I only use GNU/Linux on my servers, for which I don't even care to install the GUI packages. I SSH into them and am all set. And most of them run Ubuntu Server. Installation was breeze and they've been rock solid ever since.
I also don't have problems with video and sound card drivers, audio subsystems or any of the most common annoyances of GNU/Linux users.
For desktop use, I still swear by Mac OS X. I don't care about it not being "free as is freedom", as it's not "free as in beer" either. It works great for me.
Wikipedia's article about Brazil is a good start. Check the Geography section. You'll see that Brazil occupies almost 48% of South America. So, Brazil is not a small part of it at all.
Yes, the Amazon rainforest is shrinking day after day, but not even close to the "edge of collapse". There are better sources of information, but Wikipedia provides some, like:
"The mean annual deforestation rate from 2000 to 2005 (22,392 km2 or 8,646 sq mi per year) was 18% higher than in the previous five years (19,018 km2 or 7,343 sq mi per year).[37] Deforestation has declined significantly in the Brazilian Amazon since 2004.[38]"
Better laws, better enforcement and better pressure from NGOs like WWF has shown results. It could be better, but it's progressing.
There is one hydroelectric plant that the government is trying to get built since 1985, called "Belo Monte". Ecologists and native brazilians (our "indians") are trying to stop the government since then. I tried to google it, but I can't find any articles in English. This dam would be built in the Amazon, covering a very large area, but nothing as big as Tucuruí or Itaipú. The natives are complaining that the dam's reservoir will cover ancient cemetaries and stuff like that.
The dam I was talking about -- which I think is the only one being built right now -- is at the border between Rio and Minas Gerais, thousands of miles away from the Amazon.
Then, I conclude we have different opinions on the matter and we'll never ever reach an agreement.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter how politicians cause harm to the population -- the population is harmed anyway.
So, if the US or Brazil is more or less fucked up than each other is a matter of opinion.
I know a lot of people that live in the US and think it's great. I know people that went to the US and started businesses over there and are doing well. I also know a lot of people that have a nice life here in Brazil, myself included.
My point is: it could be better, but it's not nearly as bad as some brazilians commented here.
To sum it up: it's hard to find an american criticizing the US to foreigners. Americans tend to work for the benefit of the nation. OTOH, it's pretty easy to find a brazilian criticizing Brazil and not even trying to fix it. That's where Brazil is totally fucked up.
We don't have socialists anymore. Worker's Party (PT - Partido dos Trabalhadores) used to flirt with socialism, but now they just got convinced that the right wing was right (no pun intended).
Every party here is the same these days. All are friends and benefit from their schemes together.
I think you haven't watched Michael Moore's documentaries lately, eh?
The US has been run by -- whatever it means -- "nincompoops" for a long time. They make money off of mortgage debts and all kinds of wild and borderline-out-of-law investments. The ex-president friends -- like Dick Chenney, Condolezza Rice and some other well known oil mercenaries -- make money from wars in countries that have nothing to do with the so-called "terrorist menace".
Trillions of dollars went to the bankers pockets and a good part of the nation is now homeless.
What you mean is PLC (Power Line Communication), which provides data over electric wires.
PoE is the opposite: it delivers energy through the Ethernet cabling, eliminating the need for a power outlet next to the remote device (the one away from the switch/hub), in this particular case, a wireless access point.
Just an advice: read before posting. Any confusion is eliminated by (adequate) information.
OP's customer seems to be using Motorola Solutions products, or something very similar from a competitor. He says:
[...] there is no ethernet infrastructure in place. The existing APs (hidden away in proprietary encasements) seem to be connected via telephone lines and the owners have strongly indicated they would prefer that no new wiring be installed [...]
The only product I know that uses Cat-3 (standard telephone cabling) is Motorola Solutions' T3 PowerBroadband. It's quite a nice product, but only supports 802.11b/g.
But the problem the OP faces now is the infrastructure itself. He just didn't tell us what the problem is, letting us to guess...
To start, I would recommend AirDefense Mobile Site-Survey or hire some certified professional to do an assessment and determine best access point locations. This can avoid the need to replace the entire infrastructure. It would require some repositioning of APs and, maybe, the addition of some more.
After that, he could add other AirDefense products to the mix, including the ones you seem to have suggested, to manage the network, prevent intrusion and also to provide services like RTLS and VoWLAN, so the workforce gets more efficient.
If the problem is performance (not coverage), I would suggest 802.11n and Cat-6 cabling, which the OP said the hotel owners don't want. Another option would be wireless mesh (a.k.a. WDS, but somewhat different), which is not as good and costs more.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Motorola Solutions. I resell their products and provide services like consulting, site-survey and configuration here in Brazil (pretty far from the OP).
I got late to this talk, but I can say with huge confidence that you're far from naive.
And I'll tell you why... The summary contains one of the most stupid lines I've ever read on slashdot:
Instead of having a bunch of network engineers, they will deploy wireless and no longer need cabling or current levels of network engineering services.
So, the poster means that wireless requires less network engineers, when it's quite the opposite. Wireless networks are not so difficult to plan, but require services like professional site-surveys and spectral-analysis, which are crucial for an adequate network design and cost a lot. The difference: cabled networks work fine for ages, even when the physical layout of the office, building or warehouse changes. Wireless will need tuning much more often, thus requiring more engineers to maintain it. Factors like neighboring networks (even when they're not rogue devices) have huge impact on performance and have to be actively monitored, identified, understood and avoided.
To implement a high-performance, secure and reliable wireless network, the infrastructure is way more expensive than in wired networks, which will still be needed for the core of the network.
You can get thousands of feet of Cat-6 cabling with the money you'd pay for a single Cisco 802.11n access point. For corporate networks, it would be advisable to use a WLAN controller, which costs a few thousand dollars for something like 40 access points and get even more expensive when you need more APs.
To automatically detect and prevent intrusions -- and really comply with PCI-DSS, SOX and HIPAA with less human interaction --, you'll need something like Motorola Solutions AirDefense Platform, which will cost really big bucks. And you'll need a certified professional to, at least, make the initial configuration.
So, when the poster says "no longer need cabling or current levels of network engineering services", he's right. You need future levels of network engineering services, not the current ones.
If your ordering 12,000 units to roll out in an enterprise, you pick a memory module that's on the compatibility list. It doesn't matter in the least that some guy on a blog said it worked. You don't want to be chasing down an intermittent crash 4 months from now related to a compatibility problem between the memory and the motherboard across 12,000 units scattered over 6 states.
I completely agree with you on this. You're more than right.
That's how using Apple in an enterprise has often felt... they're the "unsupported memory module". There are tips and tricks to get them to work, and Steve releases an update and it breaks, and your boned because they never officially supported what you'd done in the first place.
I don't agree. I know Apple's documentation for sysadmins sucks a little. I've read a lot of docs on Mac OS X Server and still have a lot of doubts, but I got most of what I needed working, based on the available docs.
For the specific problem here (deploying Mac OS X Lion to several Macs on a corporate LAN), there is documentation for the netboot/netinstall option. There's just no documentation for the bootable USB thumbdrive or DVD.
To upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion, I think one can also use Apple Remote Desktop, if Lion installer is a conventional installation package.
But there is a big difference between "wanting to get Microsoft Office 95 running on Windows 7 64-bit to recover some data or some-such" and using some tips and tricks and hacks to make it work... and "planning to roll out Office 95 on Windows 7 across an entire enterprise because of those same tips and tricks..." They are worlds apart.
I see what you mean, but I think this example is a little exaggerated.
But first, I'll have to say that this is my opinion. I own a small business and take care of all our Macs (we have only one Windows PC and some Linux servers), so I am used to making Macs work. And boy, they work!
My problem with your argument is: do you really mean that an IT professional that works for a business (whatever size) should rely on the manufacturer's or developer's technical support? Wait! The guy that was hired to provide technical support needs support to do his work? Isn't documentation enough for someone that, I assume, educates himself about his work?
Why does Red Hat, Microsoft, Oracle and Cisco, just to name a few, have training and certification programs? Is it for the "IT guy" to call and ask what to do?
Yeah, I know Apple does not provide any of this, nor documentation for this specific procedure. But, even then, I see certified professionals (SAP, Oracle, etc.) exchanging tricks and undocumented procedures all the time on the 'net. Call them "creative professionals"...
Now that the XServe is dead and the only options are the Mini Server (no dual ethernet, to say the least) and the Mac Pro (takes too much space in the rack), I wish I could just get an HP or Dell server, install a minimum Linux system with a VM and run instances of Mac OS X Server in it.
About servers being pretty, I am not sure it's just like that. Apple likes to sell pretty stuff, but they like to make money out of them even more.
Well... At least one download is needed per company.
After that, the "IT guy" can use detailed instructions available on the 'net and create an installer/boot DVD or USB thumbdrive. It's easy as that! I can't see any other good way to deploy to multiple machines on businesses.
Oh, yes! I can: create a net-installer and use Mac OS X Server (now dirt-cheap) to deploy via netboot. Takes a little effort in the preparation phase, but won't use the internet afterwards, only the LAN.
Apple does offer business licensing for Mac OS X (and other products). No need to buy one boxed copy (soon to disappear) for each machine... Just the same way you can use a burned DVD to install Windows (as I did a lot of times myself).
And, please, don't even try to tell me it's better to buy installation media (like those shiny holographic Windows install DVDs). People have been burning Linux ISOs for ages with no complaints.
So, this "IT guy" needs to know some things before complaining about congested internet connections...
Last time I checked, one could download Darwin as a full operating system.
I have no time to look for links now, but I am pretty positive, since I downloaded a ISO for the bootable installation disk some years ago. I remember trying it on a Dell PC and booting to the installer, but never got back ever since.
As you can see, I use a Mac and am part of the 0.0000001% of people in the world that use *BSD.
Slashdot Mirror
I am impressed by the lack of comments about cats. So, here we go!
Since I do extra shifts at home after dinner, I get the chance to have one or more cats on my lap while I work. It's awesome in the winter!
The joy of being a business owner!!
... about Unity.
I only use GNU/Linux on my servers, for which I don't even care to install the GUI packages. I SSH into them and am all set. And most of them run Ubuntu Server. Installation was breeze and they've been rock solid ever since.
I also don't have problems with video and sound card drivers, audio subsystems or any of the most common annoyances of GNU/Linux users.
For desktop use, I still swear by Mac OS X. I don't care about it not being "free as is freedom", as it's not "free as in beer" either. It works great for me.
The lawyer in question is colorblind, you insensitive clod!
Wikipedia's article about Brazil is a good start. Check the Geography section. You'll see that Brazil occupies almost 48% of South America. So, Brazil is not a small part of it at all.
Yes, the Amazon rainforest is shrinking day after day, but not even close to the "edge of collapse". There are better sources of information, but Wikipedia provides some, like:
"The mean annual deforestation rate from 2000 to 2005 (22,392 km2 or 8,646 sq mi per year) was 18% higher than in the previous five years (19,018 km2 or 7,343 sq mi per year).[37] Deforestation has declined significantly in the Brazilian Amazon since 2004.[38]"
Better laws, better enforcement and better pressure from NGOs like WWF has shown results. It could be better, but it's progressing.
There is one hydroelectric plant that the government is trying to get built since 1985, called "Belo Monte". Ecologists and native brazilians (our "indians") are trying to stop the government since then. I tried to google it, but I can't find any articles in English. This dam would be built in the Amazon, covering a very large area, but nothing as big as Tucuruí or Itaipú. The natives are complaining that the dam's reservoir will cover ancient cemetaries and stuff like that.
The dam I was talking about -- which I think is the only one being built right now -- is at the border between Rio and Minas Gerais, thousands of miles away from the Amazon.
Then, I conclude we have different opinions on the matter and we'll never ever reach an agreement.
In my opinion, it doesn't matter how politicians cause harm to the population -- the population is harmed anyway.
So, if the US or Brazil is more or less fucked up than each other is a matter of opinion.
I know a lot of people that live in the US and think it's great. I know people that went to the US and started businesses over there and are doing well. I also know a lot of people that have a nice life here in Brazil, myself included.
My point is: it could be better, but it's not nearly as bad as some brazilians commented here.
To sum it up: it's hard to find an american criticizing the US to foreigners. Americans tend to work for the benefit of the nation. OTOH, it's pretty easy to find a brazilian criticizing Brazil and not even trying to fix it. That's where Brazil is totally fucked up.
Brazilians would sell their own grandmother for a dollar.
Wait... These are the jews!
(then steal her back later to sell again...)
No, wait again... These are the turkish!
"Only a fool would believe a politician..."
There. Fixed it for you...
Now, specifically about brazilian politicians, I don't think you can trust PT any less that you can trust any other party.
We don't have socialists anymore. Worker's Party (PT - Partido dos Trabalhadores) used to flirt with socialism, but now they just got convinced that the right wing was right (no pun intended).
Every party here is the same these days. All are friends and benefit from their schemes together.
what a bullshit post: it offended me, from São Paulo - Brasil
I'm pretty much offended too. I didn't know xenophobia was at these levels here at /. .
Maybe this guy is one of those "sexual tourists" that come to Brazil and pay to have sex with little children in the northeast.
Wanna know another inherent characteristic of Brazilian people? I think you're brazilian too, so you already know: HYPOCRISY.
I can only say: BINGO!
I can buy a Dell for pocket change here, directly from Dell, 3-yr warranty (1st year on-site).
Most companies here have contracts with them. Premium support, replacement, technology refreshes...
I couldn't care less, as I don't do Windows.
Brazil is run by nincompoops.
I think you haven't watched Michael Moore's documentaries lately, eh?
The US has been run by -- whatever it means -- "nincompoops" for a long time. They make money off of mortgage debts and all kinds of wild and borderline-out-of-law investments. The ex-president friends -- like Dick Chenney, Condolezza Rice and some other well known oil mercenaries -- make money from wars in countries that have nothing to do with the so-called "terrorist menace".
Trillions of dollars went to the bankers pockets and a good part of the nation is now homeless.
Nicely run country, eh?
Some people really talk about what they don't know...
The goddamn dam is like 2,000 miles from Amazon!
I didn't believe xenophobia was a serious problem among IT professionals, which would have better knowledge than the average person.
What you mean is PLC (Power Line Communication), which provides data over electric wires.
PoE is the opposite: it delivers energy through the Ethernet cabling, eliminating the need for a power outlet next to the remote device (the one away from the switch/hub), in this particular case, a wireless access point.
Just an advice: read before posting. Any confusion is eliminated by (adequate) information.
What you seem to be suggesting is something like Motorola Solutions' AirDefense Services Platform.
OP's customer seems to be using Motorola Solutions products, or something very similar from a competitor. He says:
[...] there is no ethernet infrastructure in place. The existing APs (hidden away in proprietary encasements) seem to be connected via telephone lines and the owners have strongly indicated they would prefer that no new wiring be installed [...]
The only product I know that uses Cat-3 (standard telephone cabling) is Motorola Solutions' T3 PowerBroadband. It's quite a nice product, but only supports 802.11b/g.
But the problem the OP faces now is the infrastructure itself. He just didn't tell us what the problem is, letting us to guess...
To start, I would recommend AirDefense Mobile Site-Survey or hire some certified professional to do an assessment and determine best access point locations. This can avoid the need to replace the entire infrastructure. It would require some repositioning of APs and, maybe, the addition of some more.
After that, he could add other AirDefense products to the mix, including the ones you seem to have suggested, to manage the network, prevent intrusion and also to provide services like RTLS and VoWLAN, so the workforce gets more efficient.
If the problem is performance (not coverage), I would suggest 802.11n and Cat-6 cabling, which the OP said the hotel owners don't want. Another option would be wireless mesh (a.k.a. WDS, but somewhat different), which is not as good and costs more.
Disclaimer: I don't work for Motorola Solutions. I resell their products and provide services like consulting, site-survey and configuration here in Brazil (pretty far from the OP).
You mean this PoE?
I got late to this talk, but I can say with huge confidence that you're far from naive.
And I'll tell you why... The summary contains one of the most stupid lines I've ever read on slashdot:
Instead of having a bunch of network engineers, they will deploy wireless and no longer need cabling or current levels of network engineering services.
So, the poster means that wireless requires less network engineers, when it's quite the opposite. Wireless networks are not so difficult to plan, but require services like professional site-surveys and spectral-analysis, which are crucial for an adequate network design and cost a lot. The difference: cabled networks work fine for ages, even when the physical layout of the office, building or warehouse changes. Wireless will need tuning much more often, thus requiring more engineers to maintain it. Factors like neighboring networks (even when they're not rogue devices) have huge impact on performance and have to be actively monitored, identified, understood and avoided.
To implement a high-performance, secure and reliable wireless network, the infrastructure is way more expensive than in wired networks, which will still be needed for the core of the network.
You can get thousands of feet of Cat-6 cabling with the money you'd pay for a single Cisco 802.11n access point. For corporate networks, it would be advisable to use a WLAN controller, which costs a few thousand dollars for something like 40 access points and get even more expensive when you need more APs.
To automatically detect and prevent intrusions -- and really comply with PCI-DSS, SOX and HIPAA with less human interaction --, you'll need something like Motorola Solutions AirDefense Platform, which will cost really big bucks. And you'll need a certified professional to, at least, make the initial configuration.
So, when the poster says "no longer need cabling or current levels of network engineering services", he's right. You need future levels of network engineering services, not the current ones.
If your ordering 12,000 units to roll out in an enterprise, you pick a memory module that's on the compatibility list. It doesn't matter in the least that some guy on a blog said it worked. You don't want to be chasing down an intermittent crash 4 months from now related to a compatibility problem between the memory and the motherboard across 12,000 units scattered over 6 states.
I completely agree with you on this. You're more than right.
That's how using Apple in an enterprise has often felt... they're the "unsupported memory module". There are tips and tricks to get them to work, and Steve releases an update and it breaks, and your boned because they never officially supported what you'd done in the first place.
I don't agree. I know Apple's documentation for sysadmins sucks a little. I've read a lot of docs on Mac OS X Server and still have a lot of doubts, but I got most of what I needed working, based on the available docs.
For the specific problem here (deploying Mac OS X Lion to several Macs on a corporate LAN), there is documentation for the netboot/netinstall option. There's just no documentation for the bootable USB thumbdrive or DVD.
To upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion, I think one can also use Apple Remote Desktop, if Lion installer is a conventional installation package.
But there is a big difference between "wanting to get Microsoft Office 95 running on Windows 7 64-bit to recover some data or some-such" and using some tips and tricks and hacks to make it work... and "planning to roll out Office 95 on Windows 7 across an entire enterprise because of those same tips and tricks..." They are worlds apart.
I see what you mean, but I think this example is a little exaggerated.
Dude, I have to disagree...
But first, I'll have to say that this is my opinion. I own a small business and take care of all our Macs (we have only one Windows PC and some Linux servers), so I am used to making Macs work. And boy, they work!
My problem with your argument is: do you really mean that an IT professional that works for a business (whatever size) should rely on the manufacturer's or developer's technical support? Wait! The guy that was hired to provide technical support needs support to do his work? Isn't documentation enough for someone that, I assume, educates himself about his work?
Why does Red Hat, Microsoft, Oracle and Cisco, just to name a few, have training and certification programs? Is it for the "IT guy" to call and ask what to do?
Yeah, I know Apple does not provide any of this, nor documentation for this specific procedure. But, even then, I see certified professionals (SAP, Oracle, etc.) exchanging tricks and undocumented procedures all the time on the 'net. Call them "creative professionals"...
At least, one can dream about it.
Now that the XServe is dead and the only options are the Mini Server (no dual ethernet, to say the least) and the Mac Pro (takes too much space in the rack), I wish I could just get an HP or Dell server, install a minimum Linux system with a VM and run instances of Mac OS X Server in it.
About servers being pretty, I am not sure it's just like that. Apple likes to sell pretty stuff, but they like to make money out of them even more.
Well... At least one download is needed per company.
After that, the "IT guy" can use detailed instructions available on the 'net and create an installer/boot DVD or USB thumbdrive. It's easy as that! I can't see any other good way to deploy to multiple machines on businesses.
Oh, yes! I can: create a net-installer and use Mac OS X Server (now dirt-cheap) to deploy via netboot. Takes a little effort in the preparation phase, but won't use the internet afterwards, only the LAN.
Apple does offer business licensing for Mac OS X (and other products). No need to buy one boxed copy (soon to disappear) for each machine... Just the same way you can use a burned DVD to install Windows (as I did a lot of times myself).
And, please, don't even try to tell me it's better to buy installation media (like those shiny holographic Windows install DVDs). People have been burning Linux ISOs for ages with no complaints.
So, this "IT guy" needs to know some things before complaining about congested internet connections...
Last time I checked, one could download Darwin as a full operating system.
I have no time to look for links now, but I am pretty positive, since I downloaded a ISO for the bootable installation disk some years ago. I remember trying it on a Dell PC and booting to the installer, but never got back ever since.
As you can see, I use a Mac and am part of the 0.0000001% of people in the world that use *BSD.
You said "Code takes Time".
So, Code contains or is made of Time. If Time is Money, Code contains or is made of Money.
When people just write more code to try to squash a bug, they're just "throwing money at it", right?
Sorry! I meant "Android Market".