And to elaborate: if i need to manage a Linux server from Windows, I can install putty and use SSH (as I do). If i need to administer any of the above services/devices from within Linux, I'm mostly shit out of luck unless I RDP to a Windows box.
Just looking at my laptop here, the following apps are unavailable for Linux: vSphere client, iTunes, Cisco Netowork Assistant, Netapp OnCommand System Manager, Netapp Management Console, Solarwinds Orion NPM, the Windows RSAT, Exchange admin tools, SQL admin tools, vSphere PowerCLI, Pronto XI, Commvault Simpana Console, Cisco UCS management, etc.
Before we even start with user-facing applications like Powerpoint, Onenote, Outlook, etc.
"Linux" isn't the hard bit. Yes, for a lot of stuff there are replacement apps available. However, some are not available.
It is re-learning/re-training all the staff in your environment to learn replacements for all the applications you run. The licensing costs pale into insignificance when stacked against the retraining cost and the associated downtime/risk during transition.
Do you run a Windows network with a decent number of PCs without multiple Windows servers already? The time saved will pay for the Windows server license within a few months.
What are these superior ideas ubuntu has? I'm running a copy of 13.04 here, and the only "new ideas" I see are the single menu bar, the dock, the app store and the control panel applet, which all look to have been rippped off from OS X.
Having attempted to tolerate/like Windows 8 since the beta...
The lack of start menu in Windows 8 is the least of the problems. The major issue is regressions in functionality (search being a major example, the joke tht is multiple metro apps on screen being another), sandboxing between apps that really should be able to talk to each other in Metro, and the clusterfuck of having 2 different UIs and configuration settings, applications, etc. scattered between them.
If 8.1 can fix those issues, maybe it will get a second chance. I'm not holding my breath.
Win2k was liked. Win7 was liked. Win3.11 was liked. The people with your opinion are those who haven't had a very long history in the microsoft world or a shit memory.
No contract means that MS have absolutely no legal standing to get google to unblock them. If the contract IS valid, they still have no legal standing to get google to unblock them. The validity of the contract makes no difference. It's either not legally binding, in which case google have no responsibility to maintain service levels, or it is legally binding in which case they have given themselves full rights to deny access to the service as they see fit.
This was an entire company. The only relationship we have with them is that we own a controlling share.
The issue they have is that their managing director is an engineer who thinks he knows better than a combined 60 years of IT and networking experience, and thought he could do a better job by jumping on board with the cloud.
No, really - they suck. We've had a business unit within our company try to use google apps and its crap. If you want to get off microsoft office, there are other options - Libreoffice, whatever. But Google apps just simply are not there yet for a great many users.
Give them a shot first, and try to actually use the service day to day before jumping in, because we found it inadequate. YMMV.
In my experience, having seen a business unit within our group attempt to use google apps and fail miserably and spend the money again on re-buying their own infrastructure I suspect they will be back within 6-12 months.
I know this isn't what the slashdot crowd want to hear, and I'm sorry... but Google apps is crap. The functionality just is not there. If you want to get off microsoft there are plenty of options - for a business who does anything more than the most basic of email or spreadsheets, Google apps simply isn't an alternative.
Having had a business unit decide they didn't want to pay for their own infrastructure and attempt to use google apps, and then migrate back to their own infrastructure, all I can say is that unless your requirements are very basic, its a non-starter.
They'll likely block users of firefox plugins *at their option*, or rather more likely make the plugins not work. It is entirely optional as to whether they block your access or not as per their terms of service. End users installing a plugin is one thing - microsoft putting out a phone and marketing a feature that you can download youtube videos and/or watch them with no ads is another thing entirely, and I fully expect Google to lay the smack down if Windows phone gets more than a few hundred users.
Oh and btw.... Google won't take anyone to court over violating the terms of service. If they decide to do anything they'll likely just terminate your access. You'll have to go to court (without a leg to stand on, as per my other reply) to try and get it reinstated. Enjoy!
It's up to google's discretion as to when they terminate your service. We all know the difference between downloading and streaming, and google will only terminate your service at their option if they consider you to have been downloading.
But hey, I paid that service station for my fuel, that means I'm entitled to whatever I want from the store!
If people don't agree with the way youtube operates then DONT CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT. There are plenty of other video hosting websites, all of which don't perform like SHIT when accessed via native IPv6 (issue I just tracked down last night - youtube is unusable when accessed via my native ipv6, rest of internet including vimeo, dailymotion, etc are all just fine).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see them maintaining anything like Guantanamo Bay?
And to elaborate: if i need to manage a Linux server from Windows, I can install putty and use SSH (as I do). If i need to administer any of the above services/devices from within Linux, I'm mostly shit out of luck unless I RDP to a Windows box.
Just looking at my laptop here, the following apps are unavailable for Linux: vSphere client, iTunes, Cisco Netowork Assistant, Netapp OnCommand System Manager, Netapp Management Console, Solarwinds Orion NPM, the Windows RSAT, Exchange admin tools, SQL admin tools, vSphere PowerCLI, Pronto XI, Commvault Simpana Console, Cisco UCS management, etc.
Before we even start with user-facing applications like Powerpoint, Onenote, Outlook, etc.
"Linux" isn't the hard bit. Yes, for a lot of stuff there are replacement apps available. However, some are not available.
It is re-learning/re-training all the staff in your environment to learn replacements for all the applications you run. The licensing costs pale into insignificance when stacked against the retraining cost and the associated downtime/risk during transition.
I need to run the Windows RSAT
Do you run a Windows network with a decent number of PCs without multiple Windows servers already? The time saved will pay for the Windows server license within a few months.
There's no confirmation you will actually get those two features, either.
What are these superior ideas ubuntu has? I'm running a copy of 13.04 here, and the only "new ideas" I see are the single menu bar, the dock, the app store and the control panel applet, which all look to have been rippped off from OS X.
Having attempted to tolerate/like Windows 8 since the beta...
The lack of start menu in Windows 8 is the least of the problems. The major issue is regressions in functionality (search being a major example, the joke tht is multiple metro apps on screen being another), sandboxing between apps that really should be able to talk to each other in Metro, and the clusterfuck of having 2 different UIs and configuration settings, applications, etc. scattered between them.
If 8.1 can fix those issues, maybe it will get a second chance. I'm not holding my breath.
Win2k was liked. Win7 was liked. Win3.11 was liked. The people with your opinion are those who haven't had a very long history in the microsoft world or a shit memory.
I'm still going to wait for SP1 ;-)
I think you missed the part where it was a corporation bribing an individual.
As I said, it depends on how you quantify better. Some people are willing to pay for things that feel nice.
No contract means that MS have absolutely no legal standing to get google to unblock them. If the contract IS valid, they still have no legal standing to get google to unblock them. The validity of the contract makes no difference. It's either not legally binding, in which case google have no responsibility to maintain service levels, or it is legally binding in which case they have given themselves full rights to deny access to the service as they see fit.
This was an entire company. The only relationship we have with them is that we own a controlling share.
The issue they have is that their managing director is an engineer who thinks he knows better than a combined 60 years of IT and networking experience, and thought he could do a better job by jumping on board with the cloud.
He has been proven to be incorrect.
No, really - they suck. We've had a business unit within our company try to use google apps and its crap. If you want to get off microsoft office, there are other options - Libreoffice, whatever. But Google apps just simply are not there yet for a great many users.
Give them a shot first, and try to actually use the service day to day before jumping in, because we found it inadequate. YMMV.
Non-TLS email is the norm. If you want your email to be secure, then encrypt it.
In my experience, having seen a business unit within our group attempt to use google apps and fail miserably and spend the money again on re-buying their own infrastructure I suspect they will be back within 6-12 months.
I know this isn't what the slashdot crowd want to hear, and I'm sorry... but Google apps is crap. The functionality just is not there. If you want to get off microsoft there are plenty of options - for a business who does anything more than the most basic of email or spreadsheets, Google apps simply isn't an alternative.
You're still missing the bandwidth.
Having had a business unit decide they didn't want to pay for their own infrastructure and attempt to use google apps, and then migrate back to their own infrastructure, all I can say is that unless your requirements are very basic, its a non-starter.
They'll likely block users of firefox plugins *at their option*, or rather more likely make the plugins not work. It is entirely optional as to whether they block your access or not as per their terms of service. End users installing a plugin is one thing - microsoft putting out a phone and marketing a feature that you can download youtube videos and/or watch them with no ads is another thing entirely, and I fully expect Google to lay the smack down if Windows phone gets more than a few hundred users.
Oh and btw.... Google won't take anyone to court over violating the terms of service. If they decide to do anything they'll likely just terminate your access. You'll have to go to court (without a leg to stand on, as per my other reply) to try and get it reinstated. Enjoy!
It's up to google's discretion as to when they terminate your service. We all know the difference between downloading and streaming, and google will only terminate your service at their option if they consider you to have been downloading.
But hey, I paid that service station for my fuel, that means I'm entitled to whatever I want from the store!
If people don't agree with the way youtube operates then DONT CONTINUE TO SUPPORT IT. There are plenty of other video hosting websites, all of which don't perform like SHIT when accessed via native IPv6 (issue I just tracked down last night - youtube is unusable when accessed via my native ipv6, rest of internet including vimeo, dailymotion, etc are all just fine).
So because entity A makes "tons of money elsewhere" it is OK to essentially steal from them?
And google is free to determine whether or not to terminate your access to the service.