This overlooks the obvious problem, what if the alotted time is unreasonable for the assigned task? I agree that inefficient work should be grounds for (at least) reprimand, if not outright termination. But, and this is a BIG but, that should also apply to the managers. If management routinely underestimates (intentionally or unintentionally) the amount of time and/or people needed to perform a given task, then they should be punished.
No, I haven't done web dev in that environment. However, I have spent many a day (and night) fixing something that a developer screwed up.
Once you go through those things, then you don't trust developers until they've proven themselves in your environment. Even then, you still keep them on a short leash. I'm anal and paranoid about my machines because I have to be, not because I like to be. Your job is to worry about the app. My job is to worry about the systems that run your app and others.
I understand that your job is to help your customers , i.e., marketing and operations, do their job. As an admin, my job is to ensure that my machines fulfill the purpose for which they were built. The servers need to run on my SAN, the databases and applications need to run on my servers, the mail needs to flow through my gateways, etc. That's how I help my customers do their jobs, be they inside or outside the company.
It may seem to others that I'm stubborn or pig-headed, but they don't see the big picture that I do. I do "just shut...down" users, developers, even management. I'm involved in storage, systems, security, etc., so I get to see aspects of systems interdependency that they don't. Part of my responsibility to maintain system integrity and usability is to prevent users and developers from doing something stupid. It's not because I'm on some type of power trip. It _is_ because a failure on any one of my system can have a very big and very real impact on the company's ability to do business.
True, but remember that the admin staff's rules aren't always self-dictated. My company, who's security policy originated with the information security group, says that only those who have administrative responsibilities are allowed to have administrative privileges. I have a choice: follow the policy or choose to "explore other occupational opportunities." Given that choice, the developers won't get admin access. If they don't like the situation, then they can go through the proper channels to get the policy changed. I'm not cold-hearted or obstinant, I'm just following corporate policy.
You're correct that you don't have to throw away all the apps, but there is a non-trivial number that no longer funtion. I blue-screened W2k after a reinstall because of my burner software. I had a similar problem going to XP. But, despite the incompatibility of some apps, I agree that the 98 -> W2k migration will lead to a massive improvement in quality and reliability.
Note: I'm just comparing 98 and W2k. I still agree that OS X and/or Linux are better, but that's just MHO.
Why shouldn't a bank allow home users connecting via VPN to use wireless at home? If the VPN is secure enough to protect a connection on the Internet, then the VPN connection I have (which disables my local network) should be just as good.
Personally, I think that's a very valid concern. I have seen numerous users at my company who are very clueless about their Windows desktops, despite the fact that they have a PC at home. If they were to be switched to a completely different and unfamiliar-looking desktop (KDE, GNOME, Ximian, OSX, etc.), the push-back and necessary user training would be enormous.
Aside from the desktop unfamiliarity, applications could be a very big headache. Our corporation has desktop apps that are incompatible between Windows versions (hence, we don't have XP everywhere), so switching all users to an alternative desktop just isn't an option. Unfortunately, it's a catch-22 for many corporate IT departments. They can't switch desktops because the apps don't support them, but the vendors won't support other desktops until the userbase of alternative systems goes up.
At this time, I just don't see how a non-Windows desktop is a viable solution for many enterprises. For certain users (developers, DBAs, admins, etc.), yes, is is a good idea. But, the users in Accounting, Legal, HR, etc. may be locked in.
On the global scale, I'd agree that the volume of seawater may be too large. But, is it possible that a localized event (like this one) could disrupt part of the system? Think of it this way: My mass and volume are much smaller than that of a large truck, but I can cause a disruption to that large system by tinkering with the battery and/or alternator. Is it possible that the influx of freshwater in this area can have an effect on the global process? I honestly don't know, but my hunch is that it may have some effect, even if only slight.
Which version of TruCluster? Trucluster for 4.0F (can't remember the version) looks (to me) very much like Sun Clustering. Once you get to 5.1, 5.1A, and 5.1B, there are no comparisons. The single-system image, the ease of the alias, the shared-everything filesystems (and devices), etc. just don't have a comparison in Sun Cluster (or Veritas for that matter). But, it's still years behind the old workhorse VMS.
That's true, but the average user probably considers Windows to be "free" anyway. When he/she bought a new PC, the odds are extremely high that it was shipped with some version of Windows. The average user buys a PC with Windows, never reinstalls his OS, and uses it to get things done. They rarely have to contact their hardware vendor, let alone Microsoft, so support and support costs are immaterial to them. They just want a machine that works and does so in a way that they understand.
I was going to recommend RHAS as well. I've configured an LVS setup for a set of email gateways (not mail servers, just gateways) and it works very well. I had a couple of questions while doing the setup and Red Hat's phone support was very good. They did an excellent job of helping us track down our problem, which turned out to be a firewall issue. Since you're wanting a Linux-based load-balancer, I'd definitely check into this software.
If IBM was to recommend a utility on the support page, then users would expect them to support that utility. I don't blame them for not listing various possibilities.
Why are you surprised that the list is "heavily biased towards scientific and numerical applications"? The list comprises the algorithms that they believe have had 'the greatest influence on the development and practice of science and engineering in the 20th century.' I would _expect_ this list to be almost exclusively biased towards "scientific and numerical applications."
I'm not surprised that the Fortran compiler is included. Like it or not, Fortran is the grand-daddy of high-level languages for science and numerical apps.
Exactly. If someone wants to write his own Unix-style OS for an Intel architecture and freely release it...wait, wasn't that done once? If it could be done then, why not now? If he creates something that inspires others to expand their own software, great! If he creates something that others use as a replacement for their current OS, great! If he's the only one who likes it and/or wants to use it, great! Rather than flame and complain with "Why do we need this" or "This is so retarded", why not just admire his initiative, drive, and skill?
Re:Cool... is this the modernized Amiga?
on
AtheOS
·
· Score: 1
Hmm..."The only really new and unique part is thier window manager... Which looks vaguely Afterstepish to me..."? OS X has NeXTStep/OpenStep as a direct ancestor. As Afterstep was made to look like NeXTStep, I would expect them to look similar. I wonder, since Afterstep is a NeXTStep wannabe, and since Apple bought NeXT, would that mean that Afterstep looks Appleish?
Text is fine, but there are times when you need the formatting. My lab reports needed underlines, plus the occasional bold or italic, in order to follow our standard formats. My term paper had to have centered text, as well as bold and underlines, to be in the required format. I won't even get started on superscripts, subscripts, footnotes, and endnotes. BTW, I don't think any mathematical or scientific paper would be easy (or professional-looking) in text. There's just too much formatting that has to be done.
I'm not sure all of the conversion programs will function as desired. Have you ever tried to convert a program between different Word versions? How 'bout importing a WordPerfect document into Word? How 'bout exporting an RTF file from Word?
There are so many incompatibility issues that would have to be addressed, that I'm not sure it would be worth it. The initial investment in licensing would be saved, but how much time would be lost in trying to sort out incompatibilities between products?
At the bottom of that download page, there is a "Terms of Use." Have you read them? Check out these parts:
"Any software that is made available to download from this server ("Software") is the copyrighted work of Microsoft and/or its suppliers. Use of the Software is governed by the terms of the end user license agreement, if any, which accompanies or is included with the Software ("License Agreement")."
Then there is:
"Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible."
Followed by:
"WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, UNLESS SUCH REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ACCOMPANYING SUCH SOFTWARE."
And finally:
"Permission to use Documents (such as white papers, press releases, datasheets and FAQs) from this server ("Server") is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made."
So, it seems to me as though the information is Microsoft's copyrighted material, regardless of whether you open the executable or you open it with WinZip. Also, the terms explicitly say that the information can't be "copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media." It seems to me as though Microsoft is perfectly within its rights to demand that its copyrighted information be taken off the site, as it was posted there in direct violation of the terms for downloading said information.
By no means does this mean that I agree with their embracing and extending of the Kerberos specification. I also don't agree with their restriction that, by viewing the information, it's not legal to use it to implement a competing project. However, this is Microsoft's copyrighted material and they can do what they want with it.
I would like to know why many on this site were upset that NVIDIA violated the GPL (remember this article: ), but they support a violation of Microsoft's licensing? Is not Microsoft's license entitled to the same protections as the GPL? If not, what is the legal basis for ignoring it?
Slashdot Mirror
This overlooks the obvious problem, what if the alotted time is unreasonable for the assigned task? I agree that inefficient work should be grounds for (at least) reprimand, if not outright termination. But, and this is a BIG but, that should also apply to the managers. If management routinely underestimates (intentionally or unintentionally) the amount of time and/or people needed to perform a given task, then they should be punished.
No, I haven't done web dev in that environment. However, I have spent many a day (and night) fixing something that a developer screwed up.
Once you go through those things, then you don't trust developers until they've proven themselves in your environment. Even then, you still keep them on a short leash. I'm anal and paranoid about my machines because I have to be, not because I like to be. Your job is to worry about the app. My job is to worry about the systems that run your app and others.
I understand that your job is to help your customers , i.e., marketing and operations, do their job. As an admin, my job is to ensure that my machines fulfill the purpose for which they were built. The servers need to run on my SAN, the databases and applications need to run on my servers, the mail needs to flow through my gateways, etc. That's how I help my customers do their jobs, be they inside or outside the company.
It may seem to others that I'm stubborn or pig-headed, but they don't see the big picture that I do. I do "just shut...down" users, developers, even management. I'm involved in storage, systems, security, etc., so I get to see aspects of systems interdependency that they don't. Part of my responsibility to maintain system integrity and usability is to prevent users and developers from doing something stupid. It's not because I'm on some type of power trip. It _is_ because a failure on any one of my system can have a very big and very real impact on the company's ability to do business.
True, but remember that the admin staff's rules aren't always self-dictated. My company, who's security policy originated with the information security group, says that only those who have administrative responsibilities are allowed to have administrative privileges. I have a choice: follow the policy or choose to "explore other occupational opportunities." Given that choice, the developers won't get admin access. If they don't like the situation, then they can go through the proper channels to get the policy changed. I'm not cold-hearted or obstinant, I'm just following corporate policy.
You're correct that you don't have to throw away all the apps, but there is a non-trivial number that no longer funtion. I blue-screened W2k after a reinstall because of my burner software. I had a similar problem going to XP. But, despite the incompatibility of some apps, I agree that the 98 -> W2k migration will lead to a massive improvement in quality and reliability.
Note: I'm just comparing 98 and W2k. I still agree that OS X and/or Linux are better, but that's just MHO.
Why shouldn't a bank allow home users connecting via VPN to use wireless at home? If the VPN is secure enough to protect a connection on the Internet, then the VPN connection I have (which disables my local network) should be just as good.
Personally, I think that's a very valid concern. I have seen numerous users at my company who are very clueless about their Windows desktops, despite the fact that they have a PC at home. If they were to be switched to a completely different and unfamiliar-looking desktop (KDE, GNOME, Ximian, OSX, etc.), the push-back and necessary user training would be enormous.
Aside from the desktop unfamiliarity, applications could be a very big headache. Our corporation has desktop apps that are incompatible between Windows versions (hence, we don't have XP everywhere), so switching all users to an alternative desktop just isn't an option. Unfortunately, it's a catch-22 for many corporate IT departments. They can't switch desktops because the apps don't support them, but the vendors won't support other desktops until the userbase of alternative systems goes up.
At this time, I just don't see how a non-Windows desktop is a viable solution for many enterprises. For certain users (developers, DBAs, admins, etc.), yes, is is a good idea. But, the users in Accounting, Legal, HR, etc. may be locked in.
On the global scale, I'd agree that the volume of seawater may be too large. But, is it possible that a localized event (like this one) could disrupt part of the system? Think of it this way: My mass and volume are much smaller than that of a large truck, but I can cause a disruption to that large system by tinkering with the battery and/or alternator. Is it possible that the influx of freshwater in this area can have an effect on the global process? I honestly don't know, but my hunch is that it may have some effect, even if only slight.
Agreed. That is one of the funniest (and cheesiest) movies that I've even seen. Gotta love the one liners.
Which version of TruCluster? Trucluster for 4.0F (can't remember the version) looks (to me) very much like Sun Clustering. Once you get to 5.1, 5.1A, and 5.1B, there are no comparisons. The single-system image, the ease of the alias, the shared-everything filesystems (and devices), etc. just don't have a comparison in Sun Cluster (or Veritas for that matter). But, it's still years behind the old workhorse VMS.
That's true, but the average user probably considers Windows to be "free" anyway. When he/she bought a new PC, the odds are extremely high that it was shipped with some version of Windows. The average user buys a PC with Windows, never reinstalls his OS, and uses it to get things done. They rarely have to contact their hardware vendor, let alone Microsoft, so support and support costs are immaterial to them. They just want a machine that works and does so in a way that they understand.
I was going to recommend RHAS as well. I've configured an LVS setup for a set of email gateways (not mail servers, just gateways) and it works very well. I had a couple of questions while doing the setup and Red Hat's phone support was very good. They did an excellent job of helping us track down our problem, which turned out to be a firewall issue. Since you're wanting a Linux-based load-balancer, I'd definitely check into this software.
We could call it Cable-Free Bi-Directional Network, or cabinet for short.
Why Linux? Tru64 has both good and robust clustering ability, even if it's not on par with VMS.
If IBM was to recommend a utility on the support page, then users would expect them to support that utility. I don't blame them for not listing various possibilities.
Why are you surprised that the list is "heavily biased towards scientific and numerical applications"? The list comprises the algorithms that they believe have had 'the greatest influence on the development and practice of science and engineering in the 20th century.' I would _expect_ this list to be almost exclusively biased towards "scientific and numerical applications."
I'm not surprised that the Fortran compiler is included. Like it or not, Fortran is the grand-daddy of high-level languages for science and numerical apps.
Exactly. If someone wants to write his own Unix-style OS for an Intel architecture and freely release it...wait, wasn't that done once? If it could be done then, why not now? If he creates something that inspires others to expand their own software, great! If he creates something that others use as a replacement for their current OS, great! If he's the only one who likes it and/or wants to use it, great! Rather than flame and complain with "Why do we need this" or "This is so retarded", why not just admire his initiative, drive, and skill?
Hmm..."The only really new and unique part is thier window manager... Which looks vaguely Afterstepish to me..."? OS X has NeXTStep/OpenStep as a direct ancestor. As Afterstep was made to look like NeXTStep, I would expect them to look similar. I wonder, since Afterstep is a NeXTStep wannabe, and since Apple bought NeXT, would that mean that Afterstep looks Appleish?
Text is fine, but there are times when you need the formatting. My lab reports needed underlines, plus the occasional bold or italic, in order to follow our standard formats. My term paper had to have centered text, as well as bold and underlines, to be in the required format. I won't even get started on superscripts, subscripts, footnotes, and endnotes. BTW, I don't think any mathematical or scientific paper would be easy (or professional-looking) in text. There's just too much formatting that has to be done.
I'm not sure all of the conversion programs will function as desired. Have you ever tried to convert a program between different Word versions? How 'bout importing a WordPerfect document into Word? How 'bout exporting an RTF file from Word?
There are so many incompatibility issues that would have to be addressed, that I'm not sure it would be worth it. The initial investment in licensing would be saved, but how much time would be lost in trying to sort out incompatibilities between products?
At the bottom of that download page, there is a "Terms of Use." Have you read them? Check out these parts:
"Any software that is made available to download from this server ("Software") is the copyrighted work of Microsoft and/or its suppliers. Use of the Software is governed by the terms of the end user license agreement, if any, which accompanies or is included with the Software ("License Agreement")."
Then there is:
"Any reproduction or redistribution of the Software not in accordance with the License Agreement is expressly prohibited by law, and may result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible."
Followed by:
"WITHOUT LIMITING THE FOREGOING, COPYING OR REPRODUCTION OF THE SOFTWARE TO ANY OTHER SERVER OR LOCATION FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED, UNLESS SUCH REPRODUCTION OR REDISTRIBUTION IS EXPRESSLY PERMITTED BY THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ACCOMPANYING SUCH SOFTWARE."
And finally:
"Permission to use Documents (such as white papers, press releases, datasheets and FAQs) from this server ("Server") is granted, provided that (1) the below copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear, (2) use of such Documents from this Server is for informational and non-commercial or personal use only and will not be copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media, and (3) no modifications of any Documents are made."
So, it seems to me as though the information is Microsoft's copyrighted material, regardless of whether you open the executable or you open it with WinZip. Also, the terms explicitly say that the information can't be "copied or posted on any network computer or broadcast in any media." It seems to me as though Microsoft is perfectly within its rights to demand that its copyrighted information be taken off the site, as it was posted there in direct violation of the terms for downloading said information.
By no means does this mean that I agree with their embracing and extending of the Kerberos specification. I also don't agree with their restriction that, by viewing the information, it's not legal to use it to implement a competing project. However, this is Microsoft's copyrighted material and they can do what they want with it.
I would like to know why many on this site were upset that NVIDIA violated the GPL (remember this article: ), but they support a violation of Microsoft's licensing? Is not Microsoft's license entitled to the same protections as the GPL? If not, what is the legal basis for ignoring it?