I spend some time giving tech suggestions to a medium sized business firm (~100 employees) with a large amount of demand placed on their file server. Their current server is a dual Pentium 500 with RAID array and they are looking to upgrade it. The dilemma is the current server OS is running SCO OpenServer 5.0.5, and their new raid array requires 5.0.7. Their programmers have demonstrated that a Linux box can process records much faster, but are still worried about the investment and potential problems that switching OSes would entail. I have already mentioned the cheaper price and the community availability when problems come up, but what other reasons have Slashdot readers come up with for a switch? What arguments am I forgetting that make Linux more attractive then SCO? Should I advise against switching to Linux and advocate them sticking to SCO?
Summary: you have a working SCO 5.0.5 system, required hardware upgrades are driving a minor software upgrade to 5.0.7 with presumably low associated risks.
Question: is it worth a major software change to Linux with high associated risks? This change is unplanned and the programmers have already said they're worried about potential technical problems.
Answer: no. You shouldn't be using a required hardware upgrade to drive a major software change. That's a bad practise to get into. You should be approving the minor software upgrade to SCO 5.0.7.
However: given the lower TCO of Linux and the proven higher performance with your application, you should also be proposing a long-term project to evaluate a migration to Linux. The evaluation should include a risk assessment, full technical approval from the programmers, consideration of knock-on costs like training and support, etc.
Never use minor changes with low risk to drive major changes with high risk. It makes you look like a cowboy. If the SCO system was failing and there was an impending deadline and the 5.0.7 software upgrade carried a high risk... THEN and ONLY then would a hasty Linux migration have any merit. I doubt that's the case. Don't put your balls on the block when this should be a simple low-risk software upgrade.
Re:Why are they running Windows then?
on
Can .NET Really Scale?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
A small business CANNOT afford to employ a full time UNIX administrator. Open source solutions just do not have the ease of administration of the Windows GUIs. Until they do, they will not be small business friendly. Windows Small Business Server provides you with one installer that will basically set you up completely (Exchange Server and all).
Yes, the Windows GUIs are significantly better than the UNIX GUIs. No, I don't think that matters. I've found that the Windows admins need to be every bit as clueful as the UNIX admins. Those GUIs hide the details, but they don't hide the concepts, and the concepts are still hard. There's no value in somebody clicking on the GUI buttons these days; modern systems are far too complex to get right by chance. The installer you mention is only 5% of the job.
At the end of the day your Windows admins are going to cost just as much as your UNIX admins. Quickly looking through the newspaper proves that point neatly; the salaries are within 10% of each other.
I could see a lot of meaning to me. I translated it like this: Where sound is transmitted from one medium to another, or reflected off a medium, slight nonlinearities can come into play, and frequencies outside the range of human hearing can contribute to these nonlinearities. Air itself has a nonlinear response, which some tube amps mimic (explaining why some audiophiles prefer the tube sound).
That is precisely what makes them audiophiles. They grab onto little nuggets of information that may or may not be based in reality. They put spin onto the meaning without understanding how or why it works. They never take into consideration the concept of negligible influence. Then they repeat some bizarre form of the concept back, using airy words like "warmth" and "crispiness", completely losing any meaning in the process, often throwing in technical words like "modulation" or "harmonic" to give themselves a veneer of apparent understanding. That's what an audiophile does. That's why I detest them.
Think of it this way. If somebody said "my hard disk needs more RAM to get the Internet installed" you might understand what he meant, but he's still spouting nonsense. It's a string of buzzwords that means absolutely nothing. You can be forgiving and interpret that he maybe meant "my computer needs more RAM to run Internet Explorer so I can access the Internet" but that's your choice. I'm not even slightly forgiving when it comes to audiophilia.
Even worse, when he was corrected, he chose to defend his nonsense! "No, it really is my hard disk that needs more RAM", he said. "You're a dumb person for telling me my computer needs more RAM because my computer is the 17" thingamie on top of the hard disk". That's what really infuriates me about audiophiles. Not only are they ignorant, they refuse to admit it, and they'll use nonsense to defend their nonsense.
Not that I think this guy really was an audiophile. I think he's just a little hazy on the concepts and my abrasive nature probably rubbed him up the wrong way, so he got all defensive. Oh well, that's my problem as much as his.
I don't understand...you controdicting yourself. Your saying you can't create new frequency components (which would be a wave with a different frequency than the originals), but you can create waves that are the sum of the existing components (which would be a new one compared to the old).
First, get a dictionary.
Second, they aren't the same thing. Putting two oranges into a fruit bowl doesn't create an apple.
I don't think you understand what an audiophile is--it's simply someone who loves quality sound playback.
Too late. For the same reason that "hacker" now means "malicious computer criminal", audiophile now means "stupid idiot with too much money who buys greens pens for their CDs".
I may not have done a good job of explaining, but you've done a good job of tearing me apart on bad grounds.
You did a terrible job of explaining.
Audio waves do interfere with each other while reflecting off of a surface, as noted more precisely in another response.
No, you've got it wrong again. The vibrating surface is what affects the audio, not the two waves interfering. Even the word "interfere" is wrong because interference already has a meaning in audio and it only affects intensity. Pointing to the guy who mentioned doppler shift is also a mistake. Doppler shift means the audio source has a velocity; it has nothing to do with reflection, interference, or modulation.
Any yes, there's lots of stereo equipment out there that *will* reproduce sounds that most ears can't hear. I believe many speakers typically respond up to 40khz, and of course "CD-quality" audio samples at 44khz, which effectively sets a maximum frequency for it.
More mistakes.
CD records audio samples at 44.1kHz which means the highest recorded frequency (assuming infinite resolution for samples) is 22.05kHz. That is the Nyquist theorem. Unfortunately CD samples are 16-bit resolution but that's another kettle of fish. Because you can't sample any frequencies greater than 22.05kHz (or you'll get aliasing) you need to use a low-pass filter before sampling. Real world low-pass filters don't drop off very quickly so audio engineers will pick a lower cutoff. Summary: you can't get anything over 22.05kHz and in practise you won't get much over 20kHz.
Speakers don't have frequency responses up to 40kHz. Any speaker review will include an on-axis and off-axis frequency response graph. On the graph you'll have a flat part where the response stays within +/-3dB. The frequency range is when the response hits -6dB. Quality speakers have frequency ranges up to 22kHz and many speakers are closer to 16kHz. Will there be frequencies higher than the range? Sure, but anything up there is going to be inaudible because we're already 6dB down and dropping quickly.
Admittedly you may sometimes see speaker manufacturers claiming "50-35000Hz" for their frequency range. These manufacturers are using similar tricks as computer manufacturers who claim to deliver 1200W from a computer speaker powered by a 12VDC/1A supply. It's dishonest nonsense. The only real truth is a frequency response graph.
However, the sounds in the 30's that will come out of a standard recording into your living room do affect the tone your brain ends up processing, like it or not.
Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with you being wrong. Standard recordings played back on home hi-fis do not have 30kHz frequency components. Not unless those components are high-frequency noise generated by an imperfect system.
PS: I apologise for calling you an audiophile. That was going too far. I didn't mean to be rude or snappy, though I notice how I came across that way. I have a real sore spot for misinformation re: audio because I truly *hate* audiophiles.
Could he be trying to say... "waves can mix (construct and destruct creating new frequency components) at the surfaces that they reflect off of (including those in your head), creating a new wave off of the surface with the new frequency component..."
Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.
Maybe what he was trying to say was:
A resonating surface can modulate a wave to create new frequency components.
Ok, that's fair enough, but all the nonsense about interference and harmonics and reflection points obscured any point he was trying to make. Also the effect would be weak; I doubt it would be audible.
However, you'd be wrong. Again because of the same types of interference, and also because tones can be modulated by the surfaces they reflect off of (including those in your head), and can affect each other at reflection points, the reproduction of those beyond-hearing harmonics (especially in any multi-speaker reproduction) does alter the human-hearable part of the tone that your brain ends up perceiving.
Blah blah blah. What you failed to "educate" with your babble is that hi-fi speakers aren't going to reproduce any "beyond-hearing harmonics" so it's completely irrelevant if they exist or not.
Also if the "interferences" truly created noise in the audible frequency range then they will be recorded in the studio. So the hi-fi equipment will record and reproduce the "interferences" just fine.
Of course, I did know that you are speaking a load of crap. Yes, harmonics are real. No, your explanation of tone is completely wrong. And this gem of a sentence:
... tones can be modulated by the surfaces they reflect off of (including those in your head), and can affect each other at reflection points.
Takes the cake for Biggest Load of Audiophile Bullshit that I've ever had the displeasure to read. It's a string of buzzwords with no actual meaning. There's a grain of truth in there because audio is altered by reflection off surfaces, but it has nothing to do with "modulation" nor do the waves "affect each other".
Isn't it amazing how mysticism pervades every facet of our lives. From medicine (natural "healing") to music (audiophiles *puke*). I was particularly appalled at a recent story on the news where a cancer patient refused to take chemotherapy treatment, instead opting for traditional Greek remedies such as boiled tea leaves and bat-shit. When the cancer victim inevitably died after 3 years, the family blamed the hospitals and the government! I'm similarly appalled by audiophiles who enjoy the fruits of labour from actual audio engineers, yet invent these techno-babble BULLSHIT beliefs to surround it. It's mysticism in another form.
Good idea. I want my free phone, my free internet, and my free electricity as well.
It's more like free education, free water, and free roads.
Yes, those things are typically paid for with taxes but some people argue that infrastructure software (like operating systems) should also be paid for with taxes.
I spent months learning to use Linux, but I can now finally set my computer up exactly the way I want it which I never could with Windows.
This is the main reason I like the open-source movement, not the philosophy or supposed superiority of the code.
Setting your computer up exactly the way you want *is* the philosophy. Read the GNU Manifesto. RMS started GNU precisely for the same reason you prefer Linux over Windows.
On the other hand, simply setting the human food on fire would be a more efficient chemical process than running it through a human.
I agree. As I said, it's the "feeding humans to humans forever" idea that violated the second law. Second law of thermo promises that the system will not work forever; eventually all the energy is in the form of heat and is useless (maximum entropy).
However the "humans as batteries" idea isn't stupid because that is precisely how humans are supposed to work. Whenever you eat you are converting chemical energy from one form to another form. You later use this stored energy to make heat or motion. Precisely what a battery is supposed to do. "Humans as batteries" might not be efficient but it is NOT a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. That was my only point.
Anyway, I don't think there's any dispute there are problems with the science in the Matrix. I think the "human energy source" was perhaps the least problematic. Much worse was the "people are physically hurt in the Real World when they are mentally hurt in the Virtual World". Even worse was the hover ships that don't exert any force on their surroundings. Now those really are examples of non-science! Though they didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film.
Yay free software. They ended up spending millions of dollars more over the Microsoft package. I'm sure training and attrition will offset whatever benefits they could have realized by avoiding the "forced upgrades",
The more expensive Linux option included the training (both options did).
You also have to consider that with the Linux option using SUSE, the taxpayer's money stays in Germany. If they had gone the Microsoft option a huge chunk of change would have gone to the USA.
Linux allows every country on the planet to use the same software while still keeping their money locally. Local jobs. Global software. It's a very unique concept; one that I don't see explored in typical Linux essays.
There's certainly nothing wrong with "humans as batteries".
Apart from the incredible inefficiency of human metabolism as a means of storing and providing energy.
Pfft, there's an incredible inefficiency with the internal combustion engine too, but that doesn't stop it from being practical. Don't be a pedant (and a bad one, to boot).
Also, the comment about Dick's ideas infusing The Matrix is true as far as it goes, but misses one important point. Dick was an SF writer firmly grounded in the field, and would never have made as obvious and asinine mistake as violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics the way The Matrix's idiotic "humans as batteries" backstory does.
Humans work just fine as batteries. Feed food in, stores energy in a chemical form, can later release that energy as heat or kinetics. There's no violation of thermodynamics there.
The flaw in the Matrix story is that they use humans to feed the next generation of humans, creating an "infinite energy source". That's the violation of the second law.
If they were feeding humans with some other source of food (eg, fungus, mould) then there wouldn't have been a problem. There's certainly nothing wrong with "humans as batteries".
If Microsoft did this, the whole Slashdot community would denounce the action as evil; ergo, it's just as evil for our guys to do it.
Nope. That doesn't follow. It's evil for an indulgent dictator to talk about sacrifice when the citizens are starving but it is heroic when one of the citizens makes the same statement.
My point is that who makes the statement is just as important as what they say. Microsoft is always starting from a bad position because of their past misdeeds.
I'm not in denial. I thought the X-Box was junk for months. I didn't buy one untill I had some spare cash about a year ago (that's about a year after launch) and decided that I wanted to try Halo and I wanted to play JSRF (because the origional was so great). I haven't regretted that purchase to this day.
Even worse, you're born again.
You sound exactly like the Sega Saturn owners did only a decade ago. It's sad and funny at the same time.
Super Mario Brothers has been out for nearly 20 years, Mario 64 has been out for 7, and Enter the Matrix was based on a MASSIVE movie license and had tons of promotion. Halo has only been out for 2 years. Let's do some math, shall we?
SMB: 40/18 = 2.22 million copies per year.
Mario64: 11/7 = 1.56 million copies per year.
Halo: 3/2 = 1.5 million per year.
That puts Halo right up there with Mario 64 and not TOO far from SMB if you take into account the MASSIVE amount of time it's been out. Plus let's not forget that SMB was BUNDLED with the NES/Famicon while Mario 64 and Halo didn't become bundles for until later, and even then you had a choice of non-bundled usually.
That is perhaps the dumbest analysis I have ever seen. It is ignorant beyond all reasonable measures of ignorance. Your comparisons are only valid if sales are constant for every year. It's far more likely that games have a high initial takeup, quickly dropping with far fewer units shipped over the remaining years. You might as well conclude that because The Hulk made $100 million first weekend, that it should make $50 billion over the next 10 years. Utterly stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Summary: you have a working SCO 5.0.5 system, required hardware upgrades are driving a minor software upgrade to 5.0.7 with presumably low associated risks.
Question: is it worth a major software change to Linux with high associated risks? This change is unplanned and the programmers have already said they're worried about potential technical problems.
Answer: no. You shouldn't be using a required hardware upgrade to drive a major software change. That's a bad practise to get into. You should be approving the minor software upgrade to SCO 5.0.7.
However: given the lower TCO of Linux and the proven higher performance with your application, you should also be proposing a long-term project to evaluate a migration to Linux. The evaluation should include a risk assessment, full technical approval from the programmers, consideration of knock-on costs like training and support, etc.
Never use minor changes with low risk to drive major changes with high risk. It makes you look like a cowboy. If the SCO system was failing and there was an impending deadline and the 5.0.7 software upgrade carried a high risk... THEN and ONLY then would a hasty Linux migration have any merit. I doubt that's the case. Don't put your balls on the block when this should be a simple low-risk software upgrade.
Yes, the Windows GUIs are significantly better than the UNIX GUIs. No, I don't think that matters. I've found that the Windows admins need to be every bit as clueful as the UNIX admins. Those GUIs hide the details, but they don't hide the concepts, and the concepts are still hard. There's no value in somebody clicking on the GUI buttons these days; modern systems are far too complex to get right by chance. The installer you mention is only 5% of the job.
At the end of the day your Windows admins are going to cost just as much as your UNIX admins. Quickly looking through the newspaper proves that point neatly; the salaries are within 10% of each other.
Which is nothing like what this guy said. Don't try and find truth in nonsense. That's like basing your life on the text of Jabberwocky.
That is precisely what makes them audiophiles. They grab onto little nuggets of information that may or may not be based in reality. They put spin onto the meaning without understanding how or why it works. They never take into consideration the concept of negligible influence. Then they repeat some bizarre form of the concept back, using airy words like "warmth" and "crispiness", completely losing any meaning in the process, often throwing in technical words like "modulation" or "harmonic" to give themselves a veneer of apparent understanding. That's what an audiophile does. That's why I detest them.
Think of it this way. If somebody said "my hard disk needs more RAM to get the Internet installed" you might understand what he meant, but he's still spouting nonsense. It's a string of buzzwords that means absolutely nothing. You can be forgiving and interpret that he maybe meant "my computer needs more RAM to run Internet Explorer so I can access the Internet" but that's your choice. I'm not even slightly forgiving when it comes to audiophilia.
Even worse, when he was corrected, he chose to defend his nonsense! "No, it really is my hard disk that needs more RAM", he said. "You're a dumb person for telling me my computer needs more RAM because my computer is the 17" thingamie on top of the hard disk". That's what really infuriates me about audiophiles. Not only are they ignorant, they refuse to admit it, and they'll use nonsense to defend their nonsense.
Not that I think this guy really was an audiophile. I think he's just a little hazy on the concepts and my abrasive nature probably rubbed him up the wrong way, so he got all defensive. Oh well, that's my problem as much as his.
First, get a dictionary.
Second, they aren't the same thing. Putting two oranges into a fruit bowl doesn't create an apple.
Too late. For the same reason that "hacker" now means "malicious computer criminal", audiophile now means "stupid idiot with too much money who buys greens pens for their CDs".
You did a terrible job of explaining.
No, you've got it wrong again. The vibrating surface is what affects the audio, not the two waves interfering. Even the word "interfere" is wrong because interference already has a meaning in audio and it only affects intensity. Pointing to the guy who mentioned doppler shift is also a mistake. Doppler shift means the audio source has a velocity; it has nothing to do with reflection, interference, or modulation.
More mistakes.
CD records audio samples at 44.1kHz which means the highest recorded frequency (assuming infinite resolution for samples) is 22.05kHz. That is the Nyquist theorem. Unfortunately CD samples are 16-bit resolution but that's another kettle of fish. Because you can't sample any frequencies greater than 22.05kHz (or you'll get aliasing) you need to use a low-pass filter before sampling. Real world low-pass filters don't drop off very quickly so audio engineers will pick a lower cutoff. Summary: you can't get anything over 22.05kHz and in practise you won't get much over 20kHz.
Speakers don't have frequency responses up to 40kHz. Any speaker review will include an on-axis and off-axis frequency response graph. On the graph you'll have a flat part where the response stays within +/-3dB. The frequency range is when the response hits -6dB. Quality speakers have frequency ranges up to 22kHz and many speakers are closer to 16kHz. Will there be frequencies higher than the range? Sure, but anything up there is going to be inaudible because we're already 6dB down and dropping quickly.
Admittedly you may sometimes see speaker manufacturers claiming "50-35000Hz" for their frequency range. These manufacturers are using similar tricks as computer manufacturers who claim to deliver 1200W from a computer speaker powered by a 12VDC/1A supply. It's dishonest nonsense. The only real truth is a frequency response graph.
Whether I like it or not has nothing to do with you being wrong. Standard recordings played back on home hi-fis do not have 30kHz frequency components. Not unless those components are high-frequency noise generated by an imperfect system.
PS: I apologise for calling you an audiophile. That was going too far. I didn't mean to be rude or snappy, though I notice how I came across that way. I have a real sore spot for misinformation re: audio because I truly *hate* audiophiles.
Sure, but he would still be wrong. You can't construct a new frequency component by mixing two waves. Yes, you'll get a new wave, but it's the sum of existing frequency components.
Maybe what he was trying to say was:
Ok, that's fair enough, but all the nonsense about interference and harmonics and reflection points obscured any point he was trying to make. Also the effect would be weak; I doubt it would be audible.
Blah blah blah. What you failed to "educate" with your babble is that hi-fi speakers aren't going to reproduce any "beyond-hearing harmonics" so it's completely irrelevant if they exist or not.
Also if the "interferences" truly created noise in the audible frequency range then they will be recorded in the studio. So the hi-fi equipment will record and reproduce the "interferences" just fine.
Of course, I did know that you are speaking a load of crap. Yes, harmonics are real. No, your explanation of tone is completely wrong. And this gem of a sentence:
Takes the cake for Biggest Load of Audiophile Bullshit that I've ever had the displeasure to read. It's a string of buzzwords with no actual meaning. There's a grain of truth in there because audio is altered by reflection off surfaces, but it has nothing to do with "modulation" nor do the waves "affect each other".
Isn't it amazing how mysticism pervades every facet of our lives. From medicine (natural "healing") to music (audiophiles *puke*). I was particularly appalled at a recent story on the news where a cancer patient refused to take chemotherapy treatment, instead opting for traditional Greek remedies such as boiled tea leaves and bat-shit. When the cancer victim inevitably died after 3 years, the family blamed the hospitals and the government! I'm similarly appalled by audiophiles who enjoy the fruits of labour from actual audio engineers, yet invent these techno-babble BULLSHIT beliefs to surround it. It's mysticism in another form.
It's more like free education, free water, and free roads.
Yes, those things are typically paid for with taxes but some people argue that infrastructure software (like operating systems) should also be paid for with taxes.
Dude, photoshopping my head onto your father's body is *not* cool.
Yes. That's what "the more expensive Linux option" means.
It also significantly involved SUSE. A German company.
Setting your computer up exactly the way you want *is* the philosophy. Read the GNU Manifesto. RMS started GNU precisely for the same reason you prefer Linux over Windows.
No, SCO claims IBM copied code into the kernel, which is correctly termed Linux. RMS has clarified this already.
At least it's better than Darl's impending quote:
I agree. As I said, it's the "feeding humans to humans forever" idea that violated the second law. Second law of thermo promises that the system will not work forever; eventually all the energy is in the form of heat and is useless (maximum entropy).
However the "humans as batteries" idea isn't stupid because that is precisely how humans are supposed to work. Whenever you eat you are converting chemical energy from one form to another form. You later use this stored energy to make heat or motion. Precisely what a battery is supposed to do. "Humans as batteries" might not be efficient but it is NOT a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. That was my only point.
Anyway, I don't think there's any dispute there are problems with the science in the Matrix. I think the "human energy source" was perhaps the least problematic. Much worse was the "people are physically hurt in the Real World when they are mentally hurt in the Virtual World". Even worse was the hover ships that don't exert any force on their surroundings. Now those really are examples of non-science! Though they didn't detract from my enjoyment of the film.
The news is that Linux won the bid.
The more expensive Linux option included the training (both options did).
You also have to consider that with the Linux option using SUSE, the taxpayer's money stays in Germany. If they had gone the Microsoft option a huge chunk of change would have gone to the USA.
Linux allows every country on the planet to use the same software while still keeping their money locally. Local jobs. Global software. It's a very unique concept; one that I don't see explored in typical Linux essays.
Google gave me your homepage.
Pfft, there's an incredible inefficiency with the internal combustion engine too, but that doesn't stop it from being practical. Don't be a pedant (and a bad one, to boot).
Humans work just fine as batteries. Feed food in, stores energy in a chemical form, can later release that energy as heat or kinetics. There's no violation of thermodynamics there.
The flaw in the Matrix story is that they use humans to feed the next generation of humans, creating an "infinite energy source". That's the violation of the second law.
If they were feeding humans with some other source of food (eg, fungus, mould) then there wouldn't have been a problem. There's certainly nothing wrong with "humans as batteries".
Nope. That doesn't follow. It's evil for an indulgent dictator to talk about sacrifice when the citizens are starving but it is heroic when one of the citizens makes the same statement.
My point is that who makes the statement is just as important as what they say. Microsoft is always starting from a bad position because of their past misdeeds.
Even worse, you're born again.
You sound exactly like the Sega Saturn owners did only a decade ago. It's sad and funny at the same time.
It's only outselling GC in some countries and the GC has also been called a failure.
That's the real reason for your cheerleading; it's called denial.
That is perhaps the dumbest analysis I have ever seen. It is ignorant beyond all reasonable measures of ignorance. Your comparisons are only valid if sales are constant for every year. It's far more likely that games have a high initial takeup, quickly dropping with far fewer units shipped over the remaining years. You might as well conclude that because The Hulk made $100 million first weekend, that it should make $50 billion over the next 10 years. Utterly stupid.