... it's just the way you launch it that's different....
From my experience, it is easy to make Citrix seamless...I have plenty of users who at one site, use a locally installed version of software that at another site is only offered through Citrix. They have no idea what Citrix is, and don't even know there is a difference when launching one versus the other (the way they launch the program at either site is the exact same...they double click an icon on the desktop with the right name and icon)
I feel it would be easy to make it so that Linux feels much the same to them: make sure there is an icon on their desktop with the name and picture they are expecting, and make sure it works; they will barely even know you've changed the OS on them. (that is, of course, a bit of an overstatement; but, as long as they can do that without having to hunt around, they are generally pretty quiet, happy and productive)
There are many acronyms with different meanings. Anyway, as this here clearly refers to Medicine:
I just did a quick Google search and found that alternate uses of ALS don't show up until the 8th link; the top 7 are all about Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Acronym overload is only a valid excuse when there isn't an overwhelming preference for one particular usage, or that this usage is not the overwhelming use case for that acronym. Since it is the most common use of the acronym, spelling it out is a bit redundant; submitters and editors here alike should be able to reasonably assume that the vast majority of readers here understand what Google is and how to use it. If readers don't use the tools right in front of them, that is their own fault.
The issue isn't would you let them...if they get it in their heads that this would be easier, they very well might just do it regardless of what you say.
At least for me, the people who I worry about doing things like that are also the ones who sign my checks. There is little to nothing I could do to stop them even if I ever did find out they were using something like this. Most non-IT people don't want to care about IT security if it gets in their way.
Based on your description, you are claiming, that RH is forcing users to install all that is part of their package, I would say this would hurt their customer base, more then anything....they managed to make 1billion dollars even with Oracle doing what they do, I would say leave it as is, and keep doing what your doing, as soon as you do fix something that aint broke, you play with fire...
From my understanding, they are still releasing the individual patches to their subscribed customers; it's the public patchset that is now being released as a single patch. Also, their subscribers, while they can pick and chose their patches, are not allowed per their license agreement with RedHat to redistribute the individual patches in the form that they get as subscribers. They could, of course, redistribute the single patches that RedHat is already making available, however.
All of the changes they are making are being made available as per the GPL, and they are still one of the biggest and most active corporate contributers to Linux. I'm not sure about all of the ramifications of what they are doing here, and there may be some reasons why what they are doing is not as open as the community would like, but on the whole, I see what they do as a very positive force in the open source/free software movement. Linux would likely not be where it is today without them.
The Fedora Skype problem was that skype would not generate sound output, making the otherwise-working skype useless. Or if sound output worked, microphone capture would stop working. Sometimes a Fedora mid-release small sound update would break general-sound or skype-sound too.
This.
For a long time, I hated Red Hat and everything that they did because of the horrible experiences I've had with Fedora (had to use it for school, they insisted). I've since tried out CentOS (forced myself to use it for a project to get more used to the RH tools) and was very impressed how everything just worked so well, how easy the command line tools were to use without taking away power...it felt like they put a lot of work into making CLI administration of a server as straightforward as possible. There were things I didn't like, such as the default startup daemons (do I really need to run the bluetooth daemon by default on a webserver?), but they are easy enough to change.
I've since given Fedora another chance...and the only positive thing I can say about it is that it was very pretty. It's just too unstable. Ubuntu, Mandriva, PCLOS, all make far better desktop OSes than Fedora, because things just plain work better, and release grade software actually feels release grade, not "it was time to release the next version, so where everything was at that moment is what we put in it" quality.
Even Windows doesn't run all Windows applications and games perfectly.
No, it doesn't...however, when it doesn't, either the software or the system get blamed far more often than Windows does. Even if Windows does get blamed, the user sighs and trudges along because they know there is no other alternative.
When someone tries Linux, however, every little thing that does not work the way they expect are automatically Linux's fault, because these things "Just Work" in Windows (even when they really don't), so Linux must, therefore, be inferior (this is especially true of people who are otherwise smart, and/or tech savvy..."if I'm this smart, and can't figure it out, it must be badly designed"). After all, if I have to put up with annoyances and breakages in the system, I may as well stick with something that I already know and am used to being disappointed by, rather than something that I have to go to the trouble to learn well enough to even use halfway as well as I do what I just came from. They see it as replacing one problem with another problem.
While it may be true that Linux may get desktop acceptance without doing what Haeleth said above, I think that being able to do everything Windows is expected to do, not just better but perfectly, and exactly the way that users coming from Windows would expect it to be done, is the only way for acceptance to come quickly (sorry for the run-on there...).
Anymore, I don't hate either platform, and see both as having strengths and weaknesses...one of Linux's big weakness right now is that of perception, that it is harder or that people have to completely re-think what they know about computers to use it (which is almost half right...they do have to re-think part of what they know). People simply need computers to do the task they need done. They don't care what operating system is on it, or the morality or ethics of the software that they are using. Most of the time, they don't even care what it costs, as long as it does what they need done, with minimal hassle, so they can get back to doing other things. If we can make Linux work like that and set it up for them, they won't even care or notice; as long as it just works, they will do their task and get away from their computer as quickly as possible, just like always.
One good reason to make sure they terminate your accounts: if they get compromised (depending on the type of compromise, anyway) and have to do an audit, they're likely going to suspect anyone who no longer works there and still has an account...even more so those with enough tech savviness to have done damage.
Personally, I don't want there to be any question of whether or not I still have access after I leave.
Correction..."successfully implemented" strategic decisions like this take months, if not years. In IT, it seems most people who have power to tell it to do anything believe what they want can be implemented today, properly, without prior planning, and without adverse consequence. In other words, most people who have power to direct IT have no business directing IT.
At least, that has been my experience...take that for what you will.
No, there is NO reason to have you open extra ports to your PC directly. Routers and Firewalls, unless very old or very poorly implemented, understand connection state. The solution is to have the game client initiate all connections and hold the connection open. There is no reason my router should be forwarding any ports from the outside to my PC that aren't part of an established connection, unless I am running a server on that box.
Then it sounds like a hardware failure or third-party software conflict (think poorly written, or otherwise malware). Windows has not been THAT unstable in a decade.
And, no...I'm not an MS fan by any means. You want to build an argument against Microsoft, by all means, do...there are plenty of things you can complain about without resorting to issues they've long since fixed.
Hmm...makes me wonder what it is you are doing to your systems. I run a W7 system at work and at home, and I leave both on for weeks on end without issue. Rarely get an app crash, even more rarely get a system hang. I'll grant you that Linux is more stable, but if you are having to do a system reboot daily just to get "5 minutes of work" done, then you are most likely doing something wrong.
That, or you have a hardware failure pending, or whoever set up your corporate image is an idiot.
Yes, because 99% of all computer users want to study how to use every last little bit so they can make it as efficient as possible. Oh, wait...no, actually, 99% of users want things to just work out of the box and don't care one bit about your nerd rage that your way is superior. Computers are tools to get a job done...those who love to customize them (myself included), don't mind going through what you talk about. Most people just want their computer to help them get their job done, and won't bother if it gets in their way until they take the time to "customize it". And Windows, 7 especially, does just that...gives people the tools to do their work, then gets out of their way. Looks like Microsoft finally listened to their customers.
The problem with this is the way Childs set the systems up. These weren't databases, but the router configs for the core and edge routers of the network. He set them up so that attempting to restart them would clear the configs, taking down the network. He also set himself up as the only one with the backups to restore the networks.
The city did contact the vendor...in this case, Cisco. They spent weeks coming up with a solution on how to get the configs back without the passwords, but had not come up with any very good solutions by the time he finally surrendered them.
Effectively, the systems still ran...but if anything had happened, they would not have been able to recover the way they needed to. A simple power loss could have caused the network to go down for days and cost an amount I'm not confident to estimate to bring back up. Simple fact is that he never had a right to set himself up as the single point of failure...the often used example where I work is "What if you get hit by a car?" This actually happened to our sysadmin, so we know it to be a very real concern...if it had happened to him while he had that control over the network, there would be no way for anyone to take over. I hate to say it, but that behavior really should be criminal.
really? because they still support hardware from 10 years ago.
you know what isn't supported by ANYONE anymore? the linux kernel from 10 years ago.
Maybe not, but pretty much everything a 10 year old Linux kernel supported is STILL supported in the current kernel, which is actually a much more accurate comparison than what you are using.
Kernel support is not the same as hardware support...in fact, it is the exact opposite, since it is what supports hardware. I dare you to find something outside the free software world that supports as much hardware as the Linux kernel...hell, there are things it supports that are in use by less than 0.003% of computers that Linus refuses to abandon support for. Try getting that sort of commitment from a commercial vendor.
PhD "dissertation"? Normally one writes a thesis for a PhD, and a typical length is in the region of 50,000 words. I don't know about you, but that's way more than I can type in a night.
Actually, you typically write a thesis for a Masters degree...for a PhD, you typically write a dissertation, which is a fair bit larger than a thesis.
Odd...I've had to use that tool to remove Norton from brand new PCs...are you suggesting the systems were shipped not only with useless antivirus but with a few strains of malware to go with it?
If you want it to actually work, don't make it Norton...probably the most worthless big name antivirus I've ever worked with. Kaspersky has been FAR better in the networks I've installed it on.
Slashdot Mirror
... it's just the way you launch it that's different....
From my experience, it is easy to make Citrix seamless...I have plenty of users who at one site, use a locally installed version of software that at another site is only offered through Citrix. They have no idea what Citrix is, and don't even know there is a difference when launching one versus the other (the way they launch the program at either site is the exact same...they double click an icon on the desktop with the right name and icon)
I feel it would be easy to make it so that Linux feels much the same to them: make sure there is an icon on their desktop with the name and picture they are expecting, and make sure it works; they will barely even know you've changed the OS on them. (that is, of course, a bit of an overstatement; but, as long as they can do that without having to hunt around, they are generally pretty quiet, happy and productive)
I just did a quick Google search and found that alternate uses of ALS don't show up until the 8th link; the top 7 are all about Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Acronym overload is only a valid excuse when there isn't an overwhelming preference for one particular usage, or that this usage is not the overwhelming use case for that acronym. Since it is the most common use of the acronym, spelling it out is a bit redundant; submitters and editors here alike should be able to reasonably assume that the vast majority of readers here understand what Google is and how to use it. If readers don't use the tools right in front of them, that is their own fault.
The issue isn't would you let them...if they get it in their heads that this would be easier, they very well might just do it regardless of what you say.
At least for me, the people who I worry about doing things like that are also the ones who sign my checks. There is little to nothing I could do to stop them even if I ever did find out they were using something like this. Most non-IT people don't want to care about IT security if it gets in their way.
You sure Jason isn't, himself, pants?
Based on your description, you are claiming, that RH is forcing users to install all that is part of their package, I would say this would hurt their customer base, more then anything....they managed to make 1billion dollars even with Oracle doing what they do, I would say leave it as is, and keep doing what your doing, as soon as you do fix something that aint broke, you play with fire...
From my understanding, they are still releasing the individual patches to their subscribed customers; it's the public patchset that is now being released as a single patch. Also, their subscribers, while they can pick and chose their patches, are not allowed per their license agreement with RedHat to redistribute the individual patches in the form that they get as subscribers. They could, of course, redistribute the single patches that RedHat is already making available, however.
All of the changes they are making are being made available as per the GPL, and they are still one of the biggest and most active corporate contributers to Linux. I'm not sure about all of the ramifications of what they are doing here, and there may be some reasons why what they are doing is not as open as the community would like, but on the whole, I see what they do as a very positive force in the open source/free software movement. Linux would likely not be where it is today without them.
This.
For a long time, I hated Red Hat and everything that they did because of the horrible experiences I've had with Fedora (had to use it for school, they insisted). I've since tried out CentOS (forced myself to use it for a project to get more used to the RH tools) and was very impressed how everything just worked so well, how easy the command line tools were to use without taking away power...it felt like they put a lot of work into making CLI administration of a server as straightforward as possible. There were things I didn't like, such as the default startup daemons (do I really need to run the bluetooth daemon by default on a webserver?), but they are easy enough to change.
I've since given Fedora another chance...and the only positive thing I can say about it is that it was very pretty. It's just too unstable. Ubuntu, Mandriva, PCLOS, all make far better desktop OSes than Fedora, because things just plain work better, and release grade software actually feels release grade, not "it was time to release the next version, so where everything was at that moment is what we put in it" quality.
No, it doesn't...however, when it doesn't, either the software or the system get blamed far more often than Windows does. Even if Windows does get blamed, the user sighs and trudges along because they know there is no other alternative.
When someone tries Linux, however, every little thing that does not work the way they expect are automatically Linux's fault, because these things "Just Work" in Windows (even when they really don't), so Linux must, therefore, be inferior (this is especially true of people who are otherwise smart, and/or tech savvy..."if I'm this smart, and can't figure it out, it must be badly designed"). After all, if I have to put up with annoyances and breakages in the system, I may as well stick with something that I already know and am used to being disappointed by, rather than something that I have to go to the trouble to learn well enough to even use halfway as well as I do what I just came from. They see it as replacing one problem with another problem.
While it may be true that Linux may get desktop acceptance without doing what Haeleth said above, I think that being able to do everything Windows is expected to do, not just better but perfectly, and exactly the way that users coming from Windows would expect it to be done, is the only way for acceptance to come quickly (sorry for the run-on there...).
Anymore, I don't hate either platform, and see both as having strengths and weaknesses...one of Linux's big weakness right now is that of perception, that it is harder or that people have to completely re-think what they know about computers to use it (which is almost half right...they do have to re-think part of what they know). People simply need computers to do the task they need done. They don't care what operating system is on it, or the morality or ethics of the software that they are using. Most of the time, they don't even care what it costs, as long as it does what they need done, with minimal hassle, so they can get back to doing other things. If we can make Linux work like that and set it up for them, they won't even care or notice; as long as it just works, they will do their task and get away from their computer as quickly as possible, just like always.
One good reason to make sure they terminate your accounts: if they get compromised (depending on the type of compromise, anyway) and have to do an audit, they're likely going to suspect anyone who no longer works there and still has an account...even more so those with enough tech savviness to have done damage.
Personally, I don't want there to be any question of whether or not I still have access after I leave.
Correction..."successfully implemented" strategic decisions like this take months, if not years. In IT, it seems most people who have power to tell it to do anything believe what they want can be implemented today, properly, without prior planning, and without adverse consequence. In other words, most people who have power to direct IT have no business directing IT.
At least, that has been my experience...take that for what you will.
Too bad there is no "+1, Sad But True" mod.
I think you have Tiberium Wars confused with Tiberian Sun, which was released in 1999.
No, there is NO reason to have you open extra ports to your PC directly. Routers and Firewalls, unless very old or very poorly implemented, understand connection state. The solution is to have the game client initiate all connections and hold the connection open. There is no reason my router should be forwarding any ports from the outside to my PC that aren't part of an established connection, unless I am running a server on that box.
Then it sounds like a hardware failure or third-party software conflict (think poorly written, or otherwise malware). Windows has not been THAT unstable in a decade.
And, no...I'm not an MS fan by any means. You want to build an argument against Microsoft, by all means, do...there are plenty of things you can complain about without resorting to issues they've long since fixed.
Hmm...makes me wonder what it is you are doing to your systems. I run a W7 system at work and at home, and I leave both on for weeks on end without issue. Rarely get an app crash, even more rarely get a system hang. I'll grant you that Linux is more stable, but if you are having to do a system reboot daily just to get "5 minutes of work" done, then you are most likely doing something wrong.
That, or you have a hardware failure pending, or whoever set up your corporate image is an idiot.
Why is this marked Troll?
Yes, because 99% of all computer users want to study how to use every last little bit so they can make it as efficient as possible. Oh, wait...no, actually, 99% of users want things to just work out of the box and don't care one bit about your nerd rage that your way is superior. Computers are tools to get a job done...those who love to customize them (myself included), don't mind going through what you talk about. Most people just want their computer to help them get their job done, and won't bother if it gets in their way until they take the time to "customize it". And Windows, 7 especially, does just that...gives people the tools to do their work, then gets out of their way. Looks like Microsoft finally listened to their customers.
The problem with this is the way Childs set the systems up. These weren't databases, but the router configs for the core and edge routers of the network. He set them up so that attempting to restart them would clear the configs, taking down the network. He also set himself up as the only one with the backups to restore the networks.
The city did contact the vendor...in this case, Cisco. They spent weeks coming up with a solution on how to get the configs back without the passwords, but had not come up with any very good solutions by the time he finally surrendered them.
Effectively, the systems still ran...but if anything had happened, they would not have been able to recover the way they needed to. A simple power loss could have caused the network to go down for days and cost an amount I'm not confident to estimate to bring back up. Simple fact is that he never had a right to set himself up as the single point of failure...the often used example where I work is "What if you get hit by a car?" This actually happened to our sysadmin, so we know it to be a very real concern...if it had happened to him while he had that control over the network, there would be no way for anyone to take over. I hate to say it, but that behavior really should be criminal.
It's also a lot more advanced than KHTML from what I've seen.
Using Windows 7, I just checked my disk capacities:
Capacity: 1,000,202,039,296 bytes (931 GB)
I'd say that looks like base 2, not base 10.
What the hell is a PEBCAK?
In the US, it's the other way around, so I imagine that is what they were referring to.
really? because they still support hardware from 10 years ago.
you know what isn't supported by ANYONE anymore? the linux kernel from 10 years ago.
Maybe not, but pretty much everything a 10 year old Linux kernel supported is STILL supported in the current kernel, which is actually a much more accurate comparison than what you are using. Kernel support is not the same as hardware support...in fact, it is the exact opposite, since it is what supports hardware. I dare you to find something outside the free software world that supports as much hardware as the Linux kernel...hell, there are things it supports that are in use by less than 0.003% of computers that Linus refuses to abandon support for. Try getting that sort of commitment from a commercial vendor.
PhD "dissertation"? Normally one writes a thesis for a PhD, and a typical length is in the region of 50,000 words. I don't know about you, but that's way more than I can type in a night.
Actually, you typically write a thesis for a Masters degree...for a PhD, you typically write a dissertation, which is a fair bit larger than a thesis.
Odd...I've had to use that tool to remove Norton from brand new PCs...are you suggesting the systems were shipped not only with useless antivirus but with a few strains of malware to go with it?
If you want it to actually work, don't make it Norton...probably the most worthless big name antivirus I've ever worked with. Kaspersky has been FAR better in the networks I've installed it on.