Honestly this isn't a flame, but why does your Exchange server take up so much time? Now I will admit that it's easy to bash certain platforms here, but as an Exchange engineer for several years, I have found that when set up properly, it requires little or no maintenance. All you have to do is keep backups and keep quotas on people's mailboxes.
From everything I've seen, Apache 2.x just plain rocks, but shouldn't the OS/App be just a tool for getting work/play done? Shouldn't you be trying to pick the best OS/App for the job, and not just the trendy one?
NP
Let's see if the employees have anything to say
on
Linuxgruven Layoffs
·
· Score: 1
There's going to be different versions of XP out; they'll be XP Home, XP Professional, XP Server, and XP Advanced Server. Only the Home edition will *always* require activation. For Select Customers, MSDN users, and others, it will not require communication to MS to install/activate.
It's a little silly and shows some of the current attitudes (I swear this isn't a troll) of Slashdotters to rant this much. So, I'd like to ask these questions-
a.) If an Open Source activist is allowed to get upset and take legal action when someone doesn't follow their license, then why can't MS ensure people follow their license? Is MS' somehow less valid because it isn't popular? If one is such an advocate of a particlar business model, that person should have at least civic respect for another license.
b.) An argument could be made that OSS is pushing the ASP movement. More specifically, when a free alternative is competing with Microsoft, MS can either try to take a larger market share or simply make more money off the market share they already have. If all closed-source apps went away, the drive of the IT market would be on services. No longer could a company rely on selling their software for a year before releasing a new version. Instead, they might find more money in renting the use of their apps.
This second point is really kind of a theory, and I am interested to hear what others think.)
Most of the wear on servers is typically on their drives, so sleeping the disks would increase failures and shorten their lifespan. For example, the large corporation that I did contract work for in San Diego had about 100 PC/NT servers, with another 100 HP-UX servers. For Y2K, they had checked for possible issues with disks, but they only restarted servers and left the disk arrays going. This is because the spinning up/down of the disk increases wear and opportunity for failure (motor bearings, etc).
The second issue that is slightly incorrect is the state of California's power problem. The state deregulated and totally fscked up the way power was sold by allowing people to sell power at open market prices. Power plants were then purposely shut down, decommissioned, and reduced in capacity to raise the value of the price of power. For Example, you have 2 powerplants, PPA and PPB. They each create 1000Mw's of power at 1 cent per megawatt, for a total income of $20. You create an excuse to shut down PPB, causing a shortage of available power. This in turn raises the selling cost of power to 2 cents. You have just kept you same income but have halved your operating costs.
There is a shortage of power, but not because California's usage suddenly went insane. This problem started back in the early summer in San Diego, and no one took action until the end of the summer.
If you really wanted to conserer power, then have all the Slashdot readers retire Seti@Home until all blows over and let their boxes sit powered off or do Wake-on-LAN, as I am sure far more power is consumed by Seti@Home users in CA than by not-sleeping server processors.
I've got to agree. Even before the Linksys and Netgear products, 3Com had the OfficeConnect Routers. One of the models, of which I still use at a remote site, uses NAT, DHCP, and 2 56k modems. I think the point here is that it might be amusing that this thing runs Linux, but the point is the OS is just a tool- some devices you shouldn't have to worry what OS it's running; just that it is effective at its role or not.
I have to admit you have an interesting position. But you see, when you have a foreign country's internal policies affecting your own country, aren't your foreign policy/ambassadors supposed to say something to the other country? In other words, wouldn't you expect your canadian politicians to do something about it? Oh wait- that would invlove a spine within your contry's foreign policy department. So, that's more of a 'fuck you, canadian foreign policy'.
California has a colossaly different eco-system, society, and economy than British Colombia. First off, the average person per square mile in BC is something like.01, where in CA it's something like 4. I am sure those aren't accurate numbers, but the metropolitan areas create a huge energey demand. Deregulation has failed us here in CA at this point. But CA has historically been far more progressive than other US states. It doesn't work? Ok, we'll figure it out and fix it. That makes it more of a 'Fuck you and the political system you rode in on.'
As for the extinction of species, you need to do a little more geography. Your neighbors to the south have LA, San Francisco, San Diego, but last time I checked the rain forests that are being destroyed that are exctincting species is a little further south - like Brazil and other areas in that whole other continent (see Canadian Foreign Policy above). That makes this more of a 'Fuck you and your crack cocaine-based facts'.
Point taken, but it's at least nice to see some logic built into your argument.
With that said, Goldmine fscking sucks, from my experience.
One more thing-- the stability of an NT system is heavily reliant on its' configuration. It's very easy to build an unstable NT box, but stability is an attainable goal. One of the best uptimes I have had was a 1000+ user mailbox server running NT4, SP5, Exchange SP3 with an uptime of 11 months. No voodoo, just attention to detail.
I mean to be civil, but lay off the fucking crack, man.
Here are some real-market numbers:
-Exchange Admin (Full-Time) for 5-10 Servers $60k
-Exchange Mailbox Servers for 1000 Users 1@~$9,000
-Exchange Bridgehead Server 1@~$9,000
-Antivirus Software ~$5000
-Client Software (Outlook 2000 free with Exchange)
-Migration ~$6000
You must be so disgruntled becuase you can't get any consulting business, especially at those prices. What are you trying to do, install Exchange of 486's? 1000 users is a typical limit per server for users, not because of Exchange, but all their mail.
As for Exchange/Outlook virii, if you got hit with them it's one of three reasons:
-you're the ass who opened the attachment
-you're the ass who doesn't know how to run the Rules Wizard in Outlook
-your're the ass of an Exchange admin who never installed AV software.
I don't mean to dangle flamebait, but isn't there a logical flaw in OpenMail? HP has made the business decision internally to stop using OpenMail in favor of Exchange. As part of some of that migration, I can say that there are signifigant cost reductions for corporations with Exchange 5.5 over OpenMail.
Well, the best answer I could give you is it depends. What is your primary server base? Are your accounts primarily NT or Unix based accounts? The real strongpoint for many mail systems is seamless authentication, so it depends on your server base. Exchange 5.5 properly implimented is quite reliable, and so is the RTM (Release to Manufacturing) version of Exchange 2000. When I say 'properly implimented', I mean that you have to have someone who knows the product at least a little. If you have seen setups crash and burn, it's not due to the Exchange software bits, but usually to a dork who tries to B.S. his or her way through the migration/implimentation.
You also need to consider how big your IT staff is and what kind of skills they have. If your IT staff consists of a few very few knowledgeable people, then a Unix-based system can be installed and maintained through sometimes complex, but less often maintenance procedures. If you have an IT staff of scattered skillsets, then you might consider having a consulting firm install Exchange 5.5 or 2000 and have them document it all, then your staff maintain it. This latter option would provide easier maintenance with a lower knowledge-level requirement for staff members.
The point is, that if you're looking for a reason to hate Exchange, then I am sure you will find people posting here to commiserate with you; but you will also find just as easily people willing to commiserate over unix-based mail systems.
While not a popular stance with the younder slashdot readers, software isn't a religion, it's a tool. Good software meets a need with a minimized amount of cost- sometimes that cost is in software price, sometimes in staff salaries, downtime, etc. If you would like to talk about this more offline, send me an e-mail.
This really is getting kind of pitiful, Hemos. Many posts on Slashdot get moderated down because they are inflammatory comments often from trolls. After reading the article you posted here, I have a hard time believing that what you posted was anything other than a troll.
Before this gets moderated down, let me clarfy that. As one of the senior posters on Slashdot, you owe it to your fellow posters to post quality material. I don't think you've done that. While the link you posted is a good article, all you did was bitch and moan for your couple sentences about Microsoft. Is the idea that MS is a bad or evil or monopolistic company a new idea? Nope.
The reality is that this typifies much of the Linux community at this point. Rather than create a gaming console that runs linux or bsd or whatnot, it is far easier to sit on the sidelines and complain about this-or-that. It seems like the Linux community has really suffered in the last year... Rather than develop new technologies, the community has reverse-engineered other technologies. Rather than reverse-engineer new technologies, the community has been inclined to bitch.
It comes down to the simple fact of put-up or shut-up. Rather than continue to post 'oh Microsoft Sucks' articles, come up with some constructive ideas, help move things forward.
Hey people, this is still FRAUD if you're using a number of a service for which you don't have an account. Even if it can be devised technically, it doesn't make it legal or ethical.
Beware of the 'Just because I can'.
The previous posts do have a small point about a felon's difficulty getting *any* job, but the argument against convicted black-hat hackers ends there.
Another poster made a reference and compared convicted hackers to other felons (rapists, robbers, attackers, etc) and this is quite unfair. If you were hiring an assassin, would you considered convicted murderers? They have been caught as well, and they have even been caught doing what you are looking for- it's hypocritical for a group like @Stake to exclude professionals strictly on their computer convictions- it's just plain silly.
But you do have to realise that the US doesn't exactly make the road to recovery easy or even endable. A Felon can never again vote, sit on a jury, or own a firearm. This means that if you are convicted of felony assault while drunk and 18 or 21, you can't own a firearm to protect your family 30 YEARS LATER. I don't have an answer for how it should be, but keep in mind that these are people who are eager to contribute lawfully to our society, and we don't just ship them off to Australia anymore.
I'm not sure that distribution choices are at issue here. While what you say is somewhat true- when you choose a distro you take its plusses and minuses, but that's no excuse for poor customer service. This is an issue of a tech picking o company whom they had no previous experience with and getting burned.
One recommendation is to send all the servers back. If you haven't escalated your support issue to a CS Manager, do that first- but vendors listen more closely when you have the salespeople on your side. IE, Bob at VA sells you n 8 servers. One goes bad, and you get poor CS on its repair. Send them all back, and Bob will lose his sale and his commission- Bob gets very interested. Bob calls you to talk you out of returning them, and becomes a facilitator in getting things fixed.
Cool tech companies are one thing, but the internet has yet to be a place where customer service reigns supreme. I followed reviews of many things, from hardware to software to service, and the internet has yet to match up in my satisfation to personal references for CS. Just my two cents.
The issue is Metallica's approach. It's a very foolish argument to tell a person or group that they 'have too much money', and that losing it should be okay with them.
I'm not sure what country you're posting from, but one of the foundations of free-market capitalism is that we can make as much money as we want/can.
I myself, as well as others, would love to hear why the PIX wasn't meeting your needs, and how *BSD was filling that gap. Are you guys at a point where you can give us more detail? Thanks.
Now *really* this isn't flamebait- how many of you all have actually used Windows 2000? MS has made it available in full form to its MSDN members, and we have been using it at work for several months, with *no* problems- we are still going through auditing it security-wise.
now to the specific point: What do Unix admins/users know about Windows? I mean really, look at it the other way- do you listen to what Windows users say about linux? I mean come on, this subject is more than a little tired. Common sense and wisdom say that if you are unfamiliar with a topic, listen and watch. We can all sit and poke fun at NT4 together, just as I did/do at 95. Microsoft *is* a business, and they will do what they can to grow and survive. I am not sticking up for MS per se, but since when do we hold a separate set of standards for OS'es? based on elitism? BeOS for example, is really really cool- but the number of things (apps and hardware) are very, very narrow- but are there a zillion posts on how much it sucks because of it?
Hopefully this isn't zero'd, and hopefully I can see some cool, thought out repsonses =)
Based in Southern CA, my isp (tfb.com) has nationwide dialup #'s via a company called megapop, who resells nationwide (almost everywhere US) dialup #'s. I use my dialup on the road with my PCS phone (Motorola Timeport) it's only 14.4, but it works well for ssh and/.
Is there a particular reason that www.sdmi.org wasn't linked? So far the only explaination I can think of is needless displays of bias on/.'s part. Anyways...
It seems that SDMI was really quite a knee-jerk reaction to the whole digital music media movement, and was never really planned as a true technical solution. I think such a restrictive standard shows us the intentions of its supporters, and their feelings about their customers as well.
I personally have been doing support of all kinds for years, specififcally with Windows products. I have been using first linux, then free, and now openbsd for a sum of 2 years. I look at UserFirendly and see the humour in both sides of the debacle, and find UF funny almost always. After all, isn't the funniest humor when we can laugh at ourselves?
Linux is a great starting point for many, many new people in the Unix world. With that said, almost every single person I know that uses *BSD is someone who came from linux, not from another OS. OpenBSD for example comes locked-down out of the box. The ports tree in BSD lets you install anything after that. A good comparison is between a Redhat 6.1 install and an OpenBSD 2.6 install. Redhat's GUI frustrated me to no end, and there was no way to break out of it that I could see. Redhat does not have readily-identifiable links to it's docs from their main page- Open and FreeBSD do. Open and Free also use man pages- a central reference for any command in BSD. The 2.6 install was a little different, but I did not epxect it to be the same- so I printed out the install.i386 html doc- I never had to ask a fellow user a question when I installed Open 2.6. Let's Recap:
Linux Pros: Easy install (for even the lamers) Lots of Software Lots of Documentation Linux Cons: >Not everyone wants or needs a GUI install. >Messy dependencies, especially with RPM's >HOWTO's written by my baby brother- seemily never profread
BSD Pros: >Centralized Documentation >Ports Tree (ports.tar.gz rocks!) for *easy* installs of anything for BSD >Lean,mean installs- FTP installs from one floppy was never easier!
BSD Cons: >New users don't like to read, especially docs >Linux users are used to gurus massaging them through everything- this is not the case with Open or Free >Gnome hasn't been ported to BSD (hooray!) due to problems with security and Gnome. (not sure if this is a con)
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly this isn't a flame, but why does your Exchange server take up so much time? Now I will admit that it's easy to bash certain platforms here, but as an Exchange engineer for several years, I have found that when set up properly, it requires little or no maintenance. All you have to do is keep backups and keep quotas on people's mailboxes.
From everything I've seen, Apache 2.x just plain rocks, but shouldn't the OS/App be just a tool for getting work/play done? Shouldn't you be trying to pick the best OS/App for the job, and not just the trendy one?
NP
(MLP)
Rip Work!
There's going to be different versions of XP out; they'll be XP Home, XP Professional, XP Server, and XP Advanced Server. Only the Home edition will *always* require activation. For Select Customers, MSDN users, and others, it will not require communication to MS to install/activate.
It's a little silly and shows some of the current attitudes (I swear this isn't a troll) of Slashdotters to rant this much. So, I'd like to ask these questions-
a.) If an Open Source activist is allowed to get upset and take legal action when someone doesn't follow their license, then why can't MS ensure people follow their license? Is MS' somehow less valid because it isn't popular? If one is such an advocate of a particlar business model, that person should have at least civic respect for another license.
b.) An argument could be made that OSS is pushing the ASP movement. More specifically, when a free alternative is competing with Microsoft, MS can either try to take a larger market share or simply make more money off the market share they already have. If all closed-source apps went away, the drive of the IT market would be on services. No longer could a company rely on selling their software for a year before releasing a new version. Instead, they might find more money in renting the use of their apps.
This second point is really kind of a theory, and I am interested to hear what others think.)
NP
Most of the wear on servers is typically on their drives, so sleeping the disks would increase failures and shorten their lifespan. For example, the large corporation that I did contract work for in San Diego had about 100 PC/NT servers, with another 100 HP-UX servers. For Y2K, they had checked for possible issues with disks, but they only restarted servers and left the disk arrays going. This is because the spinning up/down of the disk increases wear and opportunity for failure (motor bearings, etc).
The second issue that is slightly incorrect is the state of California's power problem. The state deregulated and totally fscked up the way power was sold by allowing people to sell power at open market prices. Power plants were then purposely shut down, decommissioned, and reduced in capacity to raise the value of the price of power. For Example, you have 2 powerplants, PPA and PPB. They each create 1000Mw's of power at 1 cent per megawatt, for a total income of $20. You create an excuse to shut down PPB, causing a shortage of available power. This in turn raises the selling cost of power to 2 cents. You have just kept you same income but have halved your operating costs.
There is a shortage of power, but not because California's usage suddenly went insane. This problem started back in the early summer in San Diego, and no one took action until the end of the summer.
If you really wanted to conserer power, then have all the Slashdot readers retire Seti@Home until all blows over and let their boxes sit powered off or do Wake-on-LAN, as I am sure far more power is consumed by Seti@Home users in CA than by not-sleeping server processors.
I've got to agree. Even before the Linksys and Netgear products, 3Com had the OfficeConnect Routers. One of the models, of which I still use at a remote site, uses NAT, DHCP, and 2 56k modems. I think the point here is that it might be amusing that this thing runs Linux, but the point is the OS is just a tool- some devices you shouldn't have to worry what OS it's running; just that it is effective at its role or not.
I have to admit you have an interesting position. But you see, when you have a foreign country's internal policies affecting your own country, aren't your foreign policy/ambassadors supposed to say something to the other country? In other words, wouldn't you expect your canadian politicians to do something about it? Oh wait- that would invlove a spine within your contry's foreign policy department. So, that's more of a 'fuck you, canadian foreign policy'.
.01, where in CA it's something like 4. I am sure those aren't accurate numbers, but the metropolitan areas create a huge energey demand. Deregulation has failed us here in CA at this point. But CA has historically been far more progressive than other US states. It doesn't work? Ok, we'll figure it out and fix it. That makes it more of a 'Fuck you and the political system you rode in on.'
California has a colossaly different eco-system, society, and economy than British Colombia. First off, the average person per square mile in BC is something like
As for the extinction of species, you need to do a little more geography. Your neighbors to the south have LA, San Francisco, San Diego, but last time I checked the rain forests that are being destroyed that are exctincting species is a little further south - like Brazil and other areas in that whole other continent (see Canadian Foreign Policy above). That makes this more of a 'Fuck you and your crack cocaine-based facts'.
Point taken, but it's at least nice to see some logic built into your argument.
With that said, Goldmine fscking sucks, from my experience.
One more thing-- the stability of an NT system is heavily reliant on its' configuration. It's very easy to build an unstable NT box, but stability is an attainable goal. One of the best uptimes I have had was a 1000+ user mailbox server running NT4, SP5, Exchange SP3 with an uptime of 11 months. No voodoo, just attention to detail.
I mean to be civil, but lay off the fucking crack, man.
Here are some real-market numbers:
-Exchange Admin (Full-Time) for 5-10 Servers $60k
-Exchange Mailbox Servers for 1000 Users 1@~$9,000
-Exchange Bridgehead Server 1@~$9,000
-Antivirus Software ~$5000
-Client Software (Outlook 2000 free with Exchange)
-Migration ~$6000
You must be so disgruntled becuase you can't get any consulting business, especially at those prices. What are you trying to do, install Exchange of 486's? 1000 users is a typical limit per server for users, not because of Exchange, but all their mail.
As for Exchange/Outlook virii, if you got hit with them it's one of three reasons:
-you're the ass who opened the attachment
-you're the ass who doesn't know how to run the Rules Wizard in Outlook
-your're the ass of an Exchange admin who never installed AV software.
I don't mean to dangle flamebait, but isn't there a logical flaw in OpenMail? HP has made the business decision internally to stop using OpenMail in favor of Exchange. As part of some of that migration, I can say that there are signifigant cost reductions for corporations with Exchange 5.5 over OpenMail.
What are your thoughts on this?
Well, the best answer I could give you is it depends. What is your primary server base? Are your accounts primarily NT or Unix based accounts? The real strongpoint for many mail systems is seamless authentication, so it depends on your server base. Exchange 5.5 properly implimented is quite reliable, and so is the RTM (Release to Manufacturing) version of Exchange 2000. When I say 'properly implimented', I mean that you have to have someone who knows the product at least a little. If you have seen setups crash and burn, it's not due to the Exchange software bits, but usually to a dork who tries to B.S. his or her way through the migration/implimentation.
You also need to consider how big your IT staff is and what kind of skills they have. If your IT staff consists of a few very few knowledgeable people, then a Unix-based system can be installed and maintained through sometimes complex, but less often maintenance procedures. If you have an IT staff of scattered skillsets, then you might consider having a consulting firm install Exchange 5.5 or 2000 and have them document it all, then your staff maintain it. This latter option would provide easier maintenance with a lower knowledge-level requirement for staff members.
The point is, that if you're looking for a reason to hate Exchange, then I am sure you will find people posting here to commiserate with you; but you will also find just as easily people willing to commiserate over unix-based mail systems.
While not a popular stance with the younder slashdot readers, software isn't a religion, it's a tool. Good software meets a need with a minimized amount of cost- sometimes that cost is in software price, sometimes in staff salaries, downtime, etc. If you would like to talk about this more offline, send me an e-mail.
This really is getting kind of pitiful, Hemos. Many posts on Slashdot get moderated down because they are inflammatory comments often from trolls. After reading the article you posted here, I have a hard time believing that what you posted was anything other than a troll.
Before this gets moderated down, let me clarfy that. As one of the senior posters on Slashdot, you owe it to your fellow posters to post quality material. I don't think you've done that. While the link you posted is a good article, all you did was bitch and moan for your couple sentences about Microsoft. Is the idea that MS is a bad or evil or monopolistic company a new idea? Nope.
The reality is that this typifies much of the Linux community at this point. Rather than create a gaming console that runs linux or bsd or whatnot, it is far easier to sit on the sidelines and complain about this-or-that. It seems like the Linux community has really suffered in the last year... Rather than develop new technologies, the community has reverse-engineered other technologies. Rather than reverse-engineer new technologies, the community has been inclined to bitch.
It comes down to the simple fact of put-up or shut-up. Rather than continue to post 'oh Microsoft Sucks' articles, come up with some constructive ideas, help move things forward.
Hey people, this is still FRAUD if you're using a number of a service for which you don't have an account. Even if it can be devised technically, it doesn't make it legal or ethical.
Beware of the 'Just because I can'.
The previous posts do have a small point about a felon's difficulty getting *any* job, but the argument against convicted black-hat hackers ends there. Another poster made a reference and compared convicted hackers to other felons (rapists, robbers, attackers, etc) and this is quite unfair. If you were hiring an assassin, would you considered convicted murderers? They have been caught as well, and they have even been caught doing what you are looking for- it's hypocritical for a group like @Stake to exclude professionals strictly on their computer convictions- it's just plain silly. But you do have to realise that the US doesn't exactly make the road to recovery easy or even endable. A Felon can never again vote, sit on a jury, or own a firearm. This means that if you are convicted of felony assault while drunk and 18 or 21, you can't own a firearm to protect your family 30 YEARS LATER. I don't have an answer for how it should be, but keep in mind that these are people who are eager to contribute lawfully to our society, and we don't just ship them off to Australia anymore.
I'm not sure that distribution choices are at issue here. While what you say is somewhat true- when you choose a distro you take its plusses and minuses, but that's no excuse for poor customer service. This is an issue of a tech picking o company whom they had no previous experience with and getting burned.
One recommendation is to send all the servers back. If you haven't escalated your support issue to a CS Manager, do that first- but vendors listen more closely when you have the salespeople on your side. IE, Bob at VA sells you n 8 servers. One goes bad, and you get poor CS on its repair. Send them all back, and Bob will lose his sale and his commission- Bob gets very interested. Bob calls you to talk you out of returning them, and becomes a facilitator in getting things fixed.
Cool tech companies are one thing, but the internet has yet to be a place where customer service reigns supreme. I followed reviews of many things, from hardware to software to service, and the internet has yet to match up in my satisfation to personal references for CS. Just my two cents.
NP
The issue is Metallica's approach. It's a very foolish argument to tell a person or group that they 'have too much money', and that losing it should be okay with them.
I'm not sure what country you're posting from, but one of the foundations of free-market capitalism is that we can make as much money as we want/can.
Think a little before posting blather.
I myself, as well as others, would love to hear why the PIX wasn't meeting your needs, and how *BSD was filling that gap. Are you guys at a point where you can give us more detail? Thanks.
Now *really* this isn't flamebait- how many of you all have actually used Windows 2000? MS has made it available in full form to its MSDN members, and we have been using it at work for several months, with *no* problems- we are still going through auditing it security-wise.
now to the specific point:
What do Unix admins/users know about Windows? I mean really, look at it the other way- do you listen to what Windows users say about linux? I mean come on, this subject is more than a little tired. Common sense and wisdom say that if you are unfamiliar with a topic, listen and watch. We can all sit and poke fun at NT4 together, just as I did/do at 95. Microsoft *is* a business, and they will do what they can to grow and survive. I am not sticking up for MS per se, but since when do we hold a separate set of standards for OS'es? based on elitism? BeOS for example, is really really cool- but the number of things (apps and hardware) are very, very narrow- but are there a zillion posts on how much it sucks because of it?
Hopefully this isn't zero'd, and hopefully I can see some cool, thought out repsonses =)
I need some of these... anyone seen these for sale online?
Based in Southern CA, my isp (tfb.com) has nationwide dialup #'s via a company called megapop, who resells nationwide (almost everywhere US) dialup #'s. I use my dialup on the road with my PCS phone (Motorola Timeport) it's only 14.4, but it works well for ssh and /.
=)
Have a good vacation.
Is there a particular reason that www.sdmi.org wasn't linked? So far the only explaination I can think of is needless displays of bias on /.'s part. Anyways...
It seems that SDMI was really quite a knee-jerk reaction to the whole digital music media movement, and was never really planned as a true technical solution. I think such a restrictive standard shows us the intentions of its supporters, and their feelings about their customers as well.
Look for the APX-AD600A
APX-AD600A
I personally have been doing support of all kinds for years, specififcally with Windows products. I have been using first linux, then free, and now openbsd for a sum of 2 years. I look at UserFirendly and see the humour in both sides of the debacle, and find UF funny almost always. After all, isn't the funniest humor when we can laugh at ourselves?
NP
BTW- was it just me or did Rob forget that if his Microwave needs electricity, so does the freezer for all that Lasagna? Just curious.
NP
Linux is a great starting point for many, many new people in the Unix world. With that said, almost every single person I know that uses *BSD is someone who came from linux, not from another OS. OpenBSD for example comes locked-down out of the box. The ports tree in BSD lets you install anything after that. A good comparison is between a Redhat 6.1 install and an OpenBSD 2.6 install. Redhat's GUI frustrated me to no end, and there was no way to break out of it that I could see. Redhat does not have readily-identifiable links to it's docs from their main page- Open and FreeBSD do. Open and Free also use man pages- a central reference for any command in BSD. The 2.6 install was a little different, but I did not epxect it to be the same- so I printed out the install.i386 html doc- I never had to ask a fellow user a question when I installed Open 2.6. Let's Recap:
Linux Pros:
Easy install (for even the lamers)
Lots of Software
Lots of Documentation
Linux Cons:
>Not everyone wants or needs a GUI install.
>Messy dependencies, especially with RPM's
>HOWTO's written by my baby brother- seemily never profread
BSD Pros:
>Centralized Documentation
>Ports Tree (ports.tar.gz rocks!) for *easy* installs of anything for BSD
>Lean,mean installs- FTP installs from one floppy was never easier!
BSD Cons:
>New users don't like to read, especially docs
>Linux users are used to gurus massaging them through everything- this is not the case with Open or Free
>Gnome hasn't been ported to BSD (hooray!) due to problems with security and Gnome. (not sure if this is a con)
Null_Packet