Close. Sender-ID IS a lemon. Many other technical answers are too. Some technical solutions ARE good however.
The bigger issue is that spam is a social problem - not a technical problem. It's going to take a UN / WTO treaty where everyone decides to agree to curb spam by enacting strong laws. Countries that don't want to follow along should (will) be blacklisted. Frankly, if current existing "computer trespass" laws were enforced, spam would be a lot lower (refering to zombies here...) The "You Can-Spam" law we have now in the US is a total joke.
It will take a few high-profile cases in each country and spam will be reduced to a small fraction of today's levels (most spam is US based anyway.) We have yet to send a spammer to jail AFAIK.
That's why if you have a business, you have liability insurance. In fact, if you want to do any work for government agencies, they frequently require proof of such insurance.
Um, ever hear of an amp modeler or effects processor? Hint: they can emulate the 'color' of that tube amp sound without using tubes. The consumer will Never know. Maybe you can see some minor differences on a scope in the studio, but no way could you hear it especially once the music has been converted to a CD (as those extremely minor differences would be lost.)
Um, I addressed point "a" already. Have you every BEEN to a concert? If you think that you could possibly tell whether a musician was using a tube versus non-tube amp, you are out of your tree.
As to point B, we are not talking about real versus simulated instruments. In otherwords, your comment has nothing to do about what we are talking about.
I always thought that was kind of funny considering that they release their works on "digital" CD's. Any "advantage" you may have gained is lost by the time it gets to the consumer. Furthermore, most pro recording has gone digital (although at higher sampling rates and resolution.) Even listening to a Live show you have the horrible acoustics of the venue to deal with - again, "advantage" lost.
Vinyl purists (does any studio still release on vinyl?) deal with poor quality pressings (anyone else remember being pissed off buying "original master" albums that came brand new with pops and skips?)
No thanks. I've move on to the highly improved world of digital audio, and eventually digital photography (when it gets good enough.)
What ends up happening is that you buy computers in lots. From a support aspect, you really don't want to be supporting 15 different configurations of computers otherwise imaging / patch management / driver management becomes a nightmare. So you end up replacing 30% every year.
Furthermore, just you do you think wrote a good chunk of the open source software that made Linux / BSD / FOSS what it is today? I'll give you a hint. It was people trying to make their own job easier to do... Unfortunately, only a small fraction of sysadmin development is released to the world due to company policies. Much of the FOSS tools were done by university sysadmins (which I would consider a "Large Environment.") Banks are "atypical" environments due to special federal regulations, security concerns, etc. (I did a stint at a bank a few years back, so I'm well aware of what goes on internally) so if you are using "banks" as a measure of all large IT shops, you are using a flawed reference.
I started out many years ago as a programmer at a small (50 person) company. Real-time industrial I/O stuff on embedded custom hardware with backends on Xenix (and eventually IBM RS/6000's.) The company did have an IT guy, but he was mainly cobol on an old TI 990/10 mini. PC's came out and passed him by. Anyway, I got drafted to install a network (Thinnet), hook up our multiple buildings, etc. Things evolved and we got email (SLIP dialup) and eventually a 56K DDS. During this time, my IT work went from nothing to about 30% of my time. I found I enjoyed the sysadmin part more than programming as my work was MUCH more diverse. I evenatully moved on and went to full time sysadmin work, and ended updoing more management work than sysadmin work (which happens when you handle a team of 20.) Since I enjoy Sysadmin more than management, I moved on to a smaller company where I now do about 50% sysadmin, 30% management, and 20% programming which matches my desires Quite well.
Anyway, bottom line is that 1% is a fantasy especially if you use Windows and are connected to the internet. You May get it down to 5% which is 2 hours a week, but I doubt it. It takes almost that much to deal with software updates, monitoring security bulletins, etc. never mind user demands.
Computer professionals are like medical professionals. Would you go to an allergist for a heart transplant? Of course not. However, many allergists are also GP's, so can handle simple things like prescribing blood pressure medication correctly. You would not want an allergist operating on you however.
Suggest bringing in a pro sysadmin to get things setup, and then you can run it from there.
While it's true that a sysadmin does not generate revenue, it's also true that downtime COSTS revenue. Again, we can go back to the Doctor analogy. While it's true that you can change your diet and excersize regimen to improve your heart, it would be VERY unwise to not see a doctor about controlling your blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
Either you don't know jack about system administration or you are just trolling. Good sysadmins also do development - they don't just run monitoring software - that's for computer OPERATORS. If you area a sysadmin just using monitoring software, you are being SERIOUSLY overpaid. Monitoring and routine tasks should be taking MUCH less than 10% of your time. It's these non-mundane tasks and things that monitoring software CAN NOT DO. things that you spend 90% of your time on, that need lots of xterms, web browser windows, etc.
As for your point 1, can I get some of what you are smoking? As for point 2, no shit sherlock. I don't know know of anyone sitting around just tailing log files for the hell of it.
Um, needing lots of xterms does not equal needing a good system/network monitoring solution. I would seriously doubt that he just runs "top" in all those windows. I frequently have 10 xterms open and NONE of them are doing system monitoring. Monitoring is done by a completely separate application.
Furthermore, the second monitor is great for running remote desktops, etc. When I go on the road, I have a 1600x1200 laptop. Not having the second screen drives me nuts. It's not the resololution, it's the physical size (my dual 19's at 1280x1024 isn't even quite enough.)
The Only time I wish I had a single monitor that was really wide is looking at logs where you don't want line wrap. That's rare enough that it's not a cost effective problem to solve.
Dual screen for you may not work. It seems you just can't get over that gap. Reading something in a three-ring binder must really piss you off. Most of the rest of us however don't give a shit about the gap. The massive extra real-estate is just to big a benefit to ignore. Since I can't comfortably read 6-point text, a single super-high res monitor does no good.
Power consumption? Heat? LCDs use about 1/10 the power (if that much.) When you have a lot of monitors, that really adds up.
As for desk space issues, I built a custom wooden box that puts my 2 LCD's at the perfect height, and allows my to slide my keyboard / mouse under for when I need deskspace for paper work. The LCD's being MUCH shallower allow me to push my desk right to the wall instead of sitting out 12" giving me more room in my office. My modern LCDs are MUCH sharper than my previous high-end CRTs. For a while I was running one LCD and one CRT in dual-head mode. I found myself dragging windows over to the LCD all the time since it was easier to read and had less eye strain. Out went the CRT.
My microwave oven (which is not on the internet) doesn't get virusus either. If a machine isn't on the internet, you don't count it when talking about online security.
On a normal non-OS targeted site, I have never seen Mac usage more than 5%, and I've seen statistics for dozens of fairly high volume sites. I like macs as much as anyone (I have 6) but let's be realistic here - 16% is not an honest number.
MS HTML is much much worse than just lack of styles... First, the HTML is just plain broken. Check out http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/ which was written to correct some of these basic errors. Even that doesn't fix things like a single-font document where the HTML sets and resets the font for damn near every word, or the way it puts in line breaks at the end of every screen line in a paragraph in a lame attempt to maintain "print" formatting.
There are a number of tools (HTML Tidy) and products (Dreamweaver) that attempt to clean it up. Some do a pretty good job, but nothing can correct all of it's severe brain damage.
If the data was encrypted, then there would be no way for C to know what was being proxied. Plausable deniability. Of course, then it's basically freenet. Encryption would add enough overhead that speed would suffer.
What kind of esoteric hardware requires slipstreaming to work?
If you don't use the HP Smart start, Every single HP server falls under this category (smartstart pre-installs all the drivers and copies the windows image to the hard drive before rebooting essentially pre-installing Win2k.) The drive controllers are not supported by Win2k. Most other "servers" also have problems. Win2k works with generic IDE controllers and Really Old SCSI adaptors, but that's about it (which is why desktop installs work fairly well.) You also can't install from USB media, making "lights out" installs just that much more difficult.
Comparing how Linux distributions deal with updates and how MS deals with them really doesn't work. They are totally different animals.
With RedHat 6 for example (very old and outdated, with no modern stuff) I can go in and update each and every bit of the OS as needed and have the same functionality as the latest RHEL4. If I want the latest, greatest kernel, Firefox, Apache, Samba, MySQL, etc. I can get it. Granted, it may take a lot of time - this is why companies like RedHat do the work for you and release new versions. These releases are basically snapshots of the world of Linux at a certain point in time. There is nothing that says that you yourself can't keep up.
There is no way to do this on Windows. You are at MS's mercey. Whining about MS not releasing IE7 for W2K is just silly. You KNOW how to solve this problem. This story is actually a dupe. MS has already said that there would be no new versions of IE for W2K damn near a year ago, and/. covered it back then. They also said that there will not be an SP5. Whining will do no good at all. Vote with your wallet.
FYI, when you install W2kSP4, you will find that there are over 40 critical updates, and over a dozen regular updates. It really would be much easier for corp users that pay huge $$$ for this software if MS released SP5 for W2k. W2k is a nightmare for other reasons too. Installing on modern hardware is a bitch since the drivers needed for installation aren't there - you end up needing to do something like HP's SmartStart (SmartStart is based on Linux, BTW...)
Yes, there is a way to slipstream hotfixes and drivers, but it is a ROYAL pain and the docs on exactly how to do it suck (especially adding third-party drivers.)
My guess is that the bit error rate on thie higher capacity platters is too high to pass quality tests for SCSI, and that it takes a while for manufacturing to catch up.
Consider also that SCSI drives tend to have higher RPM, so it may be that writing to higher capacity platters would be more error prone at those high speeds.
That said, I use SCSI RAID on my servers, ATA Raid on my desktops, and backup to tape (yes, even on my home machines.)
If certain features are disabled without a JVM (like the database part) then it's not 100% functional. It may be 90%. From other articles it sounded like the trend to use java was going to increase. What other new or old features will non-java users be unable to use? These concerns are valid.
I'm not slamming java as a language. I'm not slamming Sun. I however do NOT belive that the java integration in OOo is a good idea due to the impact it has on the maintainability, portability, performance, and ease of installation. I also urge Sun to open up the java standards process, and use a better license instead of the restrictive license it currently has that doesn't allow open source OS's to bundle the Sun JVM.
Correct me if this is wrong, but doesen't one need to deal with the libraries as well? How well do THEY work with other JVM's?
This MASSIVLY raises the bar for not-as-popular platforms, or new up-and-comming platforms. Now to get an office suite, they not only have to recompile / port an office suite, they have to write their own JVM! If this was easy, we would have dozens of alternatives to Sun's java and associated libraries that were 100% interoperable. The fact that there are ZERO right now that meet that criteria says something about how difficult this is.
I can run 64bit linux on the AMD64 platform and can't run native java. Linux is not a toy. Neither is the AMD64 platform.
I'm a zealot because I don't want to use MS Windows, or are YOU a zealot because you think everyone else should? Did I say that Windows was bad or that MS Office was horrible? I think you are just trolling....
Slashdot Mirror
Close. Sender-ID IS a lemon. Many other technical answers are too. Some technical solutions ARE good however.
The bigger issue is that spam is a social problem - not a technical problem. It's going to take a UN / WTO treaty where everyone decides to agree to curb spam by enacting strong laws. Countries that don't want to follow along should (will) be blacklisted. Frankly, if current existing "computer trespass" laws were enforced, spam would be a lot lower (refering to zombies here...) The "You Can-Spam" law we have now in the US is a total joke.
It will take a few high-profile cases in each country and spam will be reduced to a small fraction of today's levels (most spam is US based anyway.) We have yet to send a spammer to jail AFAIK.
That's why if you have a business, you have liability insurance. In fact, if you want to do any work for government agencies, they frequently require proof of such insurance.
Um, ever hear of an amp modeler or effects processor? Hint: they can emulate the 'color' of that tube amp sound without using tubes. The consumer will Never know. Maybe you can see some minor differences on a scope in the studio, but no way could you hear it especially once the music has been converted to a CD (as those extremely minor differences would be lost.)
Um, I addressed point "a" already. Have you every BEEN to a concert? If you think that you could possibly tell whether a musician was using a tube versus non-tube amp, you are out of your tree.
As to point B, we are not talking about real versus simulated instruments. In otherwords, your comment has nothing to do about what we are talking about.
musicians still insist on using vacuum tube amps
I always thought that was kind of funny considering that they release their works on "digital" CD's. Any "advantage" you may have gained is lost by the time it gets to the consumer. Furthermore, most pro recording has gone digital (although at higher sampling rates and resolution.) Even listening to a Live show you have the horrible acoustics of the venue to deal with - again, "advantage" lost.
Vinyl purists (does any studio still release on vinyl?) deal with poor quality pressings (anyone else remember being pissed off buying "original master" albums that came brand new with pops and skips?)
No thanks. I've move on to the highly improved world of digital audio, and eventually digital photography (when it gets good enough.)
What ends up happening is that you buy computers in lots. From a support aspect, you really don't want to be supporting 15 different configurations of computers otherwise imaging / patch management / driver management becomes a nightmare. So you end up replacing 30% every year.
Go read the SAGE descriptions>/a> of a senior sysadmin. System administrators worth their paycheck DO do development. Development isn't their primary responsibility, but it's quite hard to really manage systems without doing any programming.
Furthermore, just you do you think wrote a good chunk of the open source software that made Linux / BSD / FOSS what it is today? I'll give you a hint. It was people trying to make their own job easier to do... Unfortunately, only a small fraction of sysadmin development is released to the world due to company policies. Much of the FOSS tools were done by university sysadmins (which I would consider a "Large Environment.") Banks are "atypical" environments due to special federal regulations, security concerns, etc. (I did a stint at a bank a few years back, so I'm well aware of what goes on internally) so if you are using "banks" as a measure of all large IT shops, you are using a flawed reference.
I started out many years ago as a programmer at a small (50 person) company. Real-time industrial I/O stuff on embedded custom hardware with backends on Xenix (and eventually IBM RS/6000's.) The company did have an IT guy, but he was mainly cobol on an old TI 990/10 mini. PC's came out and passed him by. Anyway, I got drafted to install a network (Thinnet), hook up our multiple buildings, etc. Things evolved and we got email (SLIP dialup) and eventually a 56K DDS. During this time, my IT work went from nothing to about 30% of my time. I found I enjoyed the sysadmin part more than programming as my work was MUCH more diverse. I evenatully moved on and went to full time sysadmin work, and ended updoing more management work than sysadmin work (which happens when you handle a team of 20.) Since I enjoy Sysadmin more than management, I moved on to a smaller company where I now do about 50% sysadmin, 30% management, and 20% programming which matches my desires Quite well.
Anyway, bottom line is that 1% is a fantasy especially if you use Windows and are connected to the internet. You May get it down to 5% which is 2 hours a week, but I doubt it. It takes almost that much to deal with software updates, monitoring security bulletins, etc. never mind user demands.
Use an analogy on your boss...
Computer professionals are like medical professionals. Would you go to an allergist for a heart transplant? Of course not. However, many allergists are also GP's, so can handle simple things like prescribing blood pressure medication correctly. You would not want an allergist operating on you however.
Suggest bringing in a pro sysadmin to get things setup, and then you can run it from there.
While it's true that a sysadmin does not generate revenue, it's also true that downtime COSTS revenue. Again, we can go back to the Doctor analogy. While it's true that you can change your diet and excersize regimen to improve your heart, it would be VERY unwise to not see a doctor about controlling your blood pressure, cholesterol, etc.
Either you don't know jack about system administration or you are just trolling. Good sysadmins also do development - they don't just run monitoring software - that's for computer OPERATORS. If you area a sysadmin just using monitoring software, you are being SERIOUSLY overpaid. Monitoring and routine tasks should be taking MUCH less than 10% of your time. It's these non-mundane tasks and things that monitoring software CAN NOT DO. things that you spend 90% of your time on, that need lots of xterms, web browser windows, etc.
As for your point 1, can I get some of what you are smoking? As for point 2, no shit sherlock. I don't know know of anyone sitting around just tailing log files for the hell of it.
Um, needing lots of xterms does not equal needing a good system/network monitoring solution. I would seriously doubt that he just runs "top" in all those windows. I frequently have 10 xterms open and NONE of them are doing system monitoring. Monitoring is done by a completely separate application.
Furthermore, the second monitor is great for running remote desktops, etc. When I go on the road, I have a 1600x1200 laptop. Not having the second screen drives me nuts. It's not the resololution, it's the physical size (my dual 19's at 1280x1024 isn't even quite enough.)
The Only time I wish I had a single monitor that was really wide is looking at logs where you don't want line wrap. That's rare enough that it's not a cost effective problem to solve.
Dual screen for you may not work. It seems you just can't get over that gap. Reading something in a three-ring binder must really piss you off. Most of the rest of us however don't give a shit about the gap. The massive extra real-estate is just to big a benefit to ignore. Since I can't comfortably read 6-point text, a single super-high res monitor does no good.
Power consumption? Heat? LCDs use about 1/10 the power (if that much.) When you have a lot of monitors, that really adds up.
As for desk space issues, I built a custom wooden box that puts my 2 LCD's at the perfect height, and allows my to slide my keyboard / mouse under for when I need deskspace for paper work. The LCD's being MUCH shallower allow me to push my desk right to the wall instead of sitting out 12" giving me more room in my office. My modern LCDs are MUCH sharper than my previous high-end CRTs. For a while I was running one LCD and one CRT in dual-head mode. I found myself dragging windows over to the LCD all the time since it was easier to read and had less eye strain. Out went the CRT.
My microwave oven (which is not on the internet) doesn't get virusus either. If a machine isn't on the internet, you don't count it when talking about online security.
On a normal non-OS targeted site, I have never seen Mac usage more than 5%, and I've seen statistics for dozens of fairly high volume sites. I like macs as much as anyone (I have 6) but let's be realistic here - 16% is not an honest number.
MS HTML is much much worse than just lack of styles... First, the HTML is just plain broken. Check out http://www.fourmilab.ch/webtools/demoroniser/ which was written to correct some of these basic errors. Even that doesn't fix things like a single-font document where the HTML sets and resets the font for damn near every word, or the way it puts in line breaks at the end of every screen line in a paragraph in a lame attempt to maintain "print" formatting.
There are a number of tools (HTML Tidy) and products (Dreamweaver) that attempt to clean it up. Some do a pretty good job, but nothing can correct all of it's severe brain damage.
And right from the /. summary, MS's XML will be inside a .zip. Tags compress VERY well.
Let's all hope that MS Office's XML is better than it's HTML (which is horrible, if you have ever looked at it.)
If the data was encrypted, then there would be no way for C to know what was being proxied. Plausable deniability. Of course, then it's basically freenet. Encryption would add enough overhead that speed would suffer.
What kind of esoteric hardware requires slipstreaming to work?
If you don't use the HP Smart start, Every single HP server falls under this category (smartstart pre-installs all the drivers and copies the windows image to the hard drive before rebooting essentially pre-installing Win2k.) The drive controllers are not supported by Win2k. Most other "servers" also have problems. Win2k works with generic IDE controllers and Really Old SCSI adaptors, but that's about it (which is why desktop installs work fairly well.) You also can't install from USB media, making "lights out" installs just that much more difficult.
Comparing how Linux distributions deal with updates and how MS deals with them really doesn't work. They are totally different animals.
/. covered it back then. They also said that there will not be an SP5. Whining will do no good at all. Vote with your wallet.
With RedHat 6 for example (very old and outdated, with no modern stuff) I can go in and update each and every bit of the OS as needed and have the same functionality as the latest RHEL4. If I want the latest, greatest kernel, Firefox, Apache, Samba, MySQL, etc. I can get it. Granted, it may take a lot of time - this is why companies like RedHat do the work for you and release new versions. These releases are basically snapshots of the world of Linux at a certain point in time. There is nothing that says that you yourself can't keep up.
There is no way to do this on Windows. You are at MS's mercey. Whining about MS not releasing IE7 for W2K is just silly. You KNOW how to solve this problem. This story is actually a dupe. MS has already said that there would be no new versions of IE for W2K damn near a year ago, and
FYI, when you install W2kSP4, you will find that there are over 40 critical updates, and over a dozen regular updates. It really would be much easier for corp users that pay huge $$$ for this software if MS released SP5 for W2k. W2k is a nightmare for other reasons too. Installing on modern hardware is a bitch since the drivers needed for installation aren't there - you end up needing to do something like HP's SmartStart (SmartStart is based on Linux, BTW...)
Yes, there is a way to slipstream hotfixes and drivers, but it is a ROYAL pain and the docs on exactly how to do it suck (especially adding third-party drivers.)
My guess is that the bit error rate on thie higher capacity platters is too high to pass quality tests for SCSI, and that it takes a while for manufacturing to catch up.
Consider also that SCSI drives tend to have higher RPM, so it may be that writing to higher capacity platters would be more error prone at those high speeds.
That said, I use SCSI RAID on my servers, ATA Raid on my desktops, and backup to tape (yes, even on my home machines.)
Real men use paper tape or punch cards. We want to be able to SEE our bits. :-)
If certain features are disabled without a JVM (like the database part) then it's not 100% functional. It may be 90%. From other articles it sounded like the trend to use java was going to increase. What other new or old features will non-java users be unable to use? These concerns are valid.
I'm not slamming java as a language. I'm not slamming Sun. I however do NOT belive that the java integration in OOo is a good idea due to the impact it has on the maintainability, portability, performance, and ease of installation. I also urge Sun to open up the java standards process, and use a better license instead of the restrictive license it currently has that doesn't allow open source OS's to bundle the Sun JVM.
Correct me if this is wrong, but doesen't one need to deal with the libraries as well? How well do THEY work with other JVM's?
This MASSIVLY raises the bar for not-as-popular platforms, or new up-and-comming platforms. Now to get an office suite, they not only have to recompile / port an office suite, they have to write their own JVM! If this was easy, we would have dozens of alternatives to Sun's java and associated libraries that were 100% interoperable. The fact that there are ZERO right now that meet that criteria says something about how difficult this is.
I can run 64bit linux on the AMD64 platform and can't run native java. Linux is not a toy. Neither is the AMD64 platform.
I'm a zealot because I don't want to use MS Windows, or are YOU a zealot because you think everyone else should? Did I say that Windows was bad or that MS Office was horrible? I think you are just trolling....