The thing is that then you have TWO operating systems to maintain (patch, secure, update, etc), and more memory to run the Windows VM effectively.
If you need to run Windows apps, run Windows. If you need Unix apps run a Unix variant.
Trying to get rid of WIndows by running it in a VM *on client machines* is retarded, you're just creating work for yourself. If you want to do that run a virtual desktop off vSphere. NOT via virtualbox running on a client machine.
Windows as a client is fine if you have a half competent admin to maintain the environment.
Shifting OS simply due to zealotry or lack of knowledge of the existing platform is stupid.
For what its worth, I run a heterogenous environment here (FreeBSD, Linux, WinXP, Win7), but its because i use the relevant tool for the job. I don't do shit like replacing every screw in the building with a hex head and demand that all people give up their screwdrivers for a set of allen keys - for no reason other than not liking screwdrivers...
Am aware the config issue is being addressed, merely responding to those who think replacing old ways of doing things (or rather changing defaults) is a bad idea.
As far as Linux vs Windows goes, I agree with the other poster above that aiming for windows is setting the bar a bit low. Linux can, and should be as easy to use as OS X. Apple did it with a unix layer underneath, the linux desktop should be able to do it just as well.
Being a user of OS X, Windows and Linux, i'd really like to see something similar to OS X for free on PC. Ubuntu is close (really close), but not QUITE there yet.
On one hand, Linux should remain true to the principles that make unix so powerful in the first place, however if you're that worried about that type of thing, one of the BSDs is probably a better fit for you anyway.
However, unless Linux is user friendly enough (via available add-ons, etc) then it will never get a large enough market share for manufacturers to give a shit enough to release drivers or programming specs.
IMHO - add all the user friendly shit you like. Just ensure that it is up in user-space where those who don't care for all the windows-like crap can strip it out. Options are good. Being a good unix-like operating system and having a shiny Windows-like GUI *available* are not mutually exclusive options.
For users who never need/want network transparency in X, etc (and simply want a free operating system that "just works") it is just another vector for their machine to be compromised via unforseen security vulnerabilities in such features. If auto configuration is done right and actually works, you shouldn't NEED to fuck around configuring things manually. Sure, you may lose nerd cred points, but those of us who have been doing that sort of shit for years most likely by now have better things to be doing than rooting around manually making something work.
User/admin time spent configuring something that the computer can and should be able to do automagically is dead, wasted time that does nothing to help anyone get their job done or solve any of the world's problems. Some people (actually most who aren't in the hard core / look at me I' leet / unixnoob crowd) just want a tool to do a job, and un-necessary time spent rooting around trying to make the tool work is time that could be better spent actually doing something productive.
A neat idea, back in the mid 90s of "write once, run anywhere" that ended up so horribly broken that it became "write once, debug/rewrite everywhere" only with shittier performance than native, recompiled code.
Seriously, if Oracle kill java with fire, I'll be ecstatic.
No, its a linux problem. I can do the same thing without issue under Windows, MacOS and presumably (though I haven't tried it recently) FreeBSD. I have the same problem with the same intel standard hardware (D35DP desktop board) under linux.
PvP would be fine if we were dealing with people. However if Playstation Network is anything to go by, listening to a bunch of 12-14 year old kids yapping about fucking each other's mother all day long gets old quick.
I play games if i don't want to deal with people, or MAYBE to play with a select group of friends. Global PvP against a bunch of kids who have 10 hours a day to spare on learning maps, etc holds no interest.
Real nerds don't ejaculate over incremental improvements to the status quo.
Which is what we're dealing with here.
If these were new cards that had some revolutionary new rendering algorithm, then maybe they would be "kicks worthy". As it is, news worthy maybe, but no more so than today's weather. Useful to know, but nothing to get excited over.
Sure, if they're on the VPN for a long period of time, they can run scanning tools, etc but if you've got appropriate
... appropriate logging in place, and perhaps a static IP on the VPN for your users who actually do need to make a connection attempt to the server, you are minimizing your exposure.
A VPN is no more secure than SSH, and if the VPN is compromised, chances are you are in worse shape than if one server were compromised, plus VPNs are susceptible to the same type of attack as SSH. While an "illusion of safety" tends to propagate among VPN users, this arrangement is no more secure.
Well actually, its an additional layer to having SSH access in from anywhere.
First, a user must get onto your network via the VPN. Then know your topology behind the VPN to log into the router/internal server/etc.
Trusting the VPN to the limited extent of then requiring public key access to get onto the device is lessening your exposure to brute force on your servers.
Sure, if they're on the VPN for a long period of time, they can run scanning tools, etc but if you've got appropriate
Your VPN server can die, if it is that important that getting back into the office to fix it is an issue, they can be installed with redundancy.
At some point, it comes down to trusting the remote SSH connection attempt enough to let it attempt to authenticate. I trust my VPN session users more than I trust the internet at large (ipsec tunnels), thus i require VPN first.
VPN in first, and allow SSH in only from your VPN IPs. Yes, VPN is then open to being compromised, but things like routers and switches have no business being administered by an unverified source.
Security is like onions... layers...
If your VPN server is fucked, then chances are you really should be in the office looking at it in any case.
Lose the laptop, you revoke the key... i password protect my keys as well, for an additional (short term) line of defence until i know that the laptop has been stolen / compromised and i can revoke them.
We're switching from Dell to HP as i write this. Had an abysmal run with Latitude E series reliability (like, at least 1-2 machines every batch - and we order in batches of 10 or so) was DOA or failed within a few months. One of the machines we've had (in say, a total of 100) has had 3 motherboard replacements in 18 months. Not to mention throttlegate.
Have switched to Elitebooks, they're built far better and have been reliable so far (touch wood).
Even if you aren't going to "cut" IT staff, there are just so much more productive things for them to be doing for your business.
Time not spent fixing broken PC hardware is time that can be spent helping users be more productive, fixing broken in-house apps, implementing new features, building/testing a better SOE, testing a new OS platform, etc.
There is simply NO SHORTAGE of IT work to be done, and wasting your time fucking about with hardware that you can get Dell/HP/whoever to just replace without question is simply not productive.
For 99% of corporate users, any half recent PC hardware is more than good enough. For the rest, spend a little more to spec up a proper workstation variant of the vendor's kit.
Yes, you could build a better box out of components for the same money or cheaper. However it simply is not worth your time. As an organization's IT staff, your strengths are dealing with company specific IT issues. Not fucking around with generic hardware issues. Leave that to the supplier's fresh-out-of-school tech getting paid $10/hr.
Furthermore... with regards to licenses... this is what an enterprise licensing scheme is for. You pay for X seats and they transfer from PC to PC. It just sounds like "You're doing it wrong".
I can roll a new Win7 desktop in 25-30 minutes (20-25 of which i can be doing something else). Plug in, boot from lan, select image, enter a few credentials for joining to the domain and bingo. Will be quicker when i get zero touch working...
As said, if you're taking a few hours to get a new box ready, you're doing it wrong.
unless you plan on dealing with all of the hardware problems and issues that happen when you can no longer get component X and have to substitute, or some user finds that hardware device X will not work with your hardware for whatever reason - just don't.
Dell or other OEM hardware may be mediocre, but it is good enough for business use, and you can get the same platform for x months. also, if the hardware breaks, it is NOT YOUR PROBLEM. You've got better things to be doing than chasing down broken hardware issues yourself. The time you will spend rooting around trying to prove to your hardware vendor(s) that it is a warranty issue, and which component/vendor is to blame for a particular problem is just shit you do not need/want.
this is why big organisations go with a mediocre box from dell/hp/lenovo/etc. you can just diagnose stuff as "not a software problem", log the hardware fault and get on with something else. maybe re-image a spare box you have laying around and hand it to the user.
If you're looking to save a couple of hundred bucks per machine, or get a little better nerd-spec for your users - don't bother it is not worth it for generic desktops. The cost saving is false economy (you'll pay for it in increased workload) and the performance benefit is just not there for office use.
In reality with shared links (e.g., corporate WAN) you need QOS because your link will end up getting saturated. Gaming stuff like teamspeak is a little different to corporate VOIP solutions where there is an expected level of quality if it is going to compete with a regular POTS line.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course i forgot the windows server side of stuff we have... 2003R2/2008R2, Exchange 2007, etc...
But in Win7 it is epic win.
Start. kind:=mail [search term]
The thing is that then you have TWO operating systems to maintain (patch, secure, update, etc), and more memory to run the Windows VM effectively.
If you need to run Windows apps, run Windows. If you need Unix apps run a Unix variant.
Trying to get rid of WIndows by running it in a VM *on client machines* is retarded, you're just creating work for yourself. If you want to do that run a virtual desktop off vSphere. NOT via virtualbox running on a client machine.
Windows as a client is fine if you have a half competent admin to maintain the environment.
Shifting OS simply due to zealotry or lack of knowledge of the existing platform is stupid.
For what its worth, I run a heterogenous environment here (FreeBSD, Linux, WinXP, Win7), but its because i use the relevant tool for the job. I don't do shit like replacing every screw in the building with a hex head and demand that all people give up their screwdrivers for a set of allen keys - for no reason other than not liking screwdrivers...
Friends don't let friends run nortons...
You can also step someone through running regedit. Just saying, because... yknow... it's happened...
Am aware the config issue is being addressed, merely responding to those who think replacing old ways of doing things (or rather changing defaults) is a bad idea.
As far as Linux vs Windows goes, I agree with the other poster above that aiming for windows is setting the bar a bit low. Linux can, and should be as easy to use as OS X. Apple did it with a unix layer underneath, the linux desktop should be able to do it just as well.
Being a user of OS X, Windows and Linux, i'd really like to see something similar to OS X for free on PC. Ubuntu is close (really close), but not QUITE there yet.
On one hand, Linux should remain true to the principles that make unix so powerful in the first place, however if you're that worried about that type of thing, one of the BSDs is probably a better fit for you anyway.
However, unless Linux is user friendly enough (via available add-ons, etc) then it will never get a large enough market share for manufacturers to give a shit enough to release drivers or programming specs.
IMHO - add all the user friendly shit you like. Just ensure that it is up in user-space where those who don't care for all the windows-like crap can strip it out. Options are good. Being a good unix-like operating system and having a shiny Windows-like GUI *available* are not mutually exclusive options.
For users who never need/want network transparency in X, etc (and simply want a free operating system that "just works") it is just another vector for their machine to be compromised via unforseen security vulnerabilities in such features. If auto configuration is done right and actually works, you shouldn't NEED to fuck around configuring things manually. Sure, you may lose nerd cred points, but those of us who have been doing that sort of shit for years most likely by now have better things to be doing than rooting around manually making something work.
User/admin time spent configuring something that the computer can and should be able to do automagically is dead, wasted time that does nothing to help anyone get their job done or solve any of the world's problems. Some people (actually most who aren't in the hard core / look at me I' leet / unixnoob crowd) just want a tool to do a job, and un-necessary time spent rooting around trying to make the tool work is time that could be better spent actually doing something productive.
"troll". slashdot for "i disagree but am too inept to formulate a coherent response".
A neat idea, back in the mid 90s of "write once, run anywhere" that ended up so horribly broken that it became "write once, debug/rewrite everywhere" only with shittier performance than native, recompiled code.
Seriously, if Oracle kill java with fire, I'll be ecstatic.
No, its a linux problem. I can do the same thing without issue under Windows, MacOS and presumably (though I haven't tried it recently) FreeBSD. I have the same problem with the same intel standard hardware (D35DP desktop board) under linux.
... i switched to FreeBSD, years go.
8800GTS with 384meg. on a Q6600 @ stock speed.
PvP would be fine if we were dealing with people. However if Playstation Network is anything to go by, listening to a bunch of 12-14 year old kids yapping about fucking each other's mother all day long gets old quick.
I play games if i don't want to deal with people, or MAYBE to play with a select group of friends. Global PvP against a bunch of kids who have 10 hours a day to spare on learning maps, etc holds no interest.
My 8800 runs dragon age just fine :)
Real nerds don't ejaculate over incremental improvements to the status quo.
Which is what we're dealing with here.
If these were new cards that had some revolutionary new rendering algorithm, then maybe they would be "kicks worthy". As it is, news worthy maybe, but no more so than today's weather. Useful to know, but nothing to get excited over.
Well actually, its an additional layer to having SSH access in from anywhere.
First, a user must get onto your network via the VPN. Then know your topology behind the VPN to log into the router/internal server/etc.
Trusting the VPN to the limited extent of then requiring public key access to get onto the device is lessening your exposure to brute force on your servers.
Sure, if they're on the VPN for a long period of time, they can run scanning tools, etc but if you've got appropriate
Your VPN server can die, if it is that important that getting back into the office to fix it is an issue, they can be installed with redundancy.
At some point, it comes down to trusting the remote SSH connection attempt enough to let it attempt to authenticate. I trust my VPN session users more than I trust the internet at large (ipsec tunnels), thus i require VPN first.
Security is like onions... layers...
If your VPN server is fucked, then chances are you really should be in the office looking at it in any case.
Lose the laptop, you revoke the key... i password protect my keys as well, for an additional (short term) line of defence until i know that the laptop has been stolen / compromised and i can revoke them.
We're switching from Dell to HP as i write this. Had an abysmal run with Latitude E series reliability (like, at least 1-2 machines every batch - and we order in batches of 10 or so) was DOA or failed within a few months. One of the machines we've had (in say, a total of 100) has had 3 motherboard replacements in 18 months. Not to mention throttlegate.
Have switched to Elitebooks, they're built far better and have been reliable so far (touch wood).
Even if you aren't going to "cut" IT staff, there are just so much more productive things for them to be doing for your business.
Time not spent fixing broken PC hardware is time that can be spent helping users be more productive, fixing broken in-house apps, implementing new features, building/testing a better SOE, testing a new OS platform, etc.
There is simply NO SHORTAGE of IT work to be done, and wasting your time fucking about with hardware that you can get Dell/HP/whoever to just replace without question is simply not productive.
For 99% of corporate users, any half recent PC hardware is more than good enough. For the rest, spend a little more to spec up a proper workstation variant of the vendor's kit.
Yes, you could build a better box out of components for the same money or cheaper. However it simply is not worth your time. As an organization's IT staff, your strengths are dealing with company specific IT issues. Not fucking around with generic hardware issues. Leave that to the supplier's fresh-out-of-school tech getting paid $10/hr.
Furthermore... with regards to licenses... this is what an enterprise licensing scheme is for. You pay for X seats and they transfer from PC to PC. It just sounds like "You're doing it wrong".
I can roll a new Win7 desktop in 25-30 minutes (20-25 of which i can be doing something else). Plug in, boot from lan, select image, enter a few credentials for joining to the domain and bingo. Will be quicker when i get zero touch working...
As said, if you're taking a few hours to get a new box ready, you're doing it wrong.
unless you plan on dealing with all of the hardware problems and issues that happen when you can no longer get component X and have to substitute, or some user finds that hardware device X will not work with your hardware for whatever reason - just don't.
Dell or other OEM hardware may be mediocre, but it is good enough for business use, and you can get the same platform for x months. also, if the hardware breaks, it is NOT YOUR PROBLEM. You've got better things to be doing than chasing down broken hardware issues yourself. The time you will spend rooting around trying to prove to your hardware vendor(s) that it is a warranty issue, and which component/vendor is to blame for a particular problem is just shit you do not need/want.
this is why big organisations go with a mediocre box from dell/hp/lenovo/etc. you can just diagnose stuff as "not a software problem", log the hardware fault and get on with something else. maybe re-image a spare box you have laying around and hand it to the user.
If you're looking to save a couple of hundred bucks per machine, or get a little better nerd-spec for your users - don't bother it is not worth it for generic desktops. The cost saving is false economy (you'll pay for it in increased workload) and the performance benefit is just not there for office use.
In reality with shared links (e.g., corporate WAN) you need QOS because your link will end up getting saturated. Gaming stuff like teamspeak is a little different to corporate VOIP solutions where there is an expected level of quality if it is going to compete with a regular POTS line.
Exactly... particularly here in AU where bandwidth is way more expensive than in the US...