The "community" doesnt really have a right to demand that this site be maintained for free; if you want a free alternative, I imagine you could volunteer to help maintain the site.
"Its Open Source" doesnt magically generate people to do fixes and maintenance, you know.
Generally most people arent going to need more than Essentials Plus, (for 3 hosts i think?) unless they really need DRS or DPM or the other fancy stuff. For more than 3 hosts, theyre going to want standard edition; you can get a kit of 6 CPUs for $11k. The cost of the backend SAN alone is generally going to exceed that, and I imagine that 3 2-socket, 8-12 core servers is going to run in the area of ~$25-40k.
I have no experience with Parallels, but you cannot compare Virtualbox with any of the other hypervisors. It is great for one-off projects, until it randomly devours your VM due to an upgrade (which happened to me, and was a documented bug); or until it hangs; or until you realize that its acceleration for one or another feature is limited to windows only.
VMWare workstation really is miles ahead of VirtualBox, and really is worth the price. I wish I could try HyperV on my home rig, but of course installing that feature locks my computer due to a mobo incompatibility. Regardless, as my intention is to have a home lab running ESXi, and as Im only aware of VMWare products being able to nest, that is the only option I have.
..which generally gets others to realize that theres plenty of money to be had if only they get their act together. Amazing how many features and how much bugfixing HyperV got once MS realized that a decent hypervisor was a compelling feature.
Seems to me things are working as intended; this is how we ended up with multiple sweet browsers when MS stagnated.
HyperV has been pretty buggy every time Ive used it (though I have not tried 3.0). Hot-adding USB, NICs, etc has been painful, when it even works without a reboot; there have been several times I've seen virtual NICs unresponsive until removed and re-added with 2 reboot cycles. Ive also seen scenarios where SCVMM was completely unresponsive because of some asinine dependency.
Xen I have little experience with, because it has apparently no ability to be nested in VMWare workstation. Unfortunate, since HyperV and ESXi are all quite happy to nest, with ESXi happy to nest 3-4 layers deep. I would still probably choose Xen over HyperV, because of HyperV's historically awful support of non-Windows stuff, and non-existant freeBSD support.
I admit Im a VMWare fanboy, because they seem to have the broadest OS support, the best performance, and the most sane tools. MS's virtual network editor was seriously bad last time i used it, nearly as bad as VMWare Workstation's. And to this day I cant think of a feature that the other two have that ESXi has, while I can definately think of features ESXi has that the other two dont (though probably not at the free level; the cool bits always seem to end up at Enterprise+).
Theyre screwed becuase they have the best product? They can change their pricing to be competitive if they really want; apparently they just dont see the need yet.
They wont be "screwed" until their competitors have better features than them, but if you check their competitor's marketing pages, you will notice that none of them claim to be better-- just that theyre a better "value". If / when VMware has to start claiming that, then theyre in trouble.
Check out that license again.... last I looked it was non-commercial use. Not only that, but its limited, no VSphere or any of that.
If you can find that clause, id be interested; however the EULA they link makes no mention whatsoever of a specific edition, and they set no restrictions that I can see other than the ones imposed by the installed license.
And you do get to use "vSphere" the client, you DONT get to use vCenter. So no clustering, no automatic updates, no VSA or VCVA, no hardware acceleration on SAN, etc.
by "competitors offer for free", you mean "XenServer offers for free", right? Im pretty sure you still have to pay for HyperV (or a minimum of 1 Windows server license) plus CALs, one way or the other.
Well, up until the point you realize that there's a bug in the hypervisor which affects networking which affects the thing you're trying to virtualize.
In THEORY, the hypervisor you use doesnt matter. In practice, it absolutely does. For instance, pfSense (a firewall based on FreeBSD) has no integration tools from HyperV, and I dont believe has any virtualization drivers for VMXNet3 on ESXi. So HyperV will have no integration in being able to safely shut the VM down, and ESXi's performance with the networking will be less than optimal.
There can be other issues; the virtual hardware presented by one hypervisor or another may cause problems with certain OSes. Theres also big differences in performance; one chart I saw indicated 2-3x better performance on large numbers of HTTP requests to apache-on-ESXi compared to apache-on-HyperV.
Incidentally, the 3 top hypervisors (Xen, vSphere, HyperV) all fit that definition of enterprise that you linked.
HyperV isnt really an option for a lot of things, since its support for non-SUSE, non-Windows stuff is, shall we say, "lacking". Certainly you'll have a lot of fun getting pfSense running on it.
It has founding charters, and Im not sure why you insist that its form be identical to the US's. Perhaps I HAVE been misreading your posts, but perhaps you should word things more carefully, as a number of others have likewise interpreted your posts to advocate disregarding the amendment process.
If thats not your intention, Im not clear why you have been arguing when my point has pretty plainly been that there is but one valid method of altering the second amendment in the US.
All countries have SOME social contract which gives their government legitimacy; even monarchies have a contract. Ours is our constitution, and the fact that we HAVE the constitution means that it must not be violated.
Its not that no country can exist without a constitution (though I would argue thats arguing naming semantics), but having one sets ground rules that MUST be followed or else the government loses its right to exist-- it will have broken the contract.
You might likewise argue that some contract between two families that has existed for centuries is outdated and should be altered; but such a contract can only be altered with the joint agreement of both parties. To do otherwise would be to violate that contract. It is the same with our constitution; every American born and naturalized in the past 200 years was born into this contract, and implicitly agrees to it by paying taxes and voting. The only proper way for that contract to be altered is by the consent of the people-- that is in fact the principle underlying all modern democracies.
Its not about how things should be, its about what should be enforced. Unless I have been misreading your posts, you have been advocating legislating away the second amendment WITHOUT going through the amendment process, which is colloquially known in our country as "unconstitutional".
I might also note that it is generally dangerous to comment on how another country's constitution should be modified when you are apparently not a citizen of that country; it is for their citizens to determine, not you, and there is a high likelyhood that you are not familiar with the history and reasoning behind our laws as they are, nor with the culture behind it. If you intend to comment anyways, at least be upfront that you are not American, rather than avoiding mentioning that.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are the only things that give any sort of legitimacy to Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS. Without them, none of those leaders have any more claim to governmental power than anyone else.
So be very careful when advocating ignoring the constitution, because there is very little difference between that and requesting a full blown revolution.
Someone who isnt American doesnt have to contend with our constitution. A government which decides it can ignore the very document which gives it legitimacy is a government which has none.
The huge problem with what youre saying is that the constitution represents the contract between the government and its people, which grants legitimacy to the people in charge of leading us.
If the president were to determine that the constitutional limits on his passing laws and declaring war were outdated and that he could ignore them, the people would (hopefully) recognize the attempt as illegitimate-- it violates the contract and the limits that were set.
We have a very clear process for amending the constitution if / when the people -- with whom the contract was made -- decide that it needs to be modified. All you need to do is convince the majority of society that the rules must change, and it will happen. If you cannot do so, then the contract stands as written.
Our country is still fairly young, but we have been quite stable over that time, and in general systems like ours which have clear legislative processes which are adhered to tend to be a LOT more stable than those where the government gets to do whatever it wants, because it has decided that the existing constitution is no good. If you wish to prevent our society from turning into an authoritarian one, the only way forward is to stick to enforcing the clear processes we have and not allow the government (or the people) to ignore the contract.
It says a lot of things about individuals being guaranteed a right to bear arms, specifically for military purpose.
You could argue that "they didnt say anything about ammo", but any reasonable reading of the amendment makes it clear that the "arms" were intended to be usable.
If you think the amendment is bad, then lets go down the path of amending it proper, rather than trying to cripple it peacemeal and hoping that noone notices whats happening. "I dont like the amendment" doesnt mean you or legislators get to ignore it, or the process of repealing it.
And magazines to be limited in the number of rounds that they can hold to a sane number.
Can someone explain to me what part of the 2nd amendment would allow reducing magazine size to 7, but forbid reducing it to 1?
I mean, if lowering the magazine size to 7 works to reduce shootings, why not just ban magazines and go back to muzzle loaders? Why would that be any more of a violation?
The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.
Fine, then lets do it properly and repeal the amendment.
The WORST thing we can do is to try to violate the constitution by legislating around parts we dont like; every time we do that we're basically saying "the only parts of the law that matter are the ones the legislators want to matter".
We have a strict amendment process for a REASON. The government is not supposed to be able to easily decide that it doesnt have enough power. Yes, school shootings suck, but not as bad as things can get when the government throws off all restraint, and thats why we started this country with very strict limits on government power.
Slashdot Mirror
The "community" doesnt really have a right to demand that this site be maintained for free; if you want a free alternative, I imagine you could volunteer to help maintain the site.
"Its Open Source" doesnt magically generate people to do fixes and maintenance, you know.
Generally most people arent going to need more than Essentials Plus, (for 3 hosts i think?) unless they really need DRS or DPM or the other fancy stuff. For more than 3 hosts, theyre going to want standard edition; you can get a kit of 6 CPUs for $11k. The cost of the backend SAN alone is generally going to exceed that, and I imagine that 3 2-socket, 8-12 core servers is going to run in the area of ~$25-40k.
I have no experience with Parallels, but you cannot compare Virtualbox with any of the other hypervisors. It is great for one-off projects, until it randomly devours your VM due to an upgrade (which happened to me, and was a documented bug); or until it hangs; or until you realize that its acceleration for one or another feature is limited to windows only.
VMWare workstation really is miles ahead of VirtualBox, and really is worth the price. I wish I could try HyperV on my home rig, but of course installing that feature locks my computer due to a mobo incompatibility. Regardless, as my intention is to have a home lab running ESXi, and as Im only aware of VMWare products being able to nest, that is the only option I have.
..which generally gets others to realize that theres plenty of money to be had if only they get their act together. Amazing how many features and how much bugfixing HyperV got once MS realized that a decent hypervisor was a compelling feature.
Seems to me things are working as intended; this is how we ended up with multiple sweet browsers when MS stagnated.
HyperV has been pretty buggy every time Ive used it (though I have not tried 3.0). Hot-adding USB, NICs, etc has been painful, when it even works without a reboot; there have been several times I've seen virtual NICs unresponsive until removed and re-added with 2 reboot cycles. Ive also seen scenarios where SCVMM was completely unresponsive because of some asinine dependency.
Xen I have little experience with, because it has apparently no ability to be nested in VMWare workstation. Unfortunate, since HyperV and ESXi are all quite happy to nest, with ESXi happy to nest 3-4 layers deep. I would still probably choose Xen over HyperV, because of HyperV's historically awful support of non-Windows stuff, and non-existant freeBSD support.
I admit Im a VMWare fanboy, because they seem to have the broadest OS support, the best performance, and the most sane tools. MS's virtual network editor was seriously bad last time i used it, nearly as bad as VMWare Workstation's. And to this day I cant think of a feature that the other two have that ESXi has, while I can definately think of features ESXi has that the other two dont (though probably not at the free level; the cool bits always seem to end up at Enterprise+).
Theres nothing wrong with them realizing that huge numbers of IT shops are willing to pay that money.
You're right that it is refreshing to see some seriously healthy competition from Xen and HyperV, tho-- their prices are seriously painful.
Theyre screwed becuase they have the best product? They can change their pricing to be competitive if they really want; apparently they just dont see the need yet.
They wont be "screwed" until their competitors have better features than them, but if you check their competitor's marketing pages, you will notice that none of them claim to be better-- just that theyre a better "value". If / when VMware has to start claiming that, then theyre in trouble.
Check out that license again.... last I looked it was non-commercial use. Not only that, but its limited, no VSphere or any of that.
If you can find that clause, id be interested; however the EULA they link makes no mention whatsoever of a specific edition, and they set no restrictions that I can see other than the ones imposed by the installed license.
And you do get to use "vSphere" the client, you DONT get to use vCenter. So no clustering, no automatic updates, no VSA or VCVA, no hardware acceleration on SAN, etc.
by "competitors offer for free", you mean "XenServer offers for free", right? Im pretty sure you still have to pay for HyperV (or a minimum of 1 Windows server license) plus CALs, one way or the other.
Well, up until the point you realize that there's a bug in the hypervisor which affects networking which affects the thing you're trying to virtualize.
In THEORY, the hypervisor you use doesnt matter. In practice, it absolutely does. For instance, pfSense (a firewall based on FreeBSD) has no integration tools from HyperV, and I dont believe has any virtualization drivers for VMXNet3 on ESXi. So HyperV will have no integration in being able to safely shut the VM down, and ESXi's performance with the networking will be less than optimal.
There can be other issues; the virtual hardware presented by one hypervisor or another may cause problems with certain OSes. Theres also big differences in performance; one chart I saw indicated 2-3x better performance on large numbers of HTTP requests to apache-on-ESXi compared to apache-on-HyperV.
Incidentally, the 3 top hypervisors (Xen, vSphere, HyperV) all fit that definition of enterprise that you linked.
HyperV isnt really an option for a lot of things, since its support for non-SUSE, non-Windows stuff is, shall we say, "lacking". Certainly you'll have a lot of fun getting pfSense running on it.
It has founding charters, and Im not sure why you insist that its form be identical to the US's. Perhaps I HAVE been misreading your posts, but perhaps you should word things more carefully, as a number of others have likewise interpreted your posts to advocate disregarding the amendment process.
If thats not your intention, Im not clear why you have been arguing when my point has pretty plainly been that there is but one valid method of altering the second amendment in the US.
The UK DOES have a constitution:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
All countries have SOME social contract which gives their government legitimacy; even monarchies have a contract. Ours is our constitution, and the fact that we HAVE the constitution means that it must not be violated.
Its not that no country can exist without a constitution (though I would argue thats arguing naming semantics), but having one sets ground rules that MUST be followed or else the government loses its right to exist-- it will have broken the contract.
You might likewise argue that some contract between two families that has existed for centuries is outdated and should be altered; but such a contract can only be altered with the joint agreement of both parties. To do otherwise would be to violate that contract. It is the same with our constitution; every American born and naturalized in the past 200 years was born into this contract, and implicitly agrees to it by paying taxes and voting. The only proper way for that contract to be altered is by the consent of the people-- that is in fact the principle underlying all modern democracies.
Its not about how things should be, its about what should be enforced. Unless I have been misreading your posts, you have been advocating legislating away the second amendment WITHOUT going through the amendment process, which is colloquially known in our country as "unconstitutional".
I might also note that it is generally dangerous to comment on how another country's constitution should be modified when you are apparently not a citizen of that country; it is for their citizens to determine, not you, and there is a high likelyhood that you are not familiar with the history and reasoning behind our laws as they are, nor with the culture behind it. If you intend to comment anyways, at least be upfront that you are not American, rather than avoiding mentioning that.
Ignoring the document that grants legitimacy to the government seems like a thoroughly bad idea for everyone, including those in power.
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution are the only things that give any sort of legitimacy to Congress, SCOTUS, and POTUS. Without them, none of those leaders have any more claim to governmental power than anyone else.
So be very careful when advocating ignoring the constitution, because there is very little difference between that and requesting a full blown revolution.
What country would that be, then? I am surpirsed to hear that there are democracies out there without any kind of founding charter or ground rules.
Im equally surprised that you apparently have no qualms in a government violating laws without process simply because it has deemed them "bad".
Someone who isnt American doesnt have to contend with our constitution. A government which decides it can ignore the very document which gives it legitimacy is a government which has none.
Do you not see the danger of just deciding one day that we no longer need to follow a provision of the constitution?
What if the government decides that freedom of the press is likewise dangerous and outdated; do they have your approval to simply ignore it?
The huge problem with what youre saying is that the constitution represents the contract between the government and its people, which grants legitimacy to the people in charge of leading us.
If the president were to determine that the constitutional limits on his passing laws and declaring war were outdated and that he could ignore them, the people would (hopefully) recognize the attempt as illegitimate-- it violates the contract and the limits that were set.
We have a very clear process for amending the constitution if / when the people -- with whom the contract was made -- decide that it needs to be modified. All you need to do is convince the majority of society that the rules must change, and it will happen. If you cannot do so, then the contract stands as written.
Our country is still fairly young, but we have been quite stable over that time, and in general systems like ours which have clear legislative processes which are adhered to tend to be a LOT more stable than those where the government gets to do whatever it wants, because it has decided that the existing constitution is no good. If you wish to prevent our society from turning into an authoritarian one, the only way forward is to stick to enforcing the clear processes we have and not allow the government (or the people) to ignore the contract.
It says a lot of things about individuals being guaranteed a right to bear arms, specifically for military purpose.
You could argue that "they didnt say anything about ammo", but any reasonable reading of the amendment makes it clear that the "arms" were intended to be usable.
If you think the amendment is bad, then lets go down the path of amending it proper, rather than trying to cripple it peacemeal and hoping that noone notices whats happening. "I dont like the amendment" doesnt mean you or legislators get to ignore it, or the process of repealing it.
Because its not your computer.
We are not yet at a place where "the public" can just waltz in and demand the use of a privately owned super-computer.
And magazines to be limited in the number of rounds that they can hold to a sane number.
Can someone explain to me what part of the 2nd amendment would allow reducing magazine size to 7, but forbid reducing it to 1?
I mean, if lowering the magazine size to 7 works to reduce shootings, why not just ban magazines and go back to muzzle loaders? Why would that be any more of a violation?
The Second Amendment is a stupid anachronism. It needs gutting.
Fine, then lets do it properly and repeal the amendment.
The WORST thing we can do is to try to violate the constitution by legislating around parts we dont like; every time we do that we're basically saying "the only parts of the law that matter are the ones the legislators want to matter".
We have a strict amendment process for a REASON. The government is not supposed to be able to easily decide that it doesnt have enough power. Yes, school shootings suck, but not as bad as things can get when the government throws off all restraint, and thats why we started this country with very strict limits on government power.
How about we recognize that bad people can do bad things, and no good will come out of ripping things out of our constitution?