Actually, if I had to guess, I'd say he was referring to the philosophical questions surrounding real AI.
However, I too would be inclined to go with the crazy, given that he has clearly not implemented a quality content filter - or at least has not done so correctly.
I run a content filter (bogofilter) in several very different environments. One in front of several personal email boxes, which I've never yet had a valid mail get filtered by, and I get high 99% filtering accuracy.
I have a dspam filter in another environment with a few people which has even more accuracy, but is tuned specifically by user, instead of covering multiple users.
My favorite handles around 7k messages per day, and about 20% of the email is users/reporting/ spam and phishing and other fraudulent emails they have received, and it can tell the difference between a user reporting it, and the actual spam itself. Further, this filter handles this in 17 different languages - including languages like japanese and chinese.
Content filtering works great - people are just too lazy to do the work it requires to configure it properly, and worse - to maintain it.
Yes...and when enough people do that, they Hijack another one, and another one, and another one. This is not a race you can win.
Especially when they're executing prefix attacks against valid IP space.
If this is your approach, you might as well just unplug your ethernet cable and be done with it.
Typically, people read into what was written what they wanted to. I can understand coming away from the article with a negative impression of Ron Paul's outlook on the campaign. However, there was no indication in there anywhere that he was quitting. I can even understand believing he had switched to an 'issues campaign' but even that is not "quitting" or "suspending" or anything of the sort.
A few news sources are misreporting Ron Paul's e-mail from last night. The presidential campaign is not ending, not being suspended, and not even drawing down. It's slimming down and ramping up -- with over twenty states having already voted, we've shed staff, and we're concentrating financial and organization resources on the remaining states. We're going to the convention, and we're fighting for every vote and every National Delegate along the way.
...
At stake here is not just the Republican nomination -- which McCain still has not locked up -- but the future of the Republican Party and, much more importantly, the future of our liberties. We have to organize in every single state, including the ones that have already voted in the primaries and caucuses, to continue the fight to take back the Republican Party and to ensure that Ron Paul's principles, the principles of Washington and Jefferson, prevail. For the sake of that cause, Ron Paul's campaign continues, all the way to the convention.
Then he'll have to work harder to convince them, and he'll have to work to convince america of them, so that in two years they can elect a congress that IS interested in his goals. At least the ones the people want to see too.
Even if he accomplishes nothing positively, at least we can be sure he won't allow things to get worse. The veto pen and the power to grant pardons will ensure that.
Actually, no, it is the fault of the DoE. Look, when the government is responsible for educating the citizens you've got the fox guarding the henhouse. You're just begging for the kind of ignorance that has been displayed on this thread. Amazingly, the government always comes out looking the hero in our PS history textbooks. Does that not strike anyone as odd?
You might ask yourself WHY parents don't take a bigger role in education. It's a complicated multi-faceted answer with lots of causes but part of it is that they don't get to have much of an impact locally anymore. Sure, there are some things they can do, but most of the big problems are top-down, and top is a place they have no influence.
I actually know *less* about his positions than I did going in, because I assumed he *had* positions.
This says more about you than it does about him. There have been countless debates. Ron has a public record going back 20 years. There are tons of his writings on issues available on ronpaullibrary.org and on his presidential campaign website. All you have to do is go look. You don't even have to get out of your chair.
Your not already knowing the answers to the questions being asked here (and frankly many others) are a factor of your lack of effort. And how you're complaining that the campaign didn't come to your favorite niche site and spoon feed them to you.
Do you know why we got away from the gold standard?
Yes, I do. We went off the gold standard because the gold standard makes it harder to rob the populace.
Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.
Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing.
The major causes of the great depression had nothing whatsoever to do with the use of Gold. This is a complex issue and more than I care to go into in depth in this forum. There's plenty of information on this out there if you want to do the research. Suffice to say what would've been a minor market problem was turned into a huge fiasco because we had two presidents (hoover and FDR) who thought the best way to solve problems in our economy was by sticking their noses into it.
Instead, they caused massive problems. Want to know how we got out of the great depression? FDR stopped the majority of his programs that were supposed to fix it. That's how we got out of it.
You can't ask what caused the great depression as if the whole thing, its depth, its width, and its initial triggers were all due to some magical cause. Your allegation isn't even close to accurate, and clearly demonstrates you are way out of your depth in even commenting on this issue. Perhaps before you pollute the forum with more of your "wisdom" you should make an effort to go beyond wikipedia and your fourth grade history education.
It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold.
Yes, there would be deflation - gee I wonder why. Oh yeah, because the government has inflated our current fiat currency till it's almost worthless. So yes, there is going to need to be some adjustment. If you don't like it, fine, keep using your paper money. Nobody (even Ron) is saying you can't. All we're saying is let those of us who would rather have a hard currency that government isn't constantly undermining for managing our trades.
Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul.
Yes, I'm sure that's why too. It's all an elaborate scheme to pump and dump his gold stock right? It couldn't possibly be that he believes what he says and as such invests in something he believes has value.
The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.
Heaven knows, if you want accurate information on something wikipedia is the place to go.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
See, I don't think you even understand what protectionism is, and I think you suffer from a belief that any vote against neo-mercantilism is somehow protectionist in and of itself. It's not like there are a plethroa of bills going through the congress to remove trade restrictions.
States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues that, while probably correct in the long term, are politically unpopular today.
You once again display your ignorance. I'm sure some people are so simple-minded and historically that painting them with the "pro-slavery" brush for being in support of states rights will fly, but not with anyone who has ever bothered to get a decent education on the issue.
States rights were also being employed to defend slaves from the reprehensible fugitive slave acts, as well as federal government encroachments on state liberty in regards to trade, conscription and other issues in the pre-civil-war era. Being in favor of recognizing the state sovereignty outlined in the 10th amendment and their right to tell the federal government to pound sand is not inherently racist any more than being in favor of centralized governme
If you watched the debates you've already heard him answer that question. When asked he has repeatedly stated that he would have to work with congress to accomplish his goals, that the president doesn't have unilateral power to do whatever he wants. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of some Libertarians, but they're certainly not the only ones. Heh, we need look no further than the one currently seated on the "throne" to see that.
If you're looking for modern bigotry, try McCain. He had some lovely things to say about people from the Middle East, including some things he said at the South Carolina debate.
And lets not forget his comment 8 years ago during his campaign where he said: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
No, his answer was that he doesn't have a straight answer regarding his policy to give, and this is clearly because it hasn't been a major focus of his time in office. He hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about it, and wasn't going to make something up. Instead he clearly stated where he was at on this issue, and gave a few statements regarding the perspective from which he would approach the problem.
What the fsck has giving a straight answer have to do with commitment to free market and limited government? Do they (Ron Paul campaign) have such a short attention span, or do they expect that their voters have? I felt like someone spat on me, when I read those answers.
No, but apparently your english comprehension could use a little work.
His point is that he has clearly stated his position on issues, and those issues are a central aspect of his platform. He is pointing out that not only does he give direct answers, but his words are backed up by actions that are consistent with what he says - further reinforcing that he is committed to honest answers. He doesn't say one thing and do another.
He admitted he doesn't know, what more do you want? When he couldn't give you an actual policy he instead gave you the guiding philosophy that would shape that policy to try to answer the question anyway.
I can understand that. However, if you really want a detailed response there is a site out there that has everything he has ever written - and he has been quite prolific.
The man is trying to run a presidential campaign, and during this period he has been trying to prepare for the Super Tuesday elections. That doesn't leave a lot of time for answering questions. Especially for a candidate who is not bashful about his views, and whose views are based on a clearly stated philosophy and closely held principles.
Even if you don't agree with all of them, at least you know where he stands, or can quickly find out with a little research. That's more than I can say for Mitt "what-did-the-focus-group-say" Romney and his ilk.
First, the NAFTA superhighway does not need scare quotes. I know everyone wants to pretend it doesn't exist because it's not happening in their backyard but I guarantee you that it is quite real. Those of us in Texas are on the front lines trying to prevent thousands of acres of private land from being seized by the government for this project. The people standing to lose homes that have been in their families for generations would have a lot to say to you about your attitude towards this issue. The NAU is not a conspiracy theory anymore than the European Union is. If you think there aren't people who think this is a good idea you're not paying attention.
As for NAFTA, it was not free trade. It's what they called it. Much like the PATRIOT act, and other similar legislation the actual work it did had nothing whatsoever to do with its title. NAFTA was a Mercantilist measure. Further, nobody - including Ron - said that what Ron wanted was what we had in relation to those countries pre-NAFTA. What Ron is after is something greater. Actual, true, free trade with everyone. Free trade defined as openly allowing the trade of goods and services without preference.
Honestly, I'm not that surprised by 4 and 5, and I think you hit the nail right on the head. The reality is that we can't all be experts at everything. Ron knows more about monetary policy than most anyone here. That's not because of ability, but just because of focus.
I've followed Ron's political career for over ten years now, and this is just not an area he has ever spent any time on. My guess is that he really has no idea just how broken our patent and copyright system is. Given some time to study it I have no doubts that he would act consistently with the rest of his philosophy and want to see it fixed.
If that's the case then the OP is laboring under a false understanding of "national security". National Security does not necessarily or always == keeping secrets.
A consistent libertarian says "Don't make me wear a helmet. If I crash, it's my responsibility, and it's OK for you to leave me dying in the street." The problem is that we as a body politic are simply unprepared to leave people dying in the street, for several reasons. 1) it's ugly and stinky, not to mention unsanitary; 2) our humanity just doesn't allow us to see that level of suffering and ignore it; 3) it scares people and causes them not to ride, depressing economic output. The result is that if the motorcycle rider is uninsured we treat him at public expense -- and, if he rides without a helmet and is honest about it, he won't be able to get insurance. Therefore his riding affects all of us by costing us money.
You should spend more time understanding libertarianism before you start speaking for "Consistent libertarians". You are quite obviously still putting the libertarian solution inside of your collectivist worldview and thinking it doesn't work. If you are going to fairly evaluate the argument you have to evaluate it from inside the libertarian framework.
Yes, But she wasn't a libertarian, so this whole thread is kinda off-topic. She was unequivocal about that herself, publicly and emphatically denying libertarianism. She was an objectivist. So don't feel bad if you hate the book.:-)
of course Nagios is flexible. It's the time to setup and maintenance that costs you. Ah yes. The old "if it's complex, then it's a waste of time." canard. Interesting, the last company I heard push that line hard was Microsoft against Linux. SFDD, Same FUD, different day.
And as far as "hatred of nagios" I've witnessed that firsthand when I've run BoF's on Nagios, and I've run a few - at LISA and LinuxWorld. Yup. I've witnessed it too. Much the same as I see it here. Doesn't make it rational. Like I said, there's a general trend that says if I can't push a button and have it be done it's too hard. Again, I reject that as absurd and flawed on its face.
When I go looking for a *nix systems admin these days, I go through hundreds of applications, and dozens of interviews. Why? Because most of them aren't worth their salt. They've got nothing to offer. They think they're a Sr Admin because they installed redhat once at a former company, and popped in a few "do everything for you" apps and it worked. Our industry is in a sad state.
But I love your snarky comments. They r0x0r:) Whatever.
Oh, and I almost hate to ask, but can you install RPM's on Windows? (har har) Why would I? Are you suggesting that your product is better cause it runs on windows? Cause allow me to disabuse you of that notion. Windows is not a good platform for doing monitoring. In the last oh, 3-5 years I've never missed a page. Nagios has never failed me. In the same time period, the windows guys I work with have moved from monitoring platform to monitoring platform, because they all fail. Why? Not necessarily because of the monitoring platform, but because the OS simply isn't reliable enough.
Also, just FYI, I was pointing out that the argument that everyone has to build from source has no merit - that was my point.
First, I don't think I took your comments out of context or strayed from the topic, but if I'm mistaken feel free to demonstrate where specifically I did that.
Nagios is complicated compared to many other products. The simple fact that some rather large books are available points to that fact. That doesn't necessarily follow. Are you really going to argue that the size of the books available indicates the complexity of the software in question?
But as others have pointed out, it doesn't have to be that way, and as Hyperic shows. If you have two tools that have the same features, but one takes a month to install and the other a week, which do you choose? What Hyperic shows is that just like most of the commercial tools, if you make it easy, given a slick presentation, and badmouth the competition you can get some people to buy/use your product. I don't deny that Hyperic does at least part of what it claims. (I don't know the extent of it) I do deny that it is capable of doing everything Nagios can do. I feel safe doing that because they are radically different products and different approaches to the same problem.
Again, it's the difference between a pre-manufactured desk and a screwdriver, and a pile of wood and a set of power tools. The first is easier, and if all you want is a stock desk and that meets your needs bully for you. But don't look at my finished custom desk that meets every one of my needs that I built by hand with the tools made available and my own skills and equate it with your Sauder desk. Yes, mine took longer to make, but it does what I want.
I don't shy away from a process simply because of complexity, but needless complexity is just a waste of my time. I have a lot more things to do than I will ever have time for, and most sys admins for SMB's would agree (not that large company admins don't, but they tend to have a lot more resources availablle to them.) Heh. No, not really. Maybe in a university they have more resources. In large companies we still scramble for them. Which is why I want my monitoring tool to be able to do more than these johnny-come-lately systems can. They're more than welcome in the space, but don't try to tell me my monitoring system sucks because it's not as easy to use as the one that can't do what I need.
I'm busy too. I likewise have more on my plate than I can possibly ever accomplish. Which is why I spend the time to do monitoring right the first time. Typical sysadmin fashion. You spend more time up front, to spend less time later. Thanks to the way mine is configured it can make decisions about initial corrective actions and take them without paging me. It can handle doing basic initial troubleshooting and determining if it's a problem worth paging about in a given time period. If it is, it can send me data that I need to save me time doing that troubleshooting myself. It can determine whether the failure of a single piece of a system represents a failure of the whole, and evaluate whether alerting is necessary.
It presents an upper management friendly network map (not the tactical view) with real status information. It's tied into systems in other departments so that when they do maintenance (particularly database maintenance) it automatically handles maintenance changes and the requisite application changes. When cold standby failures happen, it handles failing over, verifying the failover, and alerting me appropriately. Most days it's more effective than a team of NOC monkeys at keeping things going when I want to sleep.
Once again, use Hyperic if you want people. Just don't think slandering Nagios makes it a better product.
I was simply responding to somebody's question about if/how they got Zenoss up and working, from a technical perspective, not a political one.
I understand, and that's how I read you. However, for the benefit of the larger discussion going on it was a good opportunity to point out the political reality many (most?) admins have to deal with that so often gets neglected in the slick presentations by these companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if I had to guess, I'd say he was referring to the philosophical questions surrounding real AI.
/reporting/ spam and phishing and other fraudulent emails they have received, and it can tell the difference between a user reporting it, and the actual spam itself. Further, this filter handles this in 17 different languages - including languages like japanese and chinese.
However, I too would be inclined to go with the crazy, given that he has clearly not implemented a quality content filter - or at least has not done so correctly.
I run a content filter (bogofilter) in several very different environments. One in front of several personal email boxes, which I've never yet had a valid mail get filtered by, and I get high 99% filtering accuracy.
I have a dspam filter in another environment with a few people which has even more accuracy, but is tuned specifically by user, instead of covering multiple users.
My favorite handles around 7k messages per day, and about 20% of the email is users
Content filtering works great - people are just too lazy to do the work it requires to configure it properly, and worse - to maintain it.
Yes...and when enough people do that, they Hijack another one, and another one, and another one. This is not a race you can win. Especially when they're executing prefix attacks against valid IP space. If this is your approach, you might as well just unplug your ethernet cable and be done with it.
However, since people have been posting these things, Ron has posted a http://people.ronpaul2008.com/campaign-updates/2008/02/09/this-candidate-doesnt-quit/">clarification. So we can end the debate now, and see exactly what he meant:
Really? He was tortured by all asian people?
Then he'll have to work harder to convince them, and he'll have to work to convince america of them, so that in two years they can elect a congress that IS interested in his goals. At least the ones the people want to see too.
Even if he accomplishes nothing positively, at least we can be sure he won't allow things to get worse. The veto pen and the power to grant pardons will ensure that.
You might ask yourself WHY parents don't take a bigger role in education. It's a complicated multi-faceted answer with lots of causes but part of it is that they don't get to have much of an impact locally anymore. Sure, there are some things they can do, but most of the big problems are top-down, and top is a place they have no influence.
I actually know *less* about his positions than I did going in, because I assumed he *had* positions.
This says more about you than it does about him. There have been countless debates. Ron has a public record going back 20 years. There are tons of his writings on issues available on ronpaullibrary.org and on his presidential campaign website. All you have to do is go look. You don't even have to get out of your chair.
Your not already knowing the answers to the questions being asked here (and frankly many others) are a factor of your lack of effort. And how you're complaining that the campaign didn't come to your favorite niche site and spoon feed them to you.
Yes, I do. We went off the gold standard because the gold standard makes it harder to rob the populace.
Because it was one of the major causes of the Great Depression.
Bzzzzt! Thank you for playing.
The major causes of the great depression had nothing whatsoever to do with the use of Gold. This is a complex issue and more than I care to go into in depth in this forum. There's plenty of information on this out there if you want to do the research. Suffice to say what would've been a minor market problem was turned into a huge fiasco because we had two presidents (hoover and FDR) who thought the best way to solve problems in our economy was by sticking their noses into it.
Instead, they caused massive problems. Want to know how we got out of the great depression? FDR stopped the majority of his programs that were supposed to fix it. That's how we got out of it.
You can't ask what caused the great depression as if the whole thing, its depth, its width, and its initial triggers were all due to some magical cause. Your allegation isn't even close to accurate, and clearly demonstrates you are way out of your depth in even commenting on this issue. Perhaps before you pollute the forum with more of your "wisdom" you should make an effort to go beyond wikipedia and your fourth grade history education.
It is also far less flexible than the monetary systems we use today such that an attempt to go back to it would cause a major deflation in the currency while skyrocketing the value of gold.
Yes, there would be deflation - gee I wonder why. Oh yeah, because the government has inflated our current fiat currency till it's almost worthless. So yes, there is going to need to be some adjustment. If you don't like it, fine, keep using your paper money. Nobody (even Ron) is saying you can't. All we're saying is let those of us who would rather have a hard currency that government isn't constantly undermining for managing our trades.
Oh, and guess who has a lot of holding in gold? You guessed it, Ron Paul.
Yes, I'm sure that's why too. It's all an elaborate scheme to pump and dump his gold stock right? It couldn't possibly be that he believes what he says and as such invests in something he believes has value.
The Wikipedia article alone has some rather compelling reasons why return to the Gold Standard is a bad idea.
Heaven knows, if you want accurate information on something wikipedia is the place to go.
He keeps saying he's for free trade, but whenever a vote comes up he votes protectionist.
See, I don't think you even understand what protectionism is, and I think you suffer from a belief that any vote against neo-mercantilism is somehow protectionist in and of itself. It's not like there are a plethroa of bills going through the congress to remove trade restrictions.
States rights is a familiar dodge for people who rooted for the South in the Civil war but don't want to give the appearance of being pro-slavery. In here it appears to be a way to dodge for uncomfortable social issues that, while probably correct in the long term, are politically unpopular today.
You once again display your ignorance. I'm sure some people are so simple-minded and historically that painting them with the "pro-slavery" brush for being in support of states rights will fly, but not with anyone who has ever bothered to get a decent education on the issue.
States rights were also being employed to defend slaves from the reprehensible fugitive slave acts, as well as federal government encroachments on state liberty in regards to trade, conscription and other issues in the pre-civil-war era. Being in favor of recognizing the state sovereignty outlined in the 10th amendment and their right to tell the federal government to pound sand is not inherently racist any more than being in favor of centralized governme
If you watched the debates you've already heard him answer that question. When asked he has repeatedly stated that he would have to work with congress to accomplish his goals, that the president doesn't have unilateral power to do whatever he wants. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of some Libertarians, but they're certainly not the only ones. Heh, we need look no further than the one currently seated on the "throne" to see that.
And lets not forget his comment 8 years ago during his campaign where he said: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."
But of course, that gets a pass - because...?
Yes, by all means put your eggs in the basket with a hole in the bottom instead.
For those of you asleep at the wheel, the PATRIOT act was re-authorized in March of 2006, at which time Obama voted for it.
No, his answer was that he doesn't have a straight answer regarding his policy to give, and this is clearly because it hasn't been a major focus of his time in office. He hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about it, and wasn't going to make something up. Instead he clearly stated where he was at on this issue, and gave a few statements regarding the perspective from which he would approach the problem.
No, but apparently your english comprehension could use a little work.
His point is that he has clearly stated his position on issues, and those issues are a central aspect of his platform. He is pointing out that not only does he give direct answers, but his words are backed up by actions that are consistent with what he says - further reinforcing that he is committed to honest answers. He doesn't say one thing and do another.
He admitted he doesn't know, what more do you want? When he couldn't give you an actual policy he instead gave you the guiding philosophy that would shape that policy to try to answer the question anyway.
The man is trying to run a presidential campaign, and during this period he has been trying to prepare for the Super Tuesday elections. That doesn't leave a lot of time for answering questions. Especially for a candidate who is not bashful about his views, and whose views are based on a clearly stated philosophy and closely held principles.
Even if you don't agree with all of them, at least you know where he stands, or can quickly find out with a little research. That's more than I can say for Mitt "what-did-the-focus-group-say" Romney and his ilk.
Just because you don't understand it, and clearly have made no effort to understand it, doesn't mean it is crazy.
Ok, I'll bite.
First, the NAFTA superhighway does not need scare quotes. I know everyone wants to pretend it doesn't exist because it's not happening in their backyard but I guarantee you that it is quite real. Those of us in Texas are on the front lines trying to prevent thousands of acres of private land from being seized by the government for this project. The people standing to lose homes that have been in their families for generations would have a lot to say to you about your attitude towards this issue. The NAU is not a conspiracy theory anymore than the European Union is. If you think there aren't people who think this is a good idea you're not paying attention.
As for NAFTA, it was not free trade. It's what they called it. Much like the PATRIOT act, and other similar legislation the actual work it did had nothing whatsoever to do with its title. NAFTA was a Mercantilist measure. Further, nobody - including Ron - said that what Ron wanted was what we had in relation to those countries pre-NAFTA. What Ron is after is something greater. Actual, true, free trade with everyone. Free trade defined as openly allowing the trade of goods and services without preference.
Honestly, I'm not that surprised by 4 and 5, and I think you hit the nail right on the head. The reality is that we can't all be experts at everything. Ron knows more about monetary policy than most anyone here. That's not because of ability, but just because of focus. I've followed Ron's political career for over ten years now, and this is just not an area he has ever spent any time on. My guess is that he really has no idea just how broken our patent and copyright system is. Given some time to study it I have no doubts that he would act consistently with the rest of his philosophy and want to see it fixed.
If that's the case then the OP is laboring under a false understanding of "national security". National Security does not necessarily or always == keeping secrets.
A consistent libertarian says "Don't make me wear a helmet. If I crash, it's my responsibility, and it's OK for you to leave me dying in the street." The problem is that we as a body politic are simply unprepared to leave people dying in the street, for several reasons. 1) it's ugly and stinky, not to mention unsanitary; 2) our humanity just doesn't allow us to see that level of suffering and ignore it; 3) it scares people and causes them not to ride, depressing economic output. The result is that if the motorcycle rider is uninsured we treat him at public expense -- and, if he rides without a helmet and is honest about it, he won't be able to get insurance. Therefore his riding affects all of us by costing us money.
You should spend more time understanding libertarianism before you start speaking for "Consistent libertarians". You are quite obviously still putting the libertarian solution inside of your collectivist worldview and thinking it doesn't work. If you are going to fairly evaluate the argument you have to evaluate it from inside the libertarian framework.
Yes, But she wasn't a libertarian, so this whole thread is kinda off-topic. She was unequivocal about that herself, publicly and emphatically denying libertarianism. She was an objectivist. So don't feel bad if you hate the book. :-)
When I go looking for a *nix systems admin these days, I go through hundreds of applications, and dozens of interviews. Why? Because most of them aren't worth their salt. They've got nothing to offer. They think they're a Sr Admin because they installed redhat once at a former company, and popped in a few "do everything for you" apps and it worked. Our industry is in a sad state.
But I love your snarky comments. They r0x0rAlso, just FYI, I was pointing out that the argument that everyone has to build from source has no merit - that was my point.
I can understand why. When selling your product amounts to slandering the competition, people with more zeal than sense are your best friend.
Again, it's the difference between a pre-manufactured desk and a screwdriver, and a pile of wood and a set of power tools. The first is easier, and if all you want is a stock desk and that meets your needs bully for you. But don't look at my finished custom desk that meets every one of my needs that I built by hand with the tools made available and my own skills and equate it with your Sauder desk. Yes, mine took longer to make, but it does what I want.
I don't shy away from a process simply because of complexity, but needless complexity is just a waste of my time. I have a lot more things to do than I will ever have time for, and most sys admins for SMB's would agree (not that large company admins don't, but they tend to have a lot more resources availablle to them.) Heh. No, not really. Maybe in a university they have more resources. In large companies we still scramble for them. Which is why I want my monitoring tool to be able to do more than these johnny-come-lately systems can. They're more than welcome in the space, but don't try to tell me my monitoring system sucks because it's not as easy to use as the one that can't do what I need. I'm busy too. I likewise have more on my plate than I can possibly ever accomplish. Which is why I spend the time to do monitoring right the first time. Typical sysadmin fashion. You spend more time up front, to spend less time later. Thanks to the way mine is configured it can make decisions about initial corrective actions and take them without paging me. It can handle doing basic initial troubleshooting and determining if it's a problem worth paging about in a given time period. If it is, it can send me data that I need to save me time doing that troubleshooting myself. It can determine whether the failure of a single piece of a system represents a failure of the whole, and evaluate whether alerting is necessary.It presents an upper management friendly network map (not the tactical view) with real status information. It's tied into systems in other departments so that when they do maintenance (particularly database maintenance) it automatically handles maintenance changes and the requisite application changes. When cold standby failures happen, it handles failing over, verifying the failover, and alerting me appropriately. Most days it's more effective than a team of NOC monkeys at keeping things going when I want to sleep. Once again, use Hyperic if you want people. Just don't think slandering Nagios makes it a better product.
I understand, and that's how I read you. However, for the benefit of the larger discussion going on it was a good opportunity to point out the political reality many (most?) admins have to deal with that so often gets neglected in the slick presentations by these companies.