Looking at the resellers that sell these things... They have additional cooling units ($15-$25 extra for each) for additional CPUs, chipset, video card(s), and hard drive. That pretty much covers anything that might cooling.
The point is there are two issues: hardware maintenance and software maintenance. KVM-lookalikes and Terminal Server. Apples and oranges.
Now quite frankly, as far as software maintenance is concerned, since you're the one bringing all this up, I'll tell you that you can do just as well if not better in a windows environment mapping network drives and using tools such as NetWizard (or equivalent). And as a bonus you don't have that gigantic bottleneck/single point of failure that Terminal Server is.
It has everything but the harddrive and expansion slots. Other than that, it's nothing but a very low end PC with a smaller case! Open one up, you'll see!
But here is a link for the specs for the compaq version. You'll note than they actually DO have an OS on them (win CE or linux) unlike what I had originally said.
http://www.compaq.com/products/quickspecs/10443_ na/10443_na.HTML
And $450 is not that cheap - you can go to best buy and get a computer for less than that.
Of course you are missing the point...
The point of this is that it is easier to maintain the hardware because it's all in one location - that location could have UPSes, the proper aircon, etc, etc.
With terminal server still need a PC on people's desk (processor - maybe a cheaper one, RAM - maybe less, video card, ethernet adaptor, all the peripherals, etc). The only thing you've saved is on is the harddrive (possibly) - and quite frankly, harddrives are pretty cheap these days. Compaq (and others) sell these "terminals" - they are not that much cheaper than a low end machine - if at all.
Terminal server is designed to address software maintenance issue. These KVM type things are there to address hardware issues.
I doubt any code is ever perfect - otherwise, why would anyone keep developing it?
But (just like Linux said about 2.4), 2.95.3 is better than it's predecessors, and 3.0 will be better than 2.95.3. But one thing for sure, the people having problems with 2.95.3 will have the same problems with 3.0.
Or if you read the prior posts, maybe it's YOUR code that sux. Prior versions of gcc were more forgiving with poorly written and/or non-standard compliant code - that doesn't make your code any good.
Revisit your code ASAP and fix it because guess what? RH may be ahead of the rest, but eventually ALL distribution will use this version of gcc.
You're missing the point...
Sure you keep track of how many license you own and how many are in use. You think that MS is gonna come and ask you for these number, you're going to tell them, and then they're going to say "Okidoki... Thanks very much, have a nice day!" Fat chance is hell.
What they want is proof. On one hand you'd better have a big room with thousands of those holograms (typically glued on top of a manual) that come with your pre-installed Dell PCs. And (if you read the article) the proof of purchase for everyone of those holograms. On the other hand, you're gonna have to prove that you really have all of these installed machine and not more that you're just not declaring.
Now the whole idea behind an audit is that they're probably going to want to verify the information you provided. That's kind of the idea behind the word "audit". Who knows how they do that, they may walk around in your organization and count machines for all I know...
The point is, regardless on how organized you might be, someone (and probably more than one person) at your company will be busy for a while. Since I assume that person gets paid by your company, that's money your company is spending on completely unproductive work. It is very disruptive - the level of disruptivity might be slightly alleviated if your IT people have their act together, but it will nevertheless be disruptive.
And my last point is that no corporation should have the right to barge in your company and "demand" anything - regardless on how easy it might be to give an answer. The government can't do it (not without "probably cause") why should microsoft be allowed to?
This is actually a pretty dumb idea. People move their eyes more than their heads. I have a 21" monitor and my head doesn't move at all as I look on the screen. What are they gonna do, have a prosthesis to prevent the eyeballs to move inside their sockets???
I like nautilus - I have been using it for a little while at home. While trying to install it at work on a RH6.2 machine without success (there seem to be major RPM conflicts with Ximian stuff) I went to their support site (http://support.eazel.com) which is running windows 2000?? That's almost as ambarassing as microsoft running bsd for their hotmail servers (they used to anyway)...
I think your own link describe where you are wrong. the word "Intellimouse" refer to the scroll wheel (also used a the third button), which was in fact invented by microsoft.
I am going to shower now. I just defended microsoft.
No to trash open source project like progreSQL or MySQL (I am all for them and use them) but Oracle is currently (still) in a completely different league. The number of features it has is astounding - I have just discovered lots of them recently in training. Of course, I'll probably never need to use these features, but that's just me - the right tool for the job.
And the issue here is not "faky behavior", it's the fact that Oracle doesn't distribute the source and it won't link because of the different libraries. Now we can start an argument that Oracle should distribute the source code, but that has basically no chance of ever happening.
Hmmm... I really don't get your point. If Oracle (for example) says that it needs RH6.2, it will run on RH6.2 regardless of who loaded it. Yes different people laod different software (full install versus custom install) but that doesn't affect the libraries. That's what we are talking about here right? Do you have an example of this not being the case?
The parallel between the service packs (which are different versions of dlls/libraries) is perfectly valid in a sense that companies like Oracle have very specific requirements, and people that uses these big time applications follow these requirements to the letter. I think that's really all the poster was trying to illustrate: the "other way around" fact.
You have no business running quake on an Oracle server.
I am talking specifically about oracle here. This is not a home user application. The problem you are discribing is valid though, just not addressed in my post (or the parent post).
You are 100% correct. People that have the money to run Oracle (and we are talking about LOTS of money here) go to Oracle and find out what it will run on and go with that. Oracle says RH6.2, then RH6.2 it is. You feel you must be using RH7? Great. Put RH7 on another machine and go play there.
FYI - I did the same search (not using your link - don't work. Says the session as expired if you click on them) and DID return 3 matches on the word ssh. one of wich is dead, one of which is live (and owned by ssh inc - or whatever it's called) and another one is in a unrelated business.
Oh come on... Yes, the latest Netcraft survey did show an increase of 1.82% since the previous month. Netcraft highlighted that fact because it's the largest gain from IIS in one month in a long time (possibly ever).
But the fact remains that Apache has been hovering at 60% for over a year and IIS at 20%. From month to month one goes up by 1%, comes back down the following month, goes back up the one after and so one and so forth. This little statistical dance has been going on for quite some time.
Unless Microsoft sustains that 1.82% growth month after month from now on (possible, but I'd be very surprised), it is a bit premature to even *suggest* that IIS might be catching up to Apache. Apache still has 3 times the market share of IIS.
The original poster said "IIS is still gaining on Apache" (the highlight is mine). Please. This is the first month ever that Netcraft has shown a possible gain from IIS over Apache. Isn't the word "still" a bit premature??
In the end, this will make very little (if any) difference at all because I think the biggest problem is not really how fast a patch is produced (the open source crowd is already well know for the speed at which they produce patches), but how long it takes for people to install them! For example: the recent Red Hat worm - Red Hat had patches for it months ago, and yet this worm still made major damage. Why? A lot of very very very lazy (or incompetent) sysadmins.
Now, if you can address THAT, then that'd be progress.
I understand the point you were trying to make... This is not exactly CNN here... BUT...
this is not technically the case. Slashdot is owned by VA Linux, a publically traded company. As a (very small) stock owner, I own (a very small) part of slashdot too which means that taco is (or should be) accountable to other people than himself.
Since filing a class action lawsuit against VA linux is popular these days, a bunch of stock owner could sue VA Linux (and Taco) to force him to resign - possibly claiming that he is alienating his readers by bashing m$ so blantantly, thus affecting banner ad revenue, therefore affecting stock price.
I know this last paragraph is a stretch, but I just had this idea and decided to run with it:)
Unfortunately for Microsoft, they brought the bad publicity (and antitrust lawsuits) on themselves in their quests to integrate everything in their OS. While IIS was kind of an add-on (it came in an option pack) it is now built in windows 2000.
One of the vulnerabilities is ws-ftpd. Make by Washington University, it runs on any unix.
Also, in this case there were patches for these two vulnerabilities BEFORE this worm was even created.
I was not critizing the "rear projection" technology. Merely pointing out that on very large TVs (that just happen to be projection) the low line count is more obvious. Thus the merit of HDTV: more line count would really benefit people with large TVs. Not that big of deal for people with small TVs.
I really don't think that the primary reasons people buy DVDs are image and sound (especially since most probably don't have the equipment to really enjoy it). People buy DVDs because of the fact that you don't have rewind anything, you don't have to fast forward to find a scene, it starts instanteneously, it fits on a small media (looks like CD) and all those cool features. That's what people associate with the word "digital": compact, shiny and convienient.
To illustrate my point: DAT tapes. A digital signal stored on casettes tapes. It had the same sound quality as CDs (if not better) but you still had to rewind and fast forward to find a song! This standard went absolutely nowhere! I don't know of a single consumer electronic store that actually sell these things - if they even exist anymore.
This DVHS will have the exact same outcome. Bad idea on a bad medium. It's a stillborn.
Slashdot Mirror
Looking at the resellers that sell these things... They have additional cooling units ($15-$25 extra for each) for additional CPUs, chipset, video card(s), and hard drive. That pretty much covers anything that might cooling.
Sorry! Didn't mean to pick on you, this reply was intended for the guy that claims there are no CPU in a terminal server client.
The point is there are two issues: hardware maintenance and software maintenance. KVM-lookalikes and Terminal Server. Apples and oranges.
Now quite frankly, as far as software maintenance is concerned, since you're the one bringing all this up, I'll tell you that you can do just as well if not better in a windows environment mapping network drives and using tools such as NetWizard (or equivalent). And as a bonus you don't have that gigantic bottleneck/single point of failure that Terminal Server is.
Hummmm... no.
_ na /10443_na.HTML
It has everything but the harddrive and expansion slots. Other than that, it's nothing but a very low end PC with a smaller case! Open one up, you'll see!
But here is a link for the specs for the compaq version. You'll note than they actually DO have an OS on them (win CE or linux) unlike what I had originally said.
http://www.compaq.com/products/quickspecs/10443
And $450 is not that cheap - you can go to best buy and get a computer for less than that.
Of course you are missing the point...
The point of this is that it is easier to maintain the hardware because it's all in one location - that location could have UPSes, the proper aircon, etc, etc.
With terminal server still need a PC on people's desk (processor - maybe a cheaper one, RAM - maybe less, video card, ethernet adaptor, all the peripherals, etc). The only thing you've saved is on is the harddrive (possibly) - and quite frankly, harddrives are pretty cheap these days. Compaq (and others) sell these "terminals" - they are not that much cheaper than a low end machine - if at all.
Terminal server is designed to address software maintenance issue. These KVM type things are there to address hardware issues.
That's my take on the issue anyway.
I doubt any code is ever perfect - otherwise, why would anyone keep developing it?
But (just like Linux said about 2.4), 2.95.3 is better than it's predecessors, and 3.0 will be better than 2.95.3. But one thing for sure, the people having problems with 2.95.3 will have the same problems with 3.0.
Or if you read the prior posts, maybe it's YOUR code that sux. Prior versions of gcc were more forgiving with poorly written and/or non-standard compliant code - that doesn't make your code any good.
Revisit your code ASAP and fix it because guess what? RH may be ahead of the rest, but eventually ALL distribution will use this version of gcc.
You're missing the point...
Sure you keep track of how many license you own and how many are in use. You think that MS is gonna come and ask you for these number, you're going to tell them, and then they're going to say "Okidoki... Thanks very much, have a nice day!" Fat chance is hell.
What they want is proof. On one hand you'd better have a big room with thousands of those holograms (typically glued on top of a manual) that come with your pre-installed Dell PCs. And (if you read the article) the proof of purchase for everyone of those holograms. On the other hand, you're gonna have to prove that you really have all of these installed machine and not more that you're just not declaring.
Now the whole idea behind an audit is that they're probably going to want to verify the information you provided. That's kind of the idea behind the word "audit". Who knows how they do that, they may walk around in your organization and count machines for all I know...
The point is, regardless on how organized you might be, someone (and probably more than one person) at your company will be busy for a while. Since I assume that person gets paid by your company, that's money your company is spending on completely unproductive work. It is very disruptive - the level of disruptivity might be slightly alleviated if your IT people have their act together, but it will nevertheless be disruptive.
And my last point is that no corporation should have the right to barge in your company and "demand" anything - regardless on how easy it might be to give an answer. The government can't do it (not without "probably cause") why should microsoft be allowed to?
This is actually a pretty dumb idea. People move their eyes more than their heads. I have a 21" monitor and my head doesn't move at all as I look on the screen. What are they gonna do, have a prosthesis to prevent the eyeballs to move inside their sockets???
I like nautilus - I have been using it for a little while at home. While trying to install it at work on a RH6.2 machine without success (there seem to be major RPM conflicts with Ximian stuff) I went to their support site (http://support.eazel.com) which is running windows 2000?? That's almost as ambarassing as microsoft running bsd for their hotmail servers (they used to anyway)...
I think your own link describe where you are wrong. the word "Intellimouse" refer to the scroll wheel (also used a the third button), which was in fact invented by microsoft.
I am going to shower now. I just defended microsoft.
No to trash open source project like progreSQL or MySQL (I am all for them and use them) but Oracle is currently (still) in a completely different league. The number of features it has is astounding - I have just discovered lots of them recently in training. Of course, I'll probably never need to use these features, but that's just me - the right tool for the job.
And the issue here is not "faky behavior", it's the fact that Oracle doesn't distribute the source and it won't link because of the different libraries. Now we can start an argument that Oracle should distribute the source code, but that has basically no chance of ever happening.
Hmmm... I really don't get your point. If Oracle (for example) says that it needs RH6.2, it will run on RH6.2 regardless of who loaded it. Yes different people laod different software (full install versus custom install) but that doesn't affect the libraries. That's what we are talking about here right? Do you have an example of this not being the case?
The parallel between the service packs (which are different versions of dlls/libraries) is perfectly valid in a sense that companies like Oracle have very specific requirements, and people that uses these big time applications follow these requirements to the letter. I think that's really all the poster was trying to illustrate: the "other way around" fact.
You have no business running quake on an Oracle server.
I am talking specifically about oracle here. This is not a home user application. The problem you are discribing is valid though, just not addressed in my post (or the parent post).
You are 100% correct. People that have the money to run Oracle (and we are talking about LOTS of money here) go to Oracle and find out what it will run on and go with that. Oracle says RH6.2, then RH6.2 it is. You feel you must be using RH7? Great. Put RH7 on another machine and go play there.
FYI - I did the same search (not using your link - don't work. Says the session as expired if you click on them) and DID return 3 matches on the word ssh. one of wich is dead, one of which is live (and owned by ssh inc - or whatever it's called) and another one is in a unrelated business.
Oh come on... Yes, the latest Netcraft survey did show an increase of 1.82% since the previous month. Netcraft highlighted that fact because it's the largest gain from IIS in one month in a long time (possibly ever).
But the fact remains that Apache has been hovering at 60% for over a year and IIS at 20%. From month to month one goes up by 1%, comes back down the following month, goes back up the one after and so one and so forth. This little statistical dance has been going on for quite some time.
Unless Microsoft sustains that 1.82% growth month after month from now on (possible, but I'd be very surprised), it is a bit premature to even *suggest* that IIS might be catching up to Apache. Apache still has 3 times the market share of IIS.
The original poster said "IIS is still gaining on Apache" (the highlight is mine). Please. This is the first month ever that Netcraft has shown a possible gain from IIS over Apache. Isn't the word "still" a bit premature??
In the end, this will make very little (if any) difference at all because I think the biggest problem is not really how fast a patch is produced (the open source crowd is already well know for the speed at which they produce patches), but how long it takes for people to install them! For example: the recent Red Hat worm - Red Hat had patches for it months ago, and yet this worm still made major damage. Why? A lot of very very very lazy (or incompetent) sysadmins.
Now, if you can address THAT, then that'd be progress.
I understand the point you were trying to make... This is not exactly CNN here... BUT...
:)
this is not technically the case. Slashdot is owned by VA Linux, a publically traded company. As a (very small) stock owner, I own (a very small) part of slashdot too which means that taco is (or should be) accountable to other people than himself.
Since filing a class action lawsuit against VA linux is popular these days, a bunch of stock owner could sue VA Linux (and Taco) to force him to resign - possibly claiming that he is alienating his readers by bashing m$ so blantantly, thus affecting banner ad revenue, therefore affecting stock price.
I know this last paragraph is a stretch, but I just had this idea and decided to run with it
Unfortunately for Microsoft, they brought the bad publicity (and antitrust lawsuits) on themselves in their quests to integrate everything in their OS. While IIS was kind of an add-on (it came in an option pack) it is now built in windows 2000.
One of the vulnerabilities is ws-ftpd. Make by Washington University, it runs on any unix.
Also, in this case there were patches for these two vulnerabilities BEFORE this worm was even created.
Maybe because it's really two third party software and not linux (the kernel) that's the cause of the vulnerability?
Maybe because patches have been available BEFORE this worm even came into existence?
Just a few thoughts... Don't get me wrong, this stuff is bad but it's hard for me to get as excited about it than I have been about the MS bugs.
Just a clarification - since you're making it sound "Digital" were the good guys...
If you read the interview (assuming the guy knows what he is talking about) it's Digital that filed all those patents, not CGMI.
I was not critizing the "rear projection" technology. Merely pointing out that on very large TVs (that just happen to be projection) the low line count is more obvious. Thus the merit of HDTV: more line count would really benefit people with large TVs. Not that big of deal for people with small TVs.
They were marketed in europe (belgium at least) AFTER the CD was and as a consumer product. That's what I am going by... it failed of course.
I really don't think that the primary reasons people buy DVDs are image and sound (especially since most probably don't have the equipment to really enjoy it). People buy DVDs because of the fact that you don't have rewind anything, you don't have to fast forward to find a scene, it starts instanteneously, it fits on a small media (looks like CD) and all those cool features. That's what people associate with the word "digital": compact, shiny and convienient.
To illustrate my point: DAT tapes. A digital signal stored on casettes tapes. It had the same sound quality as CDs (if not better) but you still had to rewind and fast forward to find a song! This standard went absolutely nowhere! I don't know of a single consumer electronic store that actually sell these things - if they even exist anymore.
This DVHS will have the exact same outcome. Bad idea on a bad medium. It's a stillborn.