No, I just think, "here is a remote VM, go mess with things within it" kind of service is stupid.
While it is certainly your right to feel that way, that does not make it any less viable or useful a technology to those of us who recognize the value in it.
I'm not sure about the security aspect so much, but on the performance side, if everything is running over a local LAN, then that shouldn't be a problem with only 30 machines.
You are stupid.
Since there are solutions from Citrix that do exactly this over a corporate WAN with far more nodes, I don't see how there would be too much trouble getting it to work on a local LAN with a 1 Gig switch. If you have something that would dispute that idea, then by all means, offer that rather than your little ad hominem attack.
I fully admit that I've not set one of these systems up myself, and I don't know the underlying technology of it that well yet, so if there are other considerations that I am missing here, please contribute them to the discussion.
I would imagine there are solutions that can address most security concerns as well.
Scratch that, you are a dangerous idiot. Kill all your friends, then yourself.
The only solution to a security problem of having Windows full access to everything that is supposed to run Linux, is not running Linux under control of Windows in the first place. And killing everyone who proposes something that stupid.
I don't recall anyone saying anything about it running under the control of Windows, first of all; Windows itself would not actually launch, the machines would simply boot to the virtual image.
Second, while I agree that Linux is still inherently more secure than Windows, that gap has drastically narrowed over the last 10 years, and you can actually deploy Windows securely. That line is getting really old.
I know I'm feeding the troll right now. Oh well. I'm not sure why this troll has a score 4 Insightful, though, other than his 3 digit UID. Troll on, Alex...or, alternatively, grow the hell up and give real counter arguments rather than just attacking people for saying something you disagree with.
I'm not sure about the security aspect so much, but on the performance side, if everything is running over a local LAN, then that shouldn't be a problem with only 30 machines. I would imagine there are solutions that can address most security concerns as well.
Personally, though it might be a bit more front-end work (not sure, as I've never set up that type of environment, either way), it seems like the VM solution would be the best overall once set up, and is more portable and re-usable, not to mention setting everything back is as simple as rebooting the machine (at least, that's how I understand those systems to work).
Much as I hate to admit it, there is a lot of truth in what you say. I think your "busted shitter" example is a perfect analogy...no one really wants to fix it, and since most aren't being paid...
That being said, I still think there is a way to make FOSS work for the desktop. I'm just not sure what it is, or how to get enough people to be on board with it. The biggest obstacle to it is, as you said, time: it simply takes longer to get things working initially on Linux, for many people (especially when they don't know it), and having to learn something new to do the same thing they've always done is not acceptable to them. Why change what, to them, ain't broken?
Anyway, my two cents (and probably a hit to my karma).
Now instead of acting like a child, why don't you give me an actual reason why you need to send executables and protected, nested, compressed files around in email?
First of all, I wish all CTOs thought like you...I'm lucky that the closest equivalent to a CTO at my job does. Second, I've found the above quoted to be the best argument to shut people up who just want to do anything and everything that they shouldn't. They almost never have a good reason.
My favorite example is our 15 minute screen lockout (which should be lower, but which I can't get approval to lower, nor anyone to actively lock their screens). When I first implemented it, I got all manner of complaints, mostly to the tune of "I have to type in my password 10 times a day now!".
Boo hoo. I type my 18 character mixed case w/specials and numbers password probably at least 50 times a day. I'm sure your 7 character simple password is causing you so many hand cramps. [/rant]
But any app that's got the potential for enterprise use is going to be supplied by the company in a form that is accessible by the enterprise.
This is still a problem for small to medium sized businesses, who may only have need for a small handful of one-off things. I'm feeling the same problem with the 5 or so iPads in our environment (although, I'm not sure there is a good solution on the Android side either, but I've been looking into the Lenovo ThinkPad tablets). Anyway, I have to say I'm not sold on the process they use from the IT side...then again, trying to get VPN to work on the "just works" Macs made me want to jump off the roof. How is it the "too complicated" Windows was so much easier to do that on when Mac has the client built right in? So, maybe I'm not the best person to judge Apple objectively.
Apple/iOS too? Android manufacturers that still lock down their devices too?
While I don't disagree with you on this, there is a difference here: Android does not require that hardware security be non-reversible. In fact, I don't think they require it at all. It is the handset manufacturers and the wireless companies that are putting those limitations in place. As for Apple, they don't require anything; they just control both the hardware and the software, and therefore can pretty much get away with doing anything they want with it. On the whole, though, I do feel that there is something inherently wrong in selling a product (in thin case, a mobile computer) and then limiting what the new owners can do with it. Even if you buy into the whole software is licensed rather than sold argument, that still doesn't give them any good reason why we the consumer shouldn't be allowed to replace that software on the hardware that we own (and I don't think there could be any argument that we own our hardware at this point).
Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has. Their patents are invalid, they're good patents given after lots of research. Microsoft spends billions a year to do it, so it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.
The real question here is, how is Android profiting from Microsoft's R&D? Maybe it would help if Microsoft ever actually said which patents were being violated, and how. Have they?
Just as bad (for Android Market), if an app has ever been preloaded on a phone, you will never get a good idea of its value by review. Almost all of them are just complaining that they can't remove it, and have never actually tried the app.
"the idea that violence can create real and permanent change is mostly untrue in modern times in the Western world"
Yup. Nothing violent has created any permanent changes in the world.
That's why there's no wars or terrorist attacks.
You should re-read that without ignoring the qualifications in it.
What exactly does Windows 7 provide you as the end user that Windows XP does not? My main reason for rolling out Windows 7 is that it has better centralized management and security features. Something I doubt an end user cares about.
This.
As a sysadmin, and previously as the primary IT tech at my company, the main reason I want 7 in house is less for what it will do for the end user workflow (although there are some really nice enhancements there that we've been sure to showcase to them) and more for what it will do for my ability to manage the system. Having gotten used to the UAC makes me cringe every time I have to do work on one of our few remaining XP machines (those we have left are either because we ran out of new hardware capable of supporting 7, or the end user is powerful enough and steadfastly refuses at this point to upgrade).
As for Cygwin, sometimes its just nice to have a good, powerful command line at your fingertips where every command doesn't have to be typed out as long as possible ('PS:\GetStatus-LargeSpinnyThing -Identity "That One Over There"' vs '$>pollst -i thatone'...my issue here is more idealogical, but I personally like typing shorter commands, and the tab completion is much better in bash or zsh than ps). And, yes, I am aware that most powershell cmdlets have shortcuts and abbreviations.
Not necessarily the most likely explanation, but it at least leaves it open as a possible explanation. The line "correlation doesn't equal causation" is a warning against getting to this point in the scientific process, where you have one study that shows a possible link, and then use it as conclusive evidence that your hypothesis is correct, when you've really proven nothing yet. Before they decide that this is what is causing the brain changes, they need to do a lot more work to eliminate other possible explanations, such as have the participants change their gaming behavior over a longer period of time and track changes in their brain. In any event, while this is a vital first step, it is still only a first step, and really isn't very strong evidence just yet.
Frankly, they both screwed up in their own way. I say we just point and snicker at both of them and move on with our lives. People make mistakes, and sometimes they are funny. Laugh, and live on.
Of course, this could just be all the rum talking...
Alternating hands while typing is a desirable trait in a keyboard design, since while one hand is typing a letter, the other hand can get in position to type the next letter. Thus, a typist may fall into a steady rhythm and type quickly. However, when a string of letters is done with the same hand, the chances of stuttering are increased and a rhythm can be broken, thus decreasing speed and increasing errors and fatigue. In the QWERTY layout many more words can be spelled using only the left hand than the right hand. In fact, thousands of English words can be spelled using only the left hand, while only a couple of hundred words can be typed using only the right hand. In addition, most typing strokes are done with the left hand in the QWERTY layout. This is helpful for left-handed people but to the disadvantage of right-handed people.
While that is a desirable trait, it is one that Qwerty has a problem with. Dvorak is a lot better at this.
Grammar nazi is fail. He was referring to typo's, I'm sure, not grammar errors.
To GP: I switched 2 years ago, and I'm mostly typing the same speed I used to on Qwerty. I agree, though, that my typo rate has gone down a lot, and at times, my speed spikes way over what I used to be able to do. Also, same on the RSI thing...
I suspect he was referring not to your remote status so much as the article...and I agree, not buying an iPhone because of this would be pretty stupid (if nothing else, most decent Android phones would be just as vulnerable). Based on everything my phone does, however, with a wifi connection, I would probably get one even if I didn't have reception at my house. But, we each chose for ourselves.
The recent outage of Kernel.org had good reason. It was hacked, so they shut it down to re-build the systems.
1) At least they admitted they got hacked.
2) I imagine BofA either has on hand, or could very quickly get, more (in quantity) competent techs to take care of this than kernel.org has available. They also have a lot more disposable income to take care of this. (mind you, I don't really know how many people either have available for this sort of work, or how much money is available to kernel.org's maintainers for this sort of thing)
Windows NT has been a "hybrid microkernel" since the day it was released. The amount of "hybridness" has varied both ways over the years, but Vista (and by extension, 7) was a clear and definite step in the pure microkernel direction.
My first reaction to that was a desire to call BS, but I did some digging first...I was unaware of that, honestly. Thanks for pointing it out.
You're reading too much into my statement...that wasn't a complaint, merely an observation. Windows 7, from my understanding, was originally named that because they were planning it to be an NT 7.0 release due to the nature of the changes they were planning to make, including drastic architectural kernel changes and possibly removing the registry. I was excited to hear about these, but they all got pulled in favor of taking what Vista did new and making sure it worked right this time around. I was disappointed, but at the same time I understood their reasoning and, in the end, I think they made the right choice.
Honestly, they can call it what they want...the number is a little confusing, since many assume that it is the version number when it isn't. I'm just saying, the features that were originally slated to make it a full major version bump instead of a minor version bump were interesting, and would be something I would be interested in seeing in Windows 8 (or whatever they decide to call it).
I do agree that complaining about the version numbering is, over all, a bit silly, though. Just don't read so much into a simple statement.;)
Relax Windows 8 is not Vista. You do not need to downgrade to Windows 7 like people did with XP when Vista came out.
While this may very well be true, there is no way of knowing that yet. Personally, I've seen nothing to convince me that it is worth upgrading from 7. That may change...
Now, if they did some of the things they talked about for 7 (which might have warranted it actually being version 7.0 instead of 6.1) like converting to a hybrid microkernel, or doing away with the registry, then I would certainly be interested in trying that out.
Having the default GUI on my desktop be something that I feel belongs on a tablet? No thanks. That worked out horribly in Gnome 3 (in my opinion and experience...you may feel differently) precisely because the GUI felt like it belonged on a tablet, and was something I had to learn to work around rather than work with.
Maybe the Windows implementation will be much better, but I doubt it. Sure, I can always go back to the standar...er, regul....um, what the heck should I call it? It's not regular or standard if it's not default. Classic? Anyway, sure, I could use the "old Aero" interface, but I think it would bug me that my desktop is essentially an app on a tablet UI rather than the main UI itself.
Maybe I'm just peculiar that way.
In any event, I hope this UI does not remain the default for any length of time on anything other than exactly what it is made for: a tablet.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I just think, "here is a remote VM, go mess with things within it" kind of service is stupid.
While it is certainly your right to feel that way, that does not make it any less viable or useful a technology to those of us who recognize the value in it.
I'm not sure about the security aspect so much, but on the performance side, if everything is running over a local LAN, then that shouldn't be a problem with only 30 machines.
You are stupid.
Since there are solutions from Citrix that do exactly this over a corporate WAN with far more nodes, I don't see how there would be too much trouble getting it to work on a local LAN with a 1 Gig switch. If you have something that would dispute that idea, then by all means, offer that rather than your little ad hominem attack.
I fully admit that I've not set one of these systems up myself, and I don't know the underlying technology of it that well yet, so if there are other considerations that I am missing here, please contribute them to the discussion.
I would imagine there are solutions that can address most security concerns as well.
Scratch that, you are a dangerous idiot. Kill all your friends, then yourself.
The only solution to a security problem of having Windows full access to everything that is supposed to run Linux, is not running Linux under control of Windows in the first place. And killing everyone who proposes something that stupid.
I don't recall anyone saying anything about it running under the control of Windows, first of all; Windows itself would not actually launch, the machines would simply boot to the virtual image.
Second, while I agree that Linux is still inherently more secure than Windows, that gap has drastically narrowed over the last 10 years, and you can actually deploy Windows securely. That line is getting really old.
I know I'm feeding the troll right now. Oh well. I'm not sure why this troll has a score 4 Insightful, though, other than his 3 digit UID. Troll on, Alex...or, alternatively, grow the hell up and give real counter arguments rather than just attacking people for saying something you disagree with.
I'm not sure about the security aspect so much, but on the performance side, if everything is running over a local LAN, then that shouldn't be a problem with only 30 machines. I would imagine there are solutions that can address most security concerns as well.
Personally, though it might be a bit more front-end work (not sure, as I've never set up that type of environment, either way), it seems like the VM solution would be the best overall once set up, and is more portable and re-usable, not to mention setting everything back is as simple as rebooting the machine (at least, that's how I understand those systems to work).
Much as I hate to admit it, there is a lot of truth in what you say. I think your "busted shitter" example is a perfect analogy...no one really wants to fix it, and since most aren't being paid...
That being said, I still think there is a way to make FOSS work for the desktop. I'm just not sure what it is, or how to get enough people to be on board with it. The biggest obstacle to it is, as you said, time: it simply takes longer to get things working initially on Linux, for many people (especially when they don't know it), and having to learn something new to do the same thing they've always done is not acceptable to them. Why change what, to them, ain't broken?
Anyway, my two cents (and probably a hit to my karma).
Now instead of acting like a child, why don't you give me an actual reason why you need to send executables and protected, nested, compressed files around in email?
First of all, I wish all CTOs thought like you...I'm lucky that the closest equivalent to a CTO at my job does. Second, I've found the above quoted to be the best argument to shut people up who just want to do anything and everything that they shouldn't. They almost never have a good reason.
My favorite example is our 15 minute screen lockout (which should be lower, but which I can't get approval to lower, nor anyone to actively lock their screens). When I first implemented it, I got all manner of complaints, mostly to the tune of "I have to type in my password 10 times a day now!".
Boo hoo. I type my 18 character mixed case w/specials and numbers password probably at least 50 times a day. I'm sure your 7 character simple password is causing you so many hand cramps. [/rant]
Or lets say I want a minor customization, putting the window buttons on the left side like most people are used to.
Should I assume you mean right? I don't know many people outside of Mac users who are used to them on the left, and even some of them hate that.
But any app that's got the potential for enterprise use is going to be supplied by the company in a form that is accessible by the enterprise.
This is still a problem for small to medium sized businesses, who may only have need for a small handful of one-off things. I'm feeling the same problem with the 5 or so iPads in our environment (although, I'm not sure there is a good solution on the Android side either, but I've been looking into the Lenovo ThinkPad tablets). Anyway, I have to say I'm not sold on the process they use from the IT side...then again, trying to get VPN to work on the "just works" Macs made me want to jump off the roof. How is it the "too complicated" Windows was so much easier to do that on when Mac has the client built right in? So, maybe I'm not the best person to judge Apple objectively.
Apple/iOS too? Android manufacturers that still lock down their devices too?
While I don't disagree with you on this, there is a difference here: Android does not require that hardware security be non-reversible. In fact, I don't think they require it at all. It is the handset manufacturers and the wireless companies that are putting those limitations in place. As for Apple, they don't require anything; they just control both the hardware and the software, and therefore can pretty much get away with doing anything they want with it. On the whole, though, I do feel that there is something inherently wrong in selling a product (in thin case, a mobile computer) and then limiting what the new owners can do with it. Even if you buy into the whole software is licensed rather than sold argument, that still doesn't give them any good reason why we the consumer shouldn't be allowed to replace that software on the hardware that we own (and I don't think there could be any argument that we own our hardware at this point).
This, however, is not the same thing.
Microsoft has a huge R&D division, larger than any other company in the industry has. Their patents are invalid, they're good patents given after lots of research. Microsoft spends billions a year to do it, so it's only fair that other companies pay up if they want to profit from the results of Microsoft's R&D.
The real question here is, how is Android profiting from Microsoft's R&D? Maybe it would help if Microsoft ever actually said which patents were being violated, and how. Have they?
Just as bad (for Android Market), if an app has ever been preloaded on a phone, you will never get a good idea of its value by review. Almost all of them are just complaining that they can't remove it, and have never actually tried the app.
Is it that impossible for you to believe that Microsoft may have released a product that people like?
Yes. If that were to happen, a singularity would have ripped open in the space-time continuum and swallowed the Earth whole.
"the idea that violence can create real and permanent change is mostly untrue in modern times in the Western world"
Yup. Nothing violent has created any permanent changes in the world.
That's why there's no wars or terrorist attacks.
You should re-read that without ignoring the qualifications in it.
Haven't you heard of Google? Of IMDB?
I must say that I find it slightly creepy the fact that Google and IMDB knows the name of that 10 year-old actor. ;)
What exactly does Windows 7 provide you as the end user that Windows XP does not? My main reason for rolling out Windows 7 is that it has better centralized management and security features. Something I doubt an end user cares about.
This.
As a sysadmin, and previously as the primary IT tech at my company, the main reason I want 7 in house is less for what it will do for the end user workflow (although there are some really nice enhancements there that we've been sure to showcase to them) and more for what it will do for my ability to manage the system. Having gotten used to the UAC makes me cringe every time I have to do work on one of our few remaining XP machines (those we have left are either because we ran out of new hardware capable of supporting 7, or the end user is powerful enough and steadfastly refuses at this point to upgrade).
As for Cygwin, sometimes its just nice to have a good, powerful command line at your fingertips where every command doesn't have to be typed out as long as possible ('PS:\GetStatus-LargeSpinnyThing -Identity "That One Over There"' vs '$>pollst -i thatone'...my issue here is more idealogical, but I personally like typing shorter commands, and the tab completion is much better in bash or zsh than ps). And, yes, I am aware that most powershell cmdlets have shortcuts and abbreviations.
Anyway, that's my two cents...
Not necessarily the most likely explanation, but it at least leaves it open as a possible explanation. The line "correlation doesn't equal causation" is a warning against getting to this point in the scientific process, where you have one study that shows a possible link, and then use it as conclusive evidence that your hypothesis is correct, when you've really proven nothing yet. Before they decide that this is what is causing the brain changes, they need to do a lot more work to eliminate other possible explanations, such as have the participants change their gaming behavior over a longer period of time and track changes in their brain. In any event, while this is a vital first step, it is still only a first step, and really isn't very strong evidence just yet.
Frankly, they both screwed up in their own way. I say we just point and snicker at both of them and move on with our lives. People make mistakes, and sometimes they are funny. Laugh, and live on.
Of course, this could just be all the rum talking...
Alternating hands while typing is a desirable trait in a keyboard design, since while one hand is typing a letter, the other hand can get in position to type the next letter. Thus, a typist may fall into a steady rhythm and type quickly. However, when a string of letters is done with the same hand, the chances of stuttering are increased and a rhythm can be broken, thus decreasing speed and increasing errors and fatigue. In the QWERTY layout many more words can be spelled using only the left hand than the right hand. In fact, thousands of English words can be spelled using only the left hand, while only a couple of hundred words can be typed using only the right hand. In addition, most typing strokes are done with the left hand in the QWERTY layout. This is helpful for left-handed people but to the disadvantage of right-handed people.
While that is a desirable trait, it is one that Qwerty has a problem with. Dvorak is a lot better at this.
Grammar nazi is fail. He was referring to typo's, I'm sure, not grammar errors.
To GP: I switched 2 years ago, and I'm mostly typing the same speed I used to on Qwerty. I agree, though, that my typo rate has gone down a lot, and at times, my speed spikes way over what I used to be able to do. Also, same on the RSI thing...
I suspect he was referring not to your remote status so much as the article...and I agree, not buying an iPhone because of this would be pretty stupid (if nothing else, most decent Android phones would be just as vulnerable). Based on everything my phone does, however, with a wifi connection, I would probably get one even if I didn't have reception at my house. But, we each chose for ourselves.
The recent outage of Kernel.org had good reason. It was hacked, so they shut it down to re-build the systems.
1) At least they admitted they got hacked.
2) I imagine BofA either has on hand, or could very quickly get, more (in quantity) competent techs to take care of this than kernel.org has available. They also have a lot more disposable income to take care of this. (mind you, I don't really know how many people either have available for this sort of work, or how much money is available to kernel.org's maintainers for this sort of thing)
Windows NT has been a "hybrid microkernel" since the day it was released. The amount of "hybridness" has varied both ways over the years, but Vista (and by extension, 7) was a clear and definite step in the pure microkernel direction.
My first reaction to that was a desire to call BS, but I did some digging first...I was unaware of that, honestly. Thanks for pointing it out.
You're reading too much into my statement...that wasn't a complaint, merely an observation. Windows 7, from my understanding, was originally named that because they were planning it to be an NT 7.0 release due to the nature of the changes they were planning to make, including drastic architectural kernel changes and possibly removing the registry. I was excited to hear about these, but they all got pulled in favor of taking what Vista did new and making sure it worked right this time around. I was disappointed, but at the same time I understood their reasoning and, in the end, I think they made the right choice.
;)
Honestly, they can call it what they want...the number is a little confusing, since many assume that it is the version number when it isn't. I'm just saying, the features that were originally slated to make it a full major version bump instead of a minor version bump were interesting, and would be something I would be interested in seeing in Windows 8 (or whatever they decide to call it).
I do agree that complaining about the version numbering is, over all, a bit silly, though. Just don't read so much into a simple statement.
Relax Windows 8 is not Vista. You do not need to downgrade to Windows 7 like people did with XP when Vista came out.
While this may very well be true, there is no way of knowing that yet. Personally, I've seen nothing to convince me that it is worth upgrading from 7. That may change...
Now, if they did some of the things they talked about for 7 (which might have warranted it actually being version 7.0 instead of 6.1) like converting to a hybrid microkernel, or doing away with the registry, then I would certainly be interested in trying that out.
Having the default GUI on my desktop be something that I feel belongs on a tablet? No thanks. That worked out horribly in Gnome 3 (in my opinion and experience...you may feel differently) precisely because the GUI felt like it belonged on a tablet, and was something I had to learn to work around rather than work with.
Maybe the Windows implementation will be much better, but I doubt it. Sure, I can always go back to the standar...er, regul....um, what the heck should I call it? It's not regular or standard if it's not default. Classic? Anyway, sure, I could use the "old Aero" interface, but I think it would bug me that my desktop is essentially an app on a tablet UI rather than the main UI itself.
Maybe I'm just peculiar that way.
In any event, I hope this UI does not remain the default for any length of time on anything other than exactly what it is made for: a tablet.
Err, I meant to type Github, not Google. *headdesk*
Seems appropriate, considering the topic...
Thanks for that...I don't think I've laughed that hard in years. I needed that!