Its hard to answer that question -- they switched back over to PCs in 2002 i think. The users were never really pleased with the Mac switch, for a variety of reasons. Once the management folks who pushed for the Mac change left, they returned to PCs.
You are correct about the costs of virus/patch management. When the TCO was studied in this environment, it was determined that the signifigantly higher cost of licensing software made up for the IT costs. There were alot of political factors involved, and I don't know offhand how they captured labor cost.
To Microsoft's credit, the Windows Update Service has lowered that cost signifigantly.
I believe that, but Microsoft's SUS/WUS update systems will dramatically reduce the labor costs that inflate it's TCO.
A bureau of an agency that I worked at converted to PowerPC Macs around 1998 or so. Their costs weren't dramatically lesser or greater than the PC environment.
Apple is a vertical monopolist, and as a result sells hardware at the highest margins in the industry.
Saying that a G5 workstation is not grossly overpriced against dual processor RISC stations is absurd. Nobody is buying traditional Unix workstations, hence the "Sun is Dying" articles.
Pentium 4's kick the shit out of G5 workstations. Xeons would own them even more for those with deeper wallets.
I had hoped that an emphasis on key words may help overcome the limited ability of Apple fanboys to read something mildly critical of Apple.
Why don't you think about what you are saying... If you buy a license for music, the terms should remain the same.
Would you buy a car if the manufacturer reserved the right to change the terms of the warranty?
Why should I need to manipulate QuickTime to play a music track? I have CDs that I bought in 1988 that have worked fine over the years -- even after I upgraded CD players about 8 times in the last 15 years.
People here regularly criticize Microsoft regularly for introducing click-wrap licensing changes via Service Packs and minor version releases. Some even characterize Microsoft as evil. Why not Apple?
If I purchase a song today from iTunes, my license should be associated with that purchase -- not the release of iTunes that I am running.
Why should the LICENSE that I ALREADY PURCHASED change because I want to take advantage of new features of the iTunes SOFTWARE that plays it?
What happens if my computer crashes and I need to reinstall iTunes... will Apple provide me with the old version of the software that supported the licensing scheme that I agreed with?
Screwing people into re-purchasing music has been a fundamental part of the media industry's business model for years.
As music moved from vinyl records to various tape formats to CDs, lots of people re-purchased albums that they already owned to build a CD collection. Same story for DVDs.
That is still unilateral, because I have to agree to new terms in order to get bugfixes or feature enhancements. There is no opportunity to compromise. Only "Agree" or "Disagree".
What do I do in 2010 when my iPod's battery has expired and it is difficult to find a replacement?
My option will be to use a new version of iTunes that supports future iPod hardware. And I will be forced to either click "I Agree" or effectively forfeit my right to use the content that I licensed in 2003.
Whether an abstraction layer of a "playlist" is present or not, you're rights as a licensee are still being unilaterally modified.
What is to stop the copyright holders from altering the definition of "playlist" or otherwise changing your entitlements?
Answer: Nothing.
There are plenty of other scenarios where you, as the media consumer, get the shaft.
Say 6 years from now Apple releases the ultimate iPod Mini-Micro 2.0. The 1TB capacity doesn't really thrill anyone and iPod sales slow.
In response to the sales slump, Apple demands that you purchase a supplemental license to enable you to play new songs on your 1st generation iPods. (or vice versa)
This update showcases the key flaw with "Rights Management", digital or otherwise:
Nobody wants to be "managed".
If I buy a book, I have pretty clear rights. I can read it, lend it to others, quote from it etc but need the permission of the publisher to reproduce sections of it. My rights are pretty much fixed.
Now, if I purchase music from iTunes, the copyright holders may, through Apple, "manage" my rights. Yesterday I could burn to 10 CDs, today I can burn to 7, tomorrow who knows... it could be 50 or even zero.
The idea of phonograph records was that you no longer had to play an instrument or attend a concert to enjoy music... you could buy a record instead. Tapes, CDs and digital formats are refinements of that concept.
The problem that we run into today is that the cartels that sprung up around the centralized manufacture, distribution and promotion of vinyl records, tapes and other media with high overhead cost to duplicate. These cartels controlled the market by controlling distribution and promotion.
Digital media has a near-zero duplication cost. Buying pre-printed media is now a convenience and guarantee of quality rather than a necessity. History has proven that people are willing to accept inconsistent quality and inconvenience in exchange for lower prices. Enter the problem the copyright cartels face.
With DRM, something once very simple "lets go buy a CD/record/tape" has become more arcane and complex "lets buy a digital media license". Of course, the terms associated with digital licenses are subject to change by the copyright holder.
Think about the commercial application of cyrpto... would anyone invest Pixars IT budget to steal a few credit card numbers?
Even with military-style secrets, timing is key. If a US war plan is intercepted by a foreign intelligence service, only to be decrypted months later, that data is pretty useless.
If it's so easy, why doesn't anybody write it down?
A better question is: why doesn't anyone use it?
I've been to alot of large, medium and small unix sites and have never seen a major Kerberos setup. The lone exception was a Tivoli Framework deployment where they used the kerberos implementation that comes with Tivoli in a development environment.
My best guess is that by not documenting anything, it attacts consulting business for the authors.
I'm not trying to flame here -- I've read about the MIT IT environment and it sounds absolutely amazing. I'm just speaking from my experience.
There were no "weapons caches"... they were using machetes and Kalashnikovs.
Rwanda is but one chapter of the disgraceful tale of colonial and post-colonial Africa. Do not use it as the yardstick to measure 100 years of imperial oppression. Blaming the pathetic state of sub-saharan Africa on the US is incredibly ignorant... Africa was and always will be within Europe's sphere of influence.
Previous posters made reference to the notion that the UN "doesn't go far enough" and that the UN should be a world government rather than a mouthpiece and patronage mill for the great powers. What do you think a UN with governmental powers would be like? Do you honestly believe that the powerful nations of North America and Europe would hand their power over to some third world sewers?
That's a non-problem. Windows comes bundled with an robust, easy to use if not "standardized" directory and kerberos implementation.
If you want to use a "standard" implementation, you can buy identity management software or use something like this http://pgina.xpasystems.com/.
In any case, the problem with "standard" LDAP/Kerberos implementations is that they are nearly undocumented.
Ask a skilled NT admin to setup a test domain and he'll be back before lunchtime. Ask most skilled Linux admins to setup a test LDAP/Kerberos5 domain, and he'll be back in two weeks with the project half-done.
Slashdot Mirror
If you see that many failures, you definately have some heat or quality control issues.
The organization that I work with has around 30,000 workstations and 4,000 servers. Last year we had 76 disk failures.
OpenBSD is great.
It recognized my NIC and worked very well.
The firewall features are very valuable and robust.
Conclusion: Linux is not ready for the desktop.
LucasArts can re-release "Rebel Assault" on DVD with a special preview of Episode 3.
Its hard to answer that question -- they switched back over to PCs in 2002 i think. The users were never really pleased with the Mac switch, for a variety of reasons. Once the management folks who pushed for the Mac change left, they returned to PCs.
You are correct about the costs of virus/patch management. When the TCO was studied in this environment, it was determined that the signifigantly higher cost of licensing software made up for the IT costs. There were alot of political factors involved, and I don't know offhand how they captured labor cost.
To Microsoft's credit, the Windows Update Service has lowered that cost signifigantly.
I believe that, but Microsoft's SUS/WUS update systems will dramatically reduce the labor costs that inflate it's TCO.
A bureau of an agency that I worked at converted to PowerPC Macs around 1998 or so. Their costs weren't dramatically lesser or greater than the PC environment.
Apple is a vertical monopolist, and as a result sells hardware at the highest margins in the industry.
Saying that a G5 workstation is not grossly overpriced against dual processor RISC stations is absurd. Nobody is buying traditional Unix workstations, hence the "Sun is Dying" articles.
Pentium 4's kick the shit out of G5 workstations. Xeons would own them even more for those with deeper wallets.
Apple is the opposite of affordable.
Apple sells high-margin overpriced stuff with rich people with more money than tech know-how.
A Sun/Apple alliance would produce an E15K with a burnished green aircraft grade alumninum case.
I care.
I can spend less on a faster, more reliable Intel chip. Why buy Sun, with their outsourced manufacturing and outsourced engineering.
I had hoped that an emphasis on key words may help overcome the limited ability of Apple fanboys to read something mildly critical of Apple.
Why don't you think about what you are saying... If you buy a license for music, the terms should remain the same.
Would you buy a car if the manufacturer reserved the right to change the terms of the warranty?
Why should I need to manipulate QuickTime to play a music track? I have CDs that I bought in 1988 that have worked fine over the years -- even after I upgraded CD players about 8 times in the last 15 years.
People here regularly criticize Microsoft regularly for introducing click-wrap licensing changes via Service Packs and minor version releases. Some even characterize Microsoft as evil. Why not Apple?
Did you read my post at all?
If I purchase a song today from iTunes, my license should be associated with that purchase -- not the release of iTunes that I am running.
Why should the LICENSE that I ALREADY PURCHASED change because I want to take advantage of new features of the iTunes SOFTWARE that plays it?
What happens if my computer crashes and I need to reinstall iTunes... will Apple provide me with the old version of the software that supported the licensing scheme that I agreed with?
You obviously have far better understanding than the very shallow knowledge that I possessed regarding the Rwanda issue.
Please pardon my ignorance; I will be sure to read something deeper than US media blurbs about it.
If you could suggest a book or article about the Rwanda troubles, I would be most appreciative.
Yes, they are.
Programmers express themselves via code. Plumbers express themselves with pipes.
Nice kneejerk reaction.
Screwing people into re-purchasing music has been a fundamental part of the media industry's business model for years.
As music moved from vinyl records to various tape formats to CDs, lots of people re-purchased albums that they already owned to build a CD collection. Same story for DVDs.
That is still unilateral, because I have to agree to new terms in order to get bugfixes or feature enhancements. There is no opportunity to compromise. Only "Agree" or "Disagree".
What do I do in 2010 when my iPod's battery has expired and it is difficult to find a replacement?
My option will be to use a new version of iTunes that supports future iPod hardware. And I will be forced to either click "I Agree" or effectively forfeit my right to use the content that I licensed in 2003.
Interesting piece of trivia, but irrelevant.
Whether an abstraction layer of a "playlist" is present or not, you're rights as a licensee are still being unilaterally modified.
What is to stop the copyright holders from altering the definition of "playlist" or otherwise changing your entitlements?
Answer: Nothing.
There are plenty of other scenarios where you, as the media consumer, get the shaft.
Say 6 years from now Apple releases the ultimate iPod Mini-Micro 2.0. The 1TB capacity doesn't really thrill anyone and iPod sales slow.
In response to the sales slump, Apple demands that you purchase a supplemental license to enable you to play new songs on your 1st generation iPods. (or vice versa)
What's to stop that?
Nothing.
This update showcases the key flaw with "Rights Management", digital or otherwise:
Nobody wants to be "managed".
If I buy a book, I have pretty clear rights. I can read it, lend it to others, quote from it etc but need the permission of the publisher to reproduce sections of it. My rights are pretty much fixed.
Now, if I purchase music from iTunes, the copyright holders may, through Apple, "manage" my rights. Yesterday I could burn to 10 CDs, today I can burn to 7, tomorrow who knows... it could be 50 or even zero.
The idea of phonograph records was that you no longer had to play an instrument or attend a concert to enjoy music... you could buy a record instead. Tapes, CDs and digital formats are refinements of that concept.
The problem that we run into today is that the cartels that sprung up around the centralized manufacture, distribution and promotion of vinyl records, tapes and other media with high overhead cost to duplicate. These cartels controlled the market by controlling distribution and promotion.
Digital media has a near-zero duplication cost. Buying pre-printed media is now a convenience and guarantee of quality rather than a necessity. History has proven that people are willing to accept inconsistent quality and inconvenience in exchange for lower prices. Enter the problem the copyright cartels face.
With DRM, something once very simple "lets go buy a CD/record/tape" has become more arcane and complex "lets buy a digital media license". Of course, the terms associated with digital licenses are subject to change by the copyright holder.
Think about the commercial application of cyrpto... would anyone invest Pixars IT budget to steal a few credit card numbers?
Even with military-style secrets, timing is key. If a US war plan is intercepted by a foreign intelligence service, only to be decrypted months later, that data is pretty useless.
How exactly is it more difficult to get textbooks shipped on time than laptops?
Maybe they should be using real books rather than textbooks, if textbooks are so hard to come by.
Actually, it would need to be GNU/GNUNG
If it's so easy, why doesn't anybody write it down?
A better question is: why doesn't anyone use it?
I've been to alot of large, medium and small unix sites and have never seen a major Kerberos setup. The lone exception was a Tivoli Framework deployment where they used the kerberos implementation that comes with Tivoli in a development environment.
My best guess is that by not documenting anything, it attacts consulting business for the authors.
I'm not trying to flame here -- I've read about the MIT IT environment and it sounds absolutely amazing. I'm just speaking from my experience.
There were no "weapons caches"... they were using machetes and Kalashnikovs.
Rwanda is but one chapter of the disgraceful tale of colonial and post-colonial Africa. Do not use it as the yardstick to measure 100 years of imperial oppression. Blaming the pathetic state of sub-saharan Africa on the US is incredibly ignorant... Africa was and always will be within Europe's sphere of influence.
Previous posters made reference to the notion that the UN "doesn't go far enough" and that the UN should be a world government rather than a mouthpiece and patronage mill for the great powers. What do you think a UN with governmental powers would be like? Do you honestly believe that the powerful nations of North America and Europe would hand their power over to some third world sewers?
The proper form should be GNU/GNOME/GNU/Linux
Where would GNOME be without GNU tools?
Judging by the rampant corruption within the UN, they'd probally be too busy looting the meagar posessions of the Rwandans than anything else.
Also consider that the disfunctional form of post-colonial African nations was shaped in part by the UN.
That's a non-problem. Windows comes bundled with an robust, easy to use if not "standardized" directory and kerberos implementation.
If you want to use a "standard" implementation, you can buy identity management software or use something like this http://pgina.xpasystems.com/.
In any case, the problem with "standard" LDAP/Kerberos implementations is that they are nearly undocumented.
Ask a skilled NT admin to setup a test domain and he'll be back before lunchtime. Ask most skilled Linux admins to setup a test LDAP/Kerberos5 domain, and he'll be back in two weeks with the project half-done.
Since you were in Texas, OSHA doesn't really give a shit.
OSHA is a joke agency, particularly in the South. I'd bet that for the entire state of Texas, there are 3-4 OSHA inspectors.