You friend would do well to read a newspaper once in a while.
Surpluses abound in just about every level of Canadian politics these days. Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom appears to be "spend, Spend, SPEND!!" rather than "Pay down the massive debt while we still can".
Supporting our particular brand of socialism wouldn't be that hard if it didn't involve corrupt prime ministers and retarded government bureaucracies.
True, true... but the point is that we do have a lot of sparsely populated regions and connecting them all (and later servicing those links, even if they are mostly microwave links) is a little more difficult than say, connecting and servicing the state of New York.
Wow, you're so clever to know that New Hampshire isn't that big.
Maybe if you were a little more clever, you'd realize that there are entire countries smaller than New Hampshire and that I was just trying to drive home a point with something closer to home. Israel, for example, is actually smaller than New Hampshire.
Pop. Density: 3 (not a typo: THREE) residents/sq.km.
Canada has a landmass roughly 300 times larger than Taiwan. However, our population is a meagre 8 million larger. Just look at the population density. Of course it's easier to provide services to your residents if they're spaced so close together. We could fit ALL of Taiwan into just Nova Scotia (our second smallest province) and still have room for all of New Hampshire.
Providing and servicing links across vast, empty corridors of this country is prohibitively expensive.
It's too bad Pegasus doesn't do IMAP and Eudora doesn't do much of anything at all without spectacular periodic crashes.
Truth be told, I have yet to find a mail client for Windows that does IMAP and works to my satisfaction. The closest thing I have is Outlook X-stress and Nutscrape.
On Unix, I've been using Mutt for well over a year and loving every second of it. But Mutt is not your grandma's mail client.
You must have a very limited world view. That you can't fathom the existence of people who use their computers as tools, not toys, and need them to work more or less 100% of the time really kind of invalidates everything you say. It's a shame too, because you were on to something in your first two "sentences". Perhaps you should have stopped there.
Just because I'm not willing to put up with Netscape/Mozilla flakiness when I'm trying to work doesn't mean I'm a brainless, yahoo-browsing, stupid-joke-forwarding, minesweeper-playing "luser".
But I guess since you're using the more "standards compliant" browser (as if that even means anything) I should bow before you. Show me one site that I can't browse using IE and I'll show you about two hundred that you can't touch with Mozilla. Not that I'm proud of that, it's stupid web design, but it's a simple truth. I'd rather have functionality than geek points.
I've got enough karma to say what I want. Fuck the party line - it's stupid. Not to mention hardly any better than the zealots who cling to Windows.
This article doesn't say anything that any rational administrator wouldn't agree with. Yet on/. it becomes another example of the suits not "grokking" the wisdom of Linux Everywhere(tm).
Why not shake things up? Linux is not the saviour it's hyped up to be. It's a good OS, a damn good idea but it's not All That (and a Bag of Onions)(tm).
Typically, companies with "very very strict rules" are those ones who's upper echelons are so totally in the pocket of some major vendor that they swallow EVERY bit of crap, no matter how outrageous, that is in that vendor's interest. If vendor says "Don't let any other operating systems on your network, it could destroy everything!" many policy makers are too ignorant/lazy/busy to know otherwise, and simply make that law.
That's complete crap. So any company that keeps tight control over its resources is being subservient to its vendors?
Companies with FLEXIBLE arrangements are the ones who demonstrate at least some knowledge in what's going on, and a willingness to pad their bottom line through the optimizations and research (unpaid) of employees... or at least, it's a hallmark of a CTO/CIO who realizes that better answers come from employees than from vendors. True, sometimes these things fall down and go boom, but that sort of thing happens even with the most seasoned professional or group.
Any IT manager worth his salt knows not to sign a blanket contract that prevents you from using anything other than a single vendor. It's called good business practice. And any IT manager that wants to stay an IT manager will at least touch base with his subordinates before committing them to anything at all.
You miss the boat too. Nobody is saying that Linux should be outlawed. I'm talking about employees going behind admin backs and installing Linux (or any other OS for that matter, NT is just as capable of f-ing with a network) without asking permission.
No, it won't. But that's one less source. So is password-protecting the BIOS on your workstations and disabling boot from floppy.
With your kind of logic, what's the point in locking doors? An experienced thief can pick the lock anyways, right? Or break it down.
Not to mention you missed the point entirely. I never said nobody should be allowed to have Linux. I only said that sysadmins have good reason to be pissed when someone goes and installs Linux on a workstation without telling them.
Ahh, someone bites. =) Forgive me if I break into another rant.
I respectfully disagree. I happen to believe that the VAST majority of today's Linux users are indeed less than skillful at administering Unix. Inept, if I may say so.
I see it everyday. People who claim to be Linux masters because they've been using this lesser-known distro for so many months/years.
And then I watch them login to their home machine (using telnet no less).
And this is one of the brighter ones who knew to disable remote logins by root. It scares the hell out of me thinking that these people consider themselves knowledgeable. The problem is that these are the people who will go around installing Linux overtop of Windows machines at work without asking because they presume that the sysadmin doesn't know how or (even worse) they believe that they don't need to ask permission.
An intelligent, well-informed Linux user will understand that control over what is deployed on a network is not just a luxury for a sysadmin. He will understand that he's treading on somebody else's toes by installing another OS where it shouldn't be.
For one thing, it's called common courtesy. For another, it's common sense. Unless your job is to maintain the workstation you're given, what the hell right do you have to mess with it? It's a tool, supplied to you by your employer in order for you to perform your work, not a God-given right.
I feel bad ranting like this, because I know there are some very knowledgeable people out there who are locked in by some short-sighted contract signed by even more short-sighted managers. But the reality is that it's not your call. Installing Linux without permission isn't going to help the cause 99% of the time.
... that nobody even sees the real problems rogue installs can cause for sysadmins.
When a sysadmin installs an OS such as Linux, Solaris, or even NT usually administrative privileges are withheld from the workstation user - with good reason.
However, if someone comes along and installs their own Linux distro suddenly you've got someone other than the admins with root privileges on at least one machine in the network. Hello, nmap. Hello, packet sniffers. Yes, you can encrypt everything to death, but it's better to keep prying eyes from ever seeing the sensitive data in the first place.
If I'm the sysadmin and you go and replace the OS you were given, you're damn right I'll be pissed. There goes all my planning. You are using the company's equipment and messing with something that it's not your business to mess with.
If Windows is handicapping you so much, tell me. If your sysadmin is so ass-backwards that he doesn't recognize a good explanation of the benefits you'll get from using Linux, then he's an idiot and what are you doing working in an IT department with this guy managing your systems? Chances are he's missed the boat on more than just this one issue.
If you work for a company with very, very strict rules in place about changes to the network, there's probably a reason for that. You should know better than to mess with stuff that 1) is not your responsibility and 2) others probably know more about than you do.
Why is it assumed that if the person is running Linux they must be some Unix god incapable of messing up their system (and possibly the services provided for others) quite royally?
Not only would an external computer be impractical, it would almost certainly be illegal by current F1 rules. AFAIK, pit-driver communication is restricted to a sign that a crew member holds out whenever the driver passes by the pit at 200km/h. No two-way radios like in NASCAR or Indy.
Yeah, if only F1 racing was as mindless as You-Mean-There's-Such-A-Thing-As-A-Right-Turn-NASC AR?
A good control system might even be able to beat a good portion of the field in NASCAR and yet it stands no chance in Formula 1.
It's one thing to calculate the ideal trajectory through a racetrack, it's quite another to account for MacLaren's pit strategy and the slight drizzle that's beginning to fall while you're on used-up grooved tires and running the fastest laps of the race. (Which, incidentally is what Michael Schumacher did about two weeks ago in Japan to clinch the F1 World Championship).
It'll take one hell of a Control System to do what Michael Schumacher or Mikka Hakkinen do. Honestly, if these engineers can beat Schumacher on a freshly-wet course with grooved tires then they deserve something on the order of a Nobel prize.
It's one thing to design a computer that can outthink an opponent by brute force and given a reasonable amount of time. It's quite another that can adapt to the immensely varying conditions of a racecar/track and make split-second decisions - any of which can send you careening off the course in a nasty fireball.
Oh, and fit in an F1 racecar. Have you seen the size of these things? They're go-karts!
OTOH, have you seen the size of Deep Blue?
Methinks this is a publicity stunt. It really makes you wonder when on the first page they're talking about the publicity generated by Deep Blue and subsequent profits. And then they go on to recruit investors.
My old superintendent was a sweet old lady from Newfoundland. Man, you haven't heard a real aboot until you've heard a Newfie talk. It was just about the only intelligible word I could make out of her conversation. =)
No but seriously, why do you think Newfies are the butt of every Canadian joke ever? They have their own, very distinct dialect.
And have you ever actually listened to Don Cherry?
Network Computing making a list of important world political leaders would be like Mad Magazine doing a list of the top 10 Broadway musicals. It might be funny, but it certainly wouldn't be relevant. Who looks in Mad for a genuine review of theatre? I guess the same idiots who look in a technical/business publication for political commentary.
You don't get it. He is not releasing them AT THE SAME TIME. It's not like you have the choice of VHS or DVD. You have no choice if you want to see it now.
Let me spell it out:
Movie released in theatres:
All the kiddies run out and fork over their money to see it
Lucas & Co. make lots of money
Movie released on VHS:
All the kiddies run out and fork over their money to see it
Lucas & Co. make lots of money
Repeat steps 1-2 for Episode II & III
NOW, after all the people have paid to see it in theatres and on VHS, Lucas & Co. release the movies on DVD. Probably one at a time, and then finally an ubercool Box Set (which will of course, contain never-before-seen footage).
Having said that. More power to Lucas! It's a free market economy you whiny bitches. If you don't like it, don't put money in his pockets. Sneak into theatres, rent the tapes and return them claiming they're broken, hijack transport trucks, whatever...
If my computer is crashing, one of the very first things I do is get on the 'net, check www.deja.com, and see if other
people are having similar problems
Yes, I see the parallel. You're having some trouble with Samba, post to your Linux newsgroup and within a few hours you may have a few people who've experienced the same problem offering a solution.
There's just one problem. Your computer is not an Enterprise 10000. How many people do you know that have an E10000? And out of those hundreds, how many do you know that are identically configured?
This isn't some run-of-the-mill, I-just-installed-RH6.2-from-the-ISO-and-can't-conn ect-to-the-Internet problem. When people have problems with a system like the E10000 they call the people who know the E10000 best: Sun.
You aren't going to find many employed administrators who have a habit of disclosing detailed explanations of their E10000 troubles on Usenet, hoping to find some help from their competitors.
The reality is, if you've got an issue with an E10000 that Sun can't help you with themselves, then there ain't nobody else that's going to help you fix it, either. An NDA is really kind of redundant and I suspect it's just a legal exercise more than anything else.
... or, the rumours that started a few days ago were picked up by Intel and a decision was made after a few meetings (that may have taken a day or two) to "recall" the chip. Slashdot - quick to react as always - merely caught on right before Intel announced the desicion they had made a few days ago.
If you've worked in a large IT company before, you'll know which one is more likely.
Slashdot Mirror
Surpluses abound in just about every level of Canadian politics these days. Unfortunately, the prevailing wisdom appears to be "spend, Spend, SPEND!!" rather than "Pay down the massive debt while we still can".
Supporting our particular brand of socialism wouldn't be that hard if it didn't involve corrupt prime ministers and retarded government bureaucracies.
--
--
Maybe if you were a little more clever, you'd realize that there are entire countries smaller than New Hampshire and that I was just trying to drive home a point with something closer to home. Israel, for example, is actually smaller than New Hampshire.
--
Taiwan:
Canada:
Canada has a landmass roughly 300 times larger than Taiwan. However, our population is a meagre 8 million larger. Just look at the population density. Of course it's easier to provide services to your residents if they're spaced so close together. We could fit ALL of Taiwan into just Nova Scotia (our second smallest province) and still have room for all of New Hampshire.
Providing and servicing links across vast, empty corridors of this country is prohibitively expensive.
The comparison just isn't valid.
--
--
- It's not free. =(
- It crashed spectacularly when I tried to run it one day and refused to ever start again without GPFs.
I just haven't been bothered to reinstall it again.--
Truth be told, I have yet to find a mail client for Windows that does IMAP and works to my satisfaction. The closest thing I have is Outlook X-stress and Nutscrape.
On Unix, I've been using Mutt for well over a year and loving every second of it. But Mutt is not your grandma's mail client.
--
Just because I'm not willing to put up with Netscape/Mozilla flakiness when I'm trying to work doesn't mean I'm a brainless, yahoo-browsing, stupid-joke-forwarding, minesweeper-playing "luser".
But I guess since you're using the more "standards compliant" browser (as if that even means anything) I should bow before you. Show me one site that I can't browse using IE and I'll show you about two hundred that you can't touch with Mozilla. Not that I'm proud of that, it's stupid web design, but it's a simple truth. I'd rather have functionality than geek points.
--
Surely you can't argue with that?
--
This article doesn't say anything that any rational administrator wouldn't agree with. Yet on /. it becomes another example of the suits not "grokking" the wisdom of Linux Everywhere(tm).
Why not shake things up? Linux is not the saviour it's hyped up to be. It's a good OS, a damn good idea but it's not All That (and a Bag of Onions)(tm).
--
You miss the boat too. Nobody is saying that Linux should be outlawed. I'm talking about employees going behind admin backs and installing Linux (or any other OS for that matter, NT is just as capable of f-ing with a network) without asking permission.
--
With your kind of logic, what's the point in locking doors? An experienced thief can pick the lock anyways, right? Or break it down.
Not to mention you missed the point entirely. I never said nobody should be allowed to have Linux. I only said that sysadmins have good reason to be pissed when someone goes and installs Linux on a workstation without telling them.
--
I respectfully disagree. I happen to believe that the VAST majority of today's Linux users are indeed less than skillful at administering Unix. Inept, if I may say so.
I see it everyday. People who claim to be Linux masters because they've been using this lesser-known distro for so many months/years.
And then I watch them login to their home machine (using telnet no less).
And this is one of the brighter ones who knew to disable remote logins by root. It scares the hell out of me thinking that these people consider themselves knowledgeable. The problem is that these are the people who will go around installing Linux overtop of Windows machines at work without asking because they presume that the sysadmin doesn't know how or (even worse) they believe that they don't need to ask permission.
An intelligent, well-informed Linux user will understand that control over what is deployed on a network is not just a luxury for a sysadmin. He will understand that he's treading on somebody else's toes by installing another OS where it shouldn't be.
For one thing, it's called common courtesy. For another, it's common sense. Unless your job is to maintain the workstation you're given, what the hell right do you have to mess with it? It's a tool, supplied to you by your employer in order for you to perform your work, not a God-given right.
I feel bad ranting like this, because I know there are some very knowledgeable people out there who are locked in by some short-sighted contract signed by even more short-sighted managers. But the reality is that it's not your call. Installing Linux without permission isn't going to help the cause 99% of the time.
--
When a sysadmin installs an OS such as Linux, Solaris, or even NT usually administrative privileges are withheld from the workstation user - with good reason.
However, if someone comes along and installs their own Linux distro suddenly you've got someone other than the admins with root privileges on at least one machine in the network. Hello, nmap. Hello, packet sniffers. Yes, you can encrypt everything to death, but it's better to keep prying eyes from ever seeing the sensitive data in the first place.
If I'm the sysadmin and you go and replace the OS you were given, you're damn right I'll be pissed. There goes all my planning. You are using the company's equipment and messing with something that it's not your business to mess with.
If Windows is handicapping you so much, tell me. If your sysadmin is so ass-backwards that he doesn't recognize a good explanation of the benefits you'll get from using Linux, then he's an idiot and what are you doing working in an IT department with this guy managing your systems? Chances are he's missed the boat on more than just this one issue.
If you work for a company with very, very strict rules in place about changes to the network, there's probably a reason for that. You should know better than to mess with stuff that 1) is not your responsibility and 2) others probably know more about than you do.
Why is it assumed that if the person is running Linux they must be some Unix god incapable of messing up their system (and possibly the services provided for others) quite royally?
--
--
--
A good control system might even be able to beat a good portion of the field in NASCAR and yet it stands no chance in Formula 1.
It's one thing to calculate the ideal trajectory through a racetrack, it's quite another to account for MacLaren's pit strategy and the slight drizzle that's beginning to fall while you're on used-up grooved tires and running the fastest laps of the race. (Which, incidentally is what Michael Schumacher did about two weeks ago in Japan to clinch the F1 World Championship).
--
It's one thing to design a computer that can outthink an opponent by brute force and given a reasonable amount of time. It's quite another that can adapt to the immensely varying conditions of a racecar/track and make split-second decisions - any of which can send you careening off the course in a nasty fireball.
Oh, and fit in an F1 racecar. Have you seen the size of these things? They're go-karts!
OTOH, have you seen the size of Deep Blue?
Methinks this is a publicity stunt. It really makes you wonder when on the first page they're talking about the publicity generated by Deep Blue and subsequent profits. And then they go on to recruit investors.
--
No but seriously, why do you think Newfies are the butt of every Canadian joke ever? They have their own, very distinct dialect.
And have you ever actually listened to Don Cherry?
--
We've got some UltraSPARCs here in our lab clocked at 143MHz. Running SETI@home clients on Solaris 2.5.1, this is what you get:
--
--
--
Let me spell it out:
Having said that. More power to Lucas! It's a free market economy you whiny bitches. If you don't like it, don't put money in his pockets. Sneak into theatres, rent the tapes and return them claiming they're broken, hijack transport trucks, whatever...
--
Yes, I see the parallel. You're having some trouble with Samba, post to your Linux newsgroup and within a few hours you may have a few people who've experienced the same problem offering a solution.
There's just one problem. Your computer is not an Enterprise 10000. How many people do you know that have an E10000? And out of those hundreds, how many do you know that are identically configured?
This isn't some run-of-the-mill, I-just-installed-RH6.2-from-the-ISO-and-can't-conn ect-to-the-Internet problem. When people have problems with a system like the E10000 they call the people who know the E10000 best: Sun.
You aren't going to find many employed administrators who have a habit of disclosing detailed explanations of their E10000 troubles on Usenet, hoping to find some help from their competitors.
The reality is, if you've got an issue with an E10000 that Sun can't help you with themselves, then there ain't nobody else that's going to help you fix it, either. An NDA is really kind of redundant and I suspect it's just a legal exercise more than anything else.
--
If you've worked in a large IT company before, you'll know which one is more likely.
--