you don't need to run a ship into an iceberg or perform a complex computer simulation to ensure a ship can withstand an iceberg... there are certain industries that require testing of everything, such as civil aviation, but engineers are trained to make conservative assumptions and simplifications based on material data, generic empirical testing, past experience with what works and what fails, as well as common sense (also more recently legal risk has become a significant factor in an increasing level of conservativity in engineering decisions). engineers sign off on their work, legally certifying their design as safe in accordance with whatever standards they reference, so despite assumptions and simplifications there is no implication that what engineers do is questionable; engineers make things work, and for things to work they also have to be affordable, and not everything can be tested to the nth degree.
the engineers who designed the titanic knew it was safe within the intended limits of its operation. unfortunately, while engineers can recommend safety measures and precautions, they can't prevent the idiot factor (if you try to idiot-proof something, someone will invent a better idiot). engineers have limited power to stop business managers ordering the removal of lifeboats or politicizing critical design decisions (fortunately engineers have much more clout when it comes to issues that have direct safety implications, with fairly strong representative organisations to support them). the titanic was as safe as a ship could be designed at the time (structurally it was actually built much stronger, with much higher safety margins due to uncertainties such as materials, than modern ships). it was really actually a testament to the engineers that the ship held up for as long as it did.
the Titanic was a human disaster, not a technical or engineering disaster; the ship was designed to carry more lifeboats than it did, and Thomas Andrews (chief design engineer for the Titanic) originally wanted watertight bulkheads up to B deck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_%28shipbuilder%29#RMS_Titanic) but as often still happens today, profit (and other) motives carry more weight than any kind of technical logic or safety considerations.
if something is designed by engineers, you can be reasonably sure that it will be safe for its design life, but it may be a little more expensive than something designed by accountants. consumers nowadays can be easily mislead by clever marketing into thinking that something designed by accountants will be as safe as if it were designed by engineers. if they only knew the difference in the ethics of accountants and engineers they might shudder at the thought of an accountant designing anything and pay the extra money for the assurance offered by something that has been properly engineered.
no actually Thomas Andrews knew that the Titanic was sinkable... it was the stupid greedy corporates (like Bruce Ismay) who had absolutely no ounce of technical clue about them that assumed the Titanic was unsinkable
often is the case with many man-made (and even some natural) disasters that those with the power to prevent such event are warned by those with knowhow (such as engineers) and are routinely ignored in the name of profit margins, bureacracy or politics.... as much a problem today as it was in 1912, unfortunately
because they don't want disgruntled wintards infecting the real linux forums with their bullshit... so they set up this "trisquel" honeypot to keep the "why isn't linux more like windows" questions to the usual dull roar instead of total pandemonium
have to agree with most of what you say, except for your implication that its a bad thing. i think its great that linux pwns the server space and windows/mac owns the desktop, and i'm a linux advocate.
like a dialog box that pops up every day if your client hasn't paid their invoices... maybe something like "i'm sorry but your company is run by douchebag that stooge on thier contractors... if you really want to use this software without annoying "bugs", spam, popups and weird easter eggs, try complaining to your boss"
you use email still? why not simply plug into the matrix and talk to your contacts face to face?
also, i hope you don't drive a car because that's soooo yesterday... you should be flying by space shuttle (or super star destroyer)
point... if you have a fax machine still, why not use it? just because you can do things better (or differently) doesn't mean the way you did them before was wrong. you say email is "way cheaper", but TCO of a computer with email, a land line and internet access is way more than a fax machine. if you already have a computer, maybe the email starts looking a bit more enticing, but if you need to transmit something with a signature, faxing is still simpler than scanning and emailing, and i'll bet companies that use email go through more paper (and toner) than companies that prefer faxes.
when i read your post i imagined some kind of fat homosexual in his mom's basement... and with a name like "Jackie_Chan_Fan" I even started imagining wires coming out of your head plugged in to weird chinese sex toy
as far as cellphones go (of which smartphones are a subset), nokia is still (as of 2012) only now second to samsung... nokia still sells more cellphones than apple
i'm a debian fan personally, but i don't subscribe to the "year of the linux desktop" bullshit... i would rather wintards stay away from linux, or risk linux being infected by idiots trying to make it more like windows
who's last estimate? i'm sure you're right except for the "running" part because many of those counted are probably also buried in landfill
...and i didn't actually claim that there were "more servers out there than clients" (i merely countered that there are a lot of servers), so perhaps you should learn to read
as i said previously, the tipping point is embedded systems (which aren't servers)... there are likely to be more embedded linux installations than windows, even without counting linux servers and desktops
for just about every windows machine there is a router for internet access, which is running linux... and then there are set top boxes, dvd players, tvs, etc...
monitoring systems are a bit different, but they don't really fall under the traditional "IT" banner either (more related to engineering), so if your story was about an IT guy pretending to be an engineer then that's pretty risky on his part anyway.
i work as an engineer (not IT related) but also do some programming, and engineering-related programming can be a little bit different to your conventional windows programming in that the focus is less about making things look pretty or being user friendly, and more to do with making it perform at peak efficiency for as long as possible, and usually where only trained personnel are entitled to operate it (because the consequences of doing something wrong can be a little more severe than merely having to reboot). operating system bloat and dialog box hell are frowned upon in an environment where a command line is sufficient or the only thing on the screen is an interactive plant schematic, and engineers are also less likely to want to have to pay for "easy to use" operating systems that require a full hardware setup when a reliable free alternative is available for minimal/embedded hardware, even if that alternative requires a bit more nouse to operate.
windows updates break things (like recently i saw a problem where a win7 cold boot after a windows update caused the machine not to boot completely, instead hanging at a black screen with a mouse cursor without any keyboard response; not even ctrl+alt+del), there was no "re-compile" option... the only way to fix was the IT guy came and pressed ctrl+alt+del at the flower screen before the black screen came alone, started explorer from a run prompt and told the user to never shut down again. fuck knows how he figured that out, but if he didn't the machine would have been trashed and a new one bought.
people buy microsoft because managers (without IT experience) know of microsoft and they don't know of much else (certainly not linux) and they don't like what they don't know, so if you deploy anything microsoft and it breaks, its microsoft's fault, but if you deploy anything else and it breaks, it's your fault.
everyone needs something to play freecell and watch youtube with
and i doubt your claim... it would seem like their are more desktops than servers, but there are A LOT of servers crammed into big datacenters, all running linux, not to mention virtual linux servers running on linux servers
ultimately, when you throw the embedded installs into the mix, the number of linux kernels around the world would probably be more than double the number of windows installs (even including pirated windows)
if you buy microsoft software you may as well buy dell hardware... if you really care about quality, flexibility, security, uptime, scalability, etc you would avoid both like the plaugues they are, but unfortunately ubiquity rules in most companies... if you rock the boat too much, you're dead in the water
before iphones and android came out, nokia was the shit. if you wanted a decent phone, you bought a nokia.
even when iphones came out, unless you were a teenager or an isheep (ie you wanted to come across as respectable, professional or conservative) you still bought a nokia
still nowadays if you don't want a smartphone, most would opt for a nokia
nokia makes good conventional mobile phones... they just blew it in the smartphone market
of course you must be talking about "other" slashdot users, because of course you're not one of those poor ignorant fools, being the super-informed master of the universe, and you would never waste your time posting useless opinionated guff on the very forum you (not so) subtly detest
Slashdot Mirror
you don't need to run a ship into an iceberg or perform a complex computer simulation to ensure a ship can withstand an iceberg... there are certain industries that require testing of everything, such as civil aviation, but engineers are trained to make conservative assumptions and simplifications based on material data, generic empirical testing, past experience with what works and what fails, as well as common sense (also more recently legal risk has become a significant factor in an increasing level of conservativity in engineering decisions). engineers sign off on their work, legally certifying their design as safe in accordance with whatever standards they reference, so despite assumptions and simplifications there is no implication that what engineers do is questionable; engineers make things work, and for things to work they also have to be affordable, and not everything can be tested to the nth degree.
the engineers who designed the titanic knew it was safe within the intended limits of its operation. unfortunately, while engineers can recommend safety measures and precautions, they can't prevent the idiot factor (if you try to idiot-proof something, someone will invent a better idiot). engineers have limited power to stop business managers ordering the removal of lifeboats or politicizing critical design decisions (fortunately engineers have much more clout when it comes to issues that have direct safety implications, with fairly strong representative organisations to support them). the titanic was as safe as a ship could be designed at the time (structurally it was actually built much stronger, with much higher safety margins due to uncertainties such as materials, than modern ships). it was really actually a testament to the engineers that the ship held up for as long as it did.
the Titanic was a human disaster, not a technical or engineering disaster; the ship was designed to carry more lifeboats than it did, and Thomas Andrews (chief design engineer for the Titanic) originally wanted watertight bulkheads up to B deck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Andrews_%28shipbuilder%29#RMS_Titanic) but as often still happens today, profit (and other) motives carry more weight than any kind of technical logic or safety considerations.
if something is designed by engineers, you can be reasonably sure that it will be safe for its design life, but it may be a little more expensive than something designed by accountants. consumers nowadays can be easily mislead by clever marketing into thinking that something designed by accountants will be as safe as if it were designed by engineers. if they only knew the difference in the ethics of accountants and engineers they might shudder at the thought of an accountant designing anything and pay the extra money for the assurance offered by something that has been properly engineered.
no actually Thomas Andrews knew that the Titanic was sinkable... it was the stupid greedy corporates (like Bruce Ismay) who had absolutely no ounce of technical clue about them that assumed the Titanic was unsinkable
often is the case with many man-made (and even some natural) disasters that those with the power to prevent such event are warned by those with knowhow (such as engineers) and are routinely ignored in the name of profit margins, bureacracy or politics.... as much a problem today as it was in 1912, unfortunately
because they don't want disgruntled wintards infecting the real linux forums with their bullshit... so they set up this "trisquel" honeypot to keep the "why isn't linux more like windows" questions to the usual dull roar instead of total pandemonium
have to agree with most of what you say, except for your implication that its a bad thing. i think its great that linux pwns the server space and windows/mac owns the desktop, and i'm a linux advocate.
like a dialog box that pops up every day if your client hasn't paid their invoices... maybe something like "i'm sorry but your company is run by douchebag that stooge on thier contractors... if you really want to use this software without annoying "bugs", spam, popups and weird easter eggs, try complaining to your boss"
you use email still? why not simply plug into the matrix and talk to your contacts face to face?
also, i hope you don't drive a car because that's soooo yesterday... you should be flying by space shuttle (or super star destroyer)
point... if you have a fax machine still, why not use it? just because you can do things better (or differently) doesn't mean the way you did them before was wrong. you say email is "way cheaper", but TCO of a computer with email, a land line and internet access is way more than a fax machine. if you already have a computer, maybe the email starts looking a bit more enticing, but if you need to transmit something with a signature, faxing is still simpler than scanning and emailing, and i'll bet companies that use email go through more paper (and toner) than companies that prefer faxes.
when i read your post i imagined some kind of fat homosexual in his mom's basement... and with a name like "Jackie_Chan_Fan" I even started imagining wires coming out of your head plugged in to weird chinese sex toy
windows 8 is ok.... if you're a retarded fish
it only sucks fat horse dick when you compare it to more useful platforms like debian with gnome2 or xfce
that fish on the desktop made me so horny
as far as cellphones go (of which smartphones are a subset), nokia is still (as of 2012) only now second to samsung... nokia still sells more cellphones than apple
http://www.chipchick.com/2012/12/samsung-cellphone-sales.html
http://thenextweb.com/mobile/2012/12/18/for-the-first-time-in-14-years-samsung-passes-nokia-as-top-cellphone-brand-in-2012-apple-in-third/
http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/samsung-bumps-out-nokia-top-phone-maker-beats-apple-smartphones-1C7662756
apple may sell more smartphones than nokia, but more people are still going with the older (and cheaper) symbian-based phones
true, however i do like alienware... hopefully dell doesn't take it down too
i'm a debian fan personally, but i don't subscribe to the "year of the linux desktop" bullshit... i would rather wintards stay away from linux, or risk linux being infected by idiots trying to make it more like windows
i was dumbing it down so you might understand.... i guess i didn't dumb it down enough
woops.... i mean "every windows machine there [has] a router"
who's last estimate? i'm sure you're right except for the "running" part because many of those counted are probably also buried in landfill
...and i didn't actually claim that there were "more servers out there than clients" (i merely countered that there are a lot of servers), so perhaps you should learn to read
as i said previously, the tipping point is embedded systems (which aren't servers)... there are likely to be more embedded linux installations than windows, even without counting linux servers and desktops
for just about every windows machine there is a router for internet access, which is running linux... and then there are set top boxes, dvd players, tvs, etc...
monitoring systems are a bit different, but they don't really fall under the traditional "IT" banner either (more related to engineering), so if your story was about an IT guy pretending to be an engineer then that's pretty risky on his part anyway.
i work as an engineer (not IT related) but also do some programming, and engineering-related programming can be a little bit different to your conventional windows programming in that the focus is less about making things look pretty or being user friendly, and more to do with making it perform at peak efficiency for as long as possible, and usually where only trained personnel are entitled to operate it (because the consequences of doing something wrong can be a little more severe than merely having to reboot). operating system bloat and dialog box hell are frowned upon in an environment where a command line is sufficient or the only thing on the screen is an interactive plant schematic, and engineers are also less likely to want to have to pay for "easy to use" operating systems that require a full hardware setup when a reliable free alternative is available for minimal/embedded hardware, even if that alternative requires a bit more nouse to operate.
windows updates break things (like recently i saw a problem where a win7 cold boot after a windows update caused the machine not to boot completely, instead hanging at a black screen with a mouse cursor without any keyboard response; not even ctrl+alt+del), there was no "re-compile" option... the only way to fix was the IT guy came and pressed ctrl+alt+del at the flower screen before the black screen came alone, started explorer from a run prompt and told the user to never shut down again. fuck knows how he figured that out, but if he didn't the machine would have been trashed and a new one bought.
people buy microsoft because managers (without IT experience) know of microsoft and they don't know of much else (certainly not linux) and they don't like what they don't know, so if you deploy anything microsoft and it breaks, its microsoft's fault, but if you deploy anything else and it breaks, it's your fault.
can only hope
"people" are stupid
everyone needs something to play freecell and watch youtube with
and i doubt your claim... it would seem like their are more desktops than servers, but there are A LOT of servers crammed into big datacenters, all running linux, not to mention virtual linux servers running on linux servers
ultimately, when you throw the embedded installs into the mix, the number of linux kernels around the world would probably be more than double the number of windows installs (even including pirated windows)
dell is like an ant to the samsung elephant... probably a wise move to stay out of harm's way
maybe google changed its diet and now dell doesn't enjoy the fruits of their services to google as much as they once did
if you buy microsoft software you may as well buy dell hardware... if you really care about quality, flexibility, security, uptime, scalability, etc you would avoid both like the plaugues they are, but unfortunately ubiquity rules in most companies... if you rock the boat too much, you're dead in the water
before iphones and android came out, nokia was the shit. if you wanted a decent phone, you bought a nokia.
even when iphones came out, unless you were a teenager or an isheep (ie you wanted to come across as respectable, professional or conservative) you still bought a nokia
still nowadays if you don't want a smartphone, most would opt for a nokia
nokia makes good conventional mobile phones... they just blew it in the smartphone market
of course you must be talking about "other" slashdot users, because of course you're not one of those poor ignorant fools, being the super-informed master of the universe, and you would never waste your time posting useless opinionated guff on the very forum you (not so) subtly detest