The fact that they do not provide a list of software with related download links does NOT mean there is a need for physical media. It simply means they need to get their act together and put that information on their website.
As for finding whatever they are giving away: I really really do not care exactly what titles they give away. If I need a piece of software for some task, I go out and find it. I do not wait for some geek to come around handing out CDs with arbitrary software collections. And I assume that is how it works for most people these days.
Why handing out physical media? Any software these days require an internet connection for updates (which come in more or less daily, it seems), so why hand out physical media? I bet some people would not know how to use a CD for installing software anymore. I have not installed from physical media for at least two years now...
If you absolutely must rely on old-times technology, print information on a sheet of paper and hand it out. Those who can be bothered will look it up on the net. The rest... you have lost them anyway. A CD will not change that.
enterprise virtualization functionality - neither does server 2012 unless you cough up an extra 4K
Wrong. Hyper-V is available in 3 packages:
- Free with little management
- Windows 2012 Standard (with a license for two VMs included)
- Windows 2012 Datacenter (which is Standard with a different license) which include unlimited virtualization rights.
Also, what hardware does Mountain Lion server support? Oh wait, since Apple retired Xserver, it is not supported on server class hardware... and to quote Apple: "OS X Server is perfect for a studio, business, hobbyist, or school. It’s so easy to set up, who needs an IT department?". Not really targeted at the enterprise, is it?
I actually state twice that the abstract is wrong, and then I quote the correct information from the article... I thought that was pretty clear, but sometimes it is still possible to misunderstand...
That is why they have the Essentials and Foundation. High end features stripped off and a far more affordable price. For a few people who need a file server, Windows Standard edition is overkill.
That is up to you. There is no increased CPU count. Both Standard and Datacenter support 2 CPUs per license.
With Datacenter you get unlimited (Windows) VMs, so if you run more than 10 Windows VMs on a (2 CPU) box, it is cheaper.
For less dense virtualization, use Standard licenses, as each give right to two VMs.
The abstract is incorrect. Standard and Datacenter are now the same release with exactly the same functionality. The only difference is in the licensing. From the referenced article:
Functionally, Standard and Datacenter are the same. Even things like clustering, which used to be the sole preserve of the higher-end Windows Server SKUs, are found in Standard. The only difference is the number of Windows Server virtual machines supported per license.
So again: The only difference between the Standard and Datacenter is the licensing. Same software, two licenses.
First, how do you know my PC doesn't mean to send out thousands of emails an hour? That may come from an infection; I could works as a (semi-legitimate) spammer; or perhaps it just means I run a large listserv. How do you know that I don't mean to port-scan thousands of IPs per hour? That could come from an infection; I could work as a researcher collecting vulnerability statistics; or I might work as a consultant paid to do penetration testing for dozens of companies on an ongoing basis. Opting for a "solution" that would also block legitimate activity counts as a great big "no-no".
Actually, my terms of service forbid most of what you describe. Want to do that? Get a business subscription.
The problem is that detecting infected computers invariably requires some level of privacy intrusion, and possibly committing numerous felonies to probe the machine. That's why only large organizations do this; because they own all the machines and can dictate that policy. It's entirely another matter when the system isn't owned by you, and that's what's under discussion.
The company I work for block computers with certain malware off the network, and also block computers running torrents (after which you get a polite visit from the IT department) . It does this ONLY through network traffic analysis. Viruses/malware need to create network traffic to spread. Also many of them contact a "home" server. There is a rootkit out now which is only detectable through network analysis. No intrusion on the PC. Just looking at network packages.
Just because a supposedly headless stateless group claims to be responsible for something doesn't mean they weren't acting as a cover for a nation state.
Just because a supposedly headless stateless group claims to be responsible does not mean they actually have got anything to do with it. It would not be the first time somebody claim the they did something to get some PR...
Is this really a story? The conditions for repairs and upgrades are most likely regulated in the contract between the hotels and the supplier/manufacturer. Big deal.
>So if you wanted to bypass a stand-alone system, how would you go about dumping audio straight to your network?
You do NOT put boardroom meeting recordings on a network share..
Discussions in a boardroom are supposed to be confidential and available only to those designated. If you put those on a network share they are simply not confidential anymore. Too many sources for error. Too easy to be tempted by others to listen.
Simply replace the cassette recorder with a solid state recorder where the memory chips can be easily removed (several suggestions in the discussion). Then the person responsible for the recordings can physically secure them.
If you want to go low tech, get a Zoom H2n and out it on a small mike stand in the middle of the table. Then the person responsible for the recordings can physically secure it and the recordings. It has 4 mics, so it will give a pretty decent recording (there are other brands, but I have seen this one in use).
Nobody prevent you from turning it off... so what is it that should hold up in court?
The reason RedHat do this is to make it easier for the users to install Fedora. You can turn it off, but that involves fiddling with the hardware, and the good folks at RedHadt think the Fedora users deserve something simpler. So they pay Microsoft $99 to sign the executable.As they mention in the article, there were other alternatives, but this one is the most convenient for them, for the other Linux distributions, and for the users. $99.
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that they do not provide a list of software with related download links does NOT mean there is a need for physical media. It simply means they need to get their act together and put that information on their website.
As for finding whatever they are giving away: I really really do not care exactly what titles they give away. If I need a piece of software for some task, I go out and find it. I do not wait for some geek to come around handing out CDs with arbitrary software collections. And I assume that is how it works for most people these days.
Why handing out physical media? Any software these days require an internet connection for updates (which come in more or less daily, it seems), so why hand out physical media? I bet some people would not know how to use a CD for installing software anymore. I have not installed from physical media for at least two years now...
If you absolutely must rely on old-times technology, print information on a sheet of paper and hand it out. Those who can be bothered will look it up on the net. The rest... you have lost them anyway. A CD will not change that.
You are correct, and the two replies to you are lies. Datacenter gives you UNLIMITED guest OS CALs.
This site is pathetic. The amount of linux shilling that goes on here is sad.
Funny that somebody posting anonymously accuse others of lying without presenting any references to support the claim.
Well, here is the fact: http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/client-access-license.aspx#tab=2 "Windows Server Per-Processer licensing also requires a CAL"
The truth is never shilling (or penny, or pound...)
enterprise virtualization functionality - neither does server 2012 unless you cough up an extra 4K
Wrong. Hyper-V is available in 3 packages:
- Free with little management
- Windows 2012 Standard (with a license for two VMs included)
- Windows 2012 Datacenter (which is Standard with a different license) which include unlimited virtualization rights.
Also, what hardware does Mountain Lion server support? Oh wait, since Apple retired Xserver, it is not supported on server class hardware... and to quote Apple: "OS X Server is perfect for a studio, business, hobbyist, or school. It’s so easy to set up, who needs an IT department?". Not really targeted at the enterprise, is it?
It's probably time to seriously consider moving from 2003 to 2007.
Why not be a little more bold and go to like 2009? So then you are only 3 years behind...
CALs are not included.
...but to be honest, if you are not going to run Windows in those VMs, then ESXi is a much better choice for a free hypervisor...
I actually state twice that the abstract is wrong, and then I quote the correct information from the article... I thought that was pretty clear, but sometimes it is still possible to misunderstand...
Or more specifically, Standard = 2 copies of Windows per proc pair, Datacenter = Unlimited copies of Windows per physical server
Not quite. The Datacenter license is also per processor pair. If you have 4 processors in the box, you need two licenses.
That is why they have the Essentials and Foundation. High end features stripped off and a far more affordable price. For a few people who need a file server, Windows Standard edition is overkill.
Virtualization (Hyper-V) is a role which is not installed by default. Has been that way with all Windows versions with Hyper-V .
That is up to you.
There is no increased CPU count. Both Standard and Datacenter support 2 CPUs per license.
With Datacenter you get unlimited (Windows) VMs, so if you run more than 10 Windows VMs on a (2 CPU) box, it is cheaper.
For less dense virtualization, use Standard licenses, as each give right to two VMs.
Functionally, Standard and Datacenter are the same. Even things like clustering, which used to be the sole preserve of the higher-end Windows Server SKUs, are found in Standard. The only difference is the number of Windows Server virtual machines supported per license.
So again: The only difference between the Standard and Datacenter is the licensing. Same software, two licenses.
First, how do you know my PC doesn't mean to send out thousands of emails an hour? That may come from an infection; I could works as a (semi-legitimate) spammer; or perhaps it just means I run a large listserv. How do you know that I don't mean to port-scan thousands of IPs per hour? That could come from an infection; I could work as a researcher collecting vulnerability statistics; or I might work as a consultant paid to do penetration testing for dozens of companies on an ongoing basis. Opting for a "solution" that would also block legitimate activity counts as a great big "no-no".
Actually, my terms of service forbid most of what you describe. Want to do that? Get a business subscription.
The problem is that detecting infected computers invariably requires some level of privacy intrusion, and possibly committing numerous felonies to probe the machine. That's why only large organizations do this; because they own all the machines and can dictate that policy. It's entirely another matter when the system isn't owned by you, and that's what's under discussion.
The company I work for block computers with certain malware off the network, and also block computers running torrents (after which you get a polite visit from the IT department) . It does this ONLY through network traffic analysis. Viruses/malware need to create network traffic to spread. Also many of them contact a "home" server. There is a rootkit out now which is only detectable through network analysis. No intrusion on the PC. Just looking at network packages.
Just because a supposedly headless stateless group claims to be responsible for something doesn't mean they weren't acting as a cover for a nation state.
Just because a supposedly headless stateless group claims to be responsible does not mean they actually have got anything to do with it. It would not be the first time somebody claim the they did something to get some PR...
Is this really a story? The conditions for repairs and upgrades are most likely regulated in the contract between the hotels and the supplier/manufacturer. Big deal.
>So if you wanted to bypass a stand-alone system, how would you go about dumping audio straight to your network? You do NOT put boardroom meeting recordings on a network share..
Discussions in a boardroom are supposed to be confidential and available only to those designated. If you put those on a network share they are simply not confidential anymore. Too many sources for error. Too easy to be tempted by others to listen.
Simply replace the cassette recorder with a solid state recorder where the memory chips can be easily removed (several suggestions in the discussion). Then the person responsible for the recordings can physically secure them.
If you want to go low tech, get a Zoom H2n and out it on a small mike stand in the middle of the table. Then the person responsible for the recordings can physically secure it and the recordings. It has 4 mics, so it will give a pretty decent recording (there are other brands, but I have seen this one in use).
Sun also purchased license for megabucks. Before Microsoft... http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016-1024633.html
The simple answer is that IPv4 was meant for a pretty small test network only. Then it spread...It was never meant to become a global address space.
Interesting then that Microsoft provide a way for others to sign their software... which is what Fedora is doing.
Nobody prevent you from turning it off... so what is it that should hold up in court?
The reason RedHat do this is to make it easier for the users to install Fedora. You can turn it off, but that involves fiddling with the hardware, and the good folks at RedHadt think the Fedora users deserve something simpler. So they pay Microsoft $99 to sign the executable.As they mention in the article, there were other alternatives, but this one is the most convenient for them, for the other Linux distributions, and for the users. $99.
You can turn it off. But they want to make it simple to install Fedora. It is all in the article.
Not at all... unless you want a Windows8 logo on it..in which case it would not be a problem anyway.
Did you read the article? No?
They pay Microsoft $99 because it is the most convenient solution, not because the absolutely have to.