook, but there you begin to lose functionality, changing the comparison yet again.
In any event, your numbers fall short of simple reality by at a historical minimum of ~ 162,325 dollars. Given that the history use din thos enumbers will be just that as of Oct 1, your numbers are severely under reality. Even figure the Outlook part of the 1,060,000 at one fifth, then you still have per annum licensing costs of ~ 212,000. That is assuming MS does not put per annum costs on the Exchange server license, and/or the CAL. Before saying that would not happen, consult the recent changes that represent the same level of cost model change.
Your three year TCO for the Exchange is more on the order of ~1.5 million USD.
Hey brainiac, the first link on your referenced page says the SCS was established in the 70's. News flash, Clinton was in no position to form something as the SCS in the 70's.
Do this, and you will be less efficient in war. Projectiles, such as bullets, will not behave the same. Different gasses used, different materials in the bullets, will inevitably lead to different accuracy, different characteristics. Train with materials that behave differently than those that you use in combat, and you will be less experienced at precisely the time you need it most.
For example, consider the use of DU rounds in American tanks. The DU has different 'flight' characteristics. By practicing with rounds that do not have the same characteristics, we found the need for computer adjustments in the computer controlled targeting, in order to continue being accurate.
To understand this better, go practice swordplay with a stick. Now, pick up a real sword and go fight with it.
For the majority of rounds expended, there is no, and will be no, computer assistance. Sure, for weapons firing, you can work on the basical mechanical skills, but we already work on those without firing a single shot, not even blanks. The US Army, anyway, doesn't use live fire in many ground troop exercises. A 'blank' charge is not a weapon, so those are not addressed by this issue, anyway. If you wanted to make the full argument that this is aimed at practice rounds, which is not indicated, then you would apply your argument to it's efficiency by laying claim to rockets and artillery. In these realms we see even more dependence on knowing the characteristics, and having experience with the proper characteristics. Switch the components, and you change the behaviour. Change the behaviour, and you will lose efficiency.
EXACTLY!
Look, as we continue to sanitize war, to make it easier, or less dangerous, we will approach a maddening increase in the frequency of war. Whether or not you like nuclear weapons, for example, you cannot deny ther efficacy in preventing their use. They are so devastating, and for such a long time afterwards, that they make their use mostly pointless.
This effect is not limited to nuclear weapons, either. Many bio and chemical weapons are withheld for precisely this same reason. Sanitary weapons do not give pause to those who would instigate a war.
You don't nuke your opponent's farmland if you want to use it, for it would do you no good. Now, if you could nuke him and his farmland, and then move in, it certainly lowers the deterrent, now doesn't it?
A trend towards 'green' weapons would be another steap down a very slippery slope. Sure, just weapons that kill people, yeah, that will provide a lovely level of deterrent. Yeah, right; pull the otehr one. Let us not get to the point that the only deterrent is the life of humans. There must exist consequences to war that extend beyond human life. Dictators care little, if anything for lives. Power crazed governments, likewise.
So called 'green weapons' pose another threat. A dictator is certainly less inclined to nuke or bomb his own people if the consequences involve land destruction, and/or resource destruction. Give him or her weapons that do not carry those consequences, and you will see a rise in those incidents.
Lest anyone confuse themselves, mankind is natures check and balance to mankind's growth. Of all the beings on this planet, we are perceived (by us) as having no check to our growth. Anyone with a critical mind and observant eye will see that our greatest enemy is ourself. We war upon ourselves unlike virtually any other creature on this earth. So, what is my point? Simply that the threat of human lives lost is not enough of a deterrent to prevent wars. Without the threat of, say, absolute annhilation, or the reality of resource destruction, war will be more frequent. Do we really want that? We should have as many consequences to war as possible, for that is the best deterrent to war.
It doesn't run in super user. It installs to your home directory. Try a little research first, please.
actually, there is an open-source competitor for Konqueror. And, in fact, these guys have _helped_ the people behind it!
.. something like 'ReaKtivate'.
sorry, the name escapes me momentarily
You should read the article. This is not about flash. It is about using the x-over plugin to run _multiple_ kinds of netscape-style plugins built for Windows on Linux.
Not true. All it would take is the number of people running Linux desktops to exceed the number number of macs in the same use.
ou have to know to type "rpm -iv quicktime_plugin.i386.rpm" to install it.
And you apparently do not care about knowing that you do not have to do that. Point of Fact: There have been, and are, usefull GUI tools for manageing RPMS. "OH, I just have to click on this quicktime checkbox? That's easy!"
Oh, and 99% of the computer using population can understand a CLI. I would say, that at least 99% of the computing population certainly can, and most of them do, understand the CLI.
Availability of apps is a means to the end, but there also needs to be a bridge in the meantime. I am sure Codeweavers does not see this as a long term source of revenue. I am sure they long for the day these products are not needed. In the meantime, however, there needs be a crossover, or migration procedure.