I have used Citrix and it solved some problems for us, but why the shell would you use Citrix for a new application developed from scratch? To me Citrix is a system to run legacy applications. Any time in the last 10 years I would think you would choose a platform that does not require a hack (multi user ms windows) to run.
"We're the largest Citrix deployment in the world," Deal said. "We're using it in a way that's quite different from the way most organizations are using it. A lot of users use it to allow remote users to connect to the network. But we actually use it from inside the network. For every user who connects to HealthConnect, they connect via Citrix, and we're running into monumental problems in scaling the Citrix servers."
for this product to succeed it has to reach a coolness factor better than an ipod with 15yr olds. I don't see how a larger and uglier device is going to do it. I don't think MS has ever done that well with coolness (I'm not a gamer so I don't know how the xbox rates). MS is good at corporate marketing and deal making and the company name means something to those people. The MS brand is nerdy compared to Apple with is good at the marketing for this demographic. The last thing a 15yr wants to be is nerdy, except the ones reading/. of course, but coolness is a lost hope for those.
This happens all the time. ASCAP & BMI have reps that go around to bars and start billing the owners for public performance. I have been told that they rarely approach bands but almost every bar that has live or even recorded music, juke box etc get hit by bills from the song publishing companies.
I would bet on user error as well. I'm 100% for hand marked paper ballots counted optically, but I am willing to bet that no matter what voting tech in used, paper, punch cards, touch screen, etc. The voter error rate is probably about the same. Its just that since we have had some real close elections the media is starting to focus in on a problem that has existed forever.
I've been using Red Hat since 1995 with starting with version 2.0. I have used every version since including every Fedora release. I use RHEL4 with a contract for a production system at work. I have never really had a problem with the OS. I cant say that I've ever had an unstable system except when I did major customization and deviated way off the official software versions.
I have also tried Ubuntu, but I really don't see much difference from Fedora. It just has the mp3 support, etc already installed. Even though it is an inconvenience, I like Red Hat's policy towards non-free software.
As for Oracle, they just don't have my trust for support on a production Linux system. Red Hat has been around and stayed the course as a trustworthy vendor. I expect a lot of sysadmins are just not going to trust Oracle offering. They seem to be looking for a free ride rather than to provide a value added service.
This is good for open source software, such as openoffice or any competitor of MS. Software piracy helps Microsoft. When people can get the industry leading software for free (illegal copy) they will never consider the alternatives.
>MS-DOS didn't suck too badly compared to CP/M. MSDOS sucked bad against CP/M when it was first released. Actually the first version of DOS was an unofficial clone of CP/M with limited features. I was working on CP/M systems that were running on 20 meg hard disk systems with great color graphics (TeleVideo) before the XT was even released. At this time I dont even think PC-DOS supported hard disks. Most system had two 360K diskette drives. (nobody ever heard on MS-DOS in those days, it was all IBM and there were no clones yet) I also dont think it even supported sub directories. CP/M at least has virtual user areas, We also supported multiuser CP/M systems with up to 16 user in a LAN topology before IBM PCs or DOS had any network capability. By about 1985 DOS and PCs where taking over all of the CP/M systems but everone I know that had been working with CP/M thought that DOS was a complete joke. The only reason anyone was buying PCs was the IBM name and the massive marketing campaign.
>Xenix didn't such compared to other UNIXes. I also installed and maintained dozens of Xenix systems starting in about 86. I also worked on some NCR towers and Sperry 5000 unix servers at that same time. They were far better than Xenix. Xenix was just the best, only?, option for IBM PC based hardware. This was long before the ATT, Intel, SCO aliance that created Unix i386.
>OS/2 didn't suck, and neither did Windows NT next to desktop UNIX or DR-DOS+GEM At this time Unix workstations were far better. DEC, HP, IBM, SGI, MIPS and various others had unix based workstations much better than OS/2 or NT. NT won becase of cheap hardware and good enough performance
>Microsoft Word 2 didn't suck next to any of its competition. Word sucked bad compared to Word Perfect at the time. MS was selling Word for $49 so everyone changed to word when it was time to update WP for $200+. Same thing happened with Lotus 123. 123 was $200 and had very restrictive copy protection. Excel came along with $49 competitive upgrade so everyone got excel and dropped 123.
With all that said I think google is a bubble. They will bust when people realize that they really dont have anything of value and their stock tanks. I think this will happen shortly after the Vista release and investors realize that google just doesnt have the profits and customer lock in that MS has created.
This could never work or at least the results would never be accepted. For most people the truth is what they want it to be. If the programs version of the truth does not match what they want then it is a bug.
For someone on the far right Rush Limbaugh speaks the truth. For someone on the far left Noam Chomsky speaks the truth.
Every person is biased and the truth from the program will be disputed and suspect.
I remember seeing IE 2.0 and thinking what a lame rip off of netscape. It was horrible. Two years later IE was better than netscape. Dont underestimate MS.
It would be even cooler if you just downloaded a CD and did all the work on your local PC, detected the harware automaticly and picked packages you want to install.
Linuxconf is the tool for this job. I see a lot of people make negative comments about Linuxconf, it just reminds me of negative comments about Linux. I have been using Linuxconf since 1996 on redhat 3.0.3 (linuxconf was not included then) and linuxconf version 1.08 I think. I have also admined many Unix boxes since 1985 by hand. I can tell you that linuxconf is an incredable tool. I use it daily on over 70 remote systems. I can teach a non-computer person to add/change/delete user accounts thru a web browser in about 5 minutes. I have a web server with over 200 virtual domains with each domain having its own usr list for email set up and admined completely with Linuxconf, with a different admin person for each domain, all done thu the web interface, thru a SSL server. I can archive the configuration and restore it to another machine in minutes. There is also a lot of mis-information about Linuxconf spread by people who never really looked into it, people who looked at it 4 years ago, and people (who I can only guess) dont like the guy who wrote it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have used Citrix and it solved some problems for us, but why the shell would you use Citrix for a new application developed from scratch? To me Citrix is a system to run legacy applications. Any time in the last 10 years I would think you would choose a platform that does not require a hack (multi user ms windows) to run.
"We're the largest Citrix deployment in the world," Deal said. "We're using it in a way that's quite different from the way most organizations are using it. A lot of users use it to allow remote users to connect to the network. But we actually use it from inside the network. For every user who connects to HealthConnect, they connect via Citrix, and we're running into monumental problems in scaling the Citrix servers."
..and snow is white. Tell us something we don't know.
for this product to succeed it has to reach a coolness factor better than an ipod with 15yr olds. I don't see how a larger and uglier device is going to do it. I don't think MS has ever done that well with coolness (I'm not a gamer so I don't know how the xbox rates). MS is good at corporate marketing and deal making and the company name means something to those people. The MS brand is nerdy compared to Apple with is good at the marketing for this demographic. The last thing a 15yr wants to be is nerdy, except the ones reading /. of course, but coolness is a lost hope for those.
This guy was the bar manager, not just a performer...
"A 73-year-old bar manager who illegally performed copyrighted tunes"
This happens all the time. ASCAP & BMI have reps that go around to bars and start billing the owners for public performance. I have been told that they rarely approach bands but almost every bar that has live or even recorded music, juke box etc get hit by bills from the song publishing companies.
I would bet on user error as well. I'm 100% for hand marked paper ballots counted optically, but I am willing to bet that no matter what voting tech in used, paper, punch cards, touch screen, etc. The voter error rate is probably about the same. Its just that since we have had some real close elections the media is starting to focus in on a problem that has existed forever.
I've been using Red Hat since 1995 with starting with version 2.0. I have used every version since including every Fedora release. I use RHEL4 with a contract for a production system at work. I have never really had a problem with the OS. I cant say that I've ever had an unstable system except when I did major customization and deviated way off the official software versions.
I have also tried Ubuntu, but I really don't see much difference from Fedora. It just has the mp3 support, etc already installed. Even though it is an inconvenience, I like Red Hat's policy towards non-free software.
As for Oracle, they just don't have my trust for support on a production Linux system. Red Hat has been around and stayed the course as a trustworthy vendor. I expect a lot of sysadmins are just not going to trust Oracle offering. They seem to be looking for a free ride rather than to provide a value added service.
This is good for open source software, such as openoffice or any competitor of MS. Software piracy helps Microsoft. When people can get the industry leading software for free (illegal copy) they will never consider the alternatives.
He mentioned Iomega (creator of the Bernoulli Box) in the in the Article. One of the developers of this product worked for a competitor...
"Anil co-founded SyQuest, an early competitor to Iomega."
As fun as they are they are spam. Google needs to put controls in place to determine abuse before it takes over and makes the search engine useless.
Who says Microsoft does not give back to the open source community?
Agreed, the UI for IE7 is strange. If this is a hint of Vista I expect Mac and Linux will pick up a few desktop users afer the release.
FYI this reg setting will move the menu bar to the top.
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Toolbar\WebBrowser]
"ITBar7Position"=dword:00000001
I think slashdot overloaded the one he has now.
>MS-DOS didn't suck too badly compared to CP/M.
MSDOS sucked bad against CP/M when it was first released. Actually the first version of DOS was an unofficial clone of CP/M with limited features. I was working on CP/M systems that were running on 20 meg hard disk systems with great color graphics (TeleVideo) before the XT was even released. At this time I dont even think PC-DOS supported hard disks. Most system had two 360K diskette drives. (nobody ever heard on MS-DOS in those days, it was all IBM and there were no clones yet) I also dont think it even supported sub directories. CP/M at least has virtual user areas, We also supported multiuser CP/M systems with up to 16 user in a LAN topology before IBM PCs or DOS had any network capability. By about 1985 DOS and PCs where taking over all of the CP/M systems but everone I know that had been working with CP/M thought that DOS was a complete joke. The only reason anyone was buying PCs was the IBM name and the massive marketing campaign.
>Xenix didn't such compared to other UNIXes.
I also installed and maintained dozens of Xenix systems starting in about 86. I also worked on some NCR towers and Sperry 5000 unix servers at that same time. They were far better than Xenix. Xenix was just the best, only?, option for IBM PC based hardware. This was long before the ATT, Intel, SCO aliance that created Unix i386.
>OS/2 didn't suck, and neither did Windows NT next to desktop UNIX or DR-DOS+GEM
At this time Unix workstations were far better. DEC, HP, IBM, SGI, MIPS and various others had unix based workstations much better than OS/2 or NT. NT won becase of cheap hardware and good enough performance
>Microsoft Word 2 didn't suck next to any of its competition.
Word sucked bad compared to Word Perfect at the time. MS was selling Word for $49 so everyone changed to word when it was time to update WP for $200+. Same thing happened with Lotus 123. 123 was $200 and had very restrictive copy protection. Excel came along with $49 competitive upgrade so everyone got excel and dropped 123.
With all that said I think google is a bubble. They will bust when people realize that they really dont have anything of value and their stock tanks. I think this will happen shortly after the Vista release and investors realize that google just doesnt have the profits and customer lock in that MS has created.
This could never work or at least the results would never be accepted. For most people the truth is what they want it to be. If the programs version of the truth does not match what they want then it is a bug.
For someone on the far right Rush Limbaugh speaks the truth.
For someone on the far left Noam Chomsky speaks the truth.
Every person is biased and the truth from the program will be disputed and suspect.
1. vi
2. sh
everything else is application specific
I remember seeing IE 2.0 and thinking what a lame rip off of netscape. It was horrible. Two years later IE was better than netscape. Dont underestimate MS.
Global Warming "theory" is a religon. The science used to back it up only works if you ignore 90% of the facts.
Repent your evil capitalist ways or we will all burn in the hell earth will become.
The main problem I have seen is that a lot of people can talk a real good game but very few can actually develop useful software.
I have been involved with COTS installations that failed and custom developed systems that worked great and vice versa.
One system is not better than the other it is simply the skill of the people doing either.
It would be even cooler if you just downloaded a CD and did all the work on your local PC, detected the harware automaticly and picked packages you want to install.
oh wait, thats how they all work now.
Linuxconf is the tool for this job. I see a lot of people make negative comments about Linuxconf, it just reminds me of negative comments about Linux. I have been using Linuxconf since 1996 on redhat 3.0.3 (linuxconf was not included then) and linuxconf version 1.08 I think. I have also admined many Unix boxes since 1985 by hand. I can tell you that linuxconf is an incredable tool. I use it daily on over 70 remote systems. I can teach a non-computer person to add/change/delete user accounts thru a web browser in about 5 minutes. I have a web server with over 200 virtual domains with each domain having its own usr list for email set up and admined completely with Linuxconf, with a different admin person for each domain, all done thu the web interface, thru a SSL server. I can archive the configuration and restore it to another machine in minutes. There is also a lot of mis-information about Linuxconf spread by people who never really looked into it, people who looked at it 4 years ago, and people (who I can only guess) dont like the guy who wrote it.