I've found 2.0 to be a step in the right direction, but for one thing: new tabs take the focus away from your currently-focused tab. This despite NOT checking "When I open a link in a new tab, switch to it immediately." Please, bring back the "open tabs in the background" option.
While WUS will be nice when it comes out, SUS is here now, and it simply works. Sure, it's not very scalable, and if you've got a single SUS server it's an all-or-nothing deployment for target OUs... but seriously, it's free! It's functional! I've only got ~100 desktops to manage, but those desktops running 2000 or XP point to a SUS server for approved patches, and I can't count the number of steps it's saved me in the year it's been in place.
The moral of the story is, if you're NOT running a SUS server in your Windows infrastructure, start planning your deployment now -- you'll be glad you did.
The easy solution to this is to start asking tough questions, like "what's your sample size," and "how do you plan to plan to overcome CMOS errors in a sample this small?" Ok, so it's not a solution, but at least you'll get a laugh when the dumbass on the other end of the line asks what a sample size is.
And I thought I was the only poor bastard who still had to deal with it!
Our current ERP/MRP/business systems is all homegrown UNIBASIC, fed from a UNIDATA DB. As bad as UNIBASIC is, it's ten times worse in this case because it was converted to UNIBASIC from RPL (I think) back in the 80s. The machine translator they used didn't belive in anything resembling descriptive variable names, and as such, your variables in a strictly legacy program are IP(1) through IP(X) where X could be God-knows-how-high.
This doesn't even touch the fact that UNIDATA is nested-relational (multivalues, violating 1NF), so there's no way you're getting ODBC connections without creating a translation table.
Last year, I toured EROS Data Center (a USGS installation in South Dakota) with a bunch of my geek-type friends. The storage capactity in that place was crazy -- we're talking hundreds of TB here. In addition, they were planning on tripling capacity within 4 years, and consolidating all TerraPic storage onsite.
Quite the contrary -- I read/. because, for the most part, it's a great place to find other hard-core geeks. I work in the IT dept. at a medium sized company, and out of the 90 or so of us here, I can only think of 4 people besides myself that I would label "hard-core" -- the rest are moderately skilled and in it for the money.
Well, speaking as one of the previously-mentioned "jack-booted thugs", I have to admit that I'm slightly offended that we're only associated with Microsoft. Actually, my bretheren and I represent a vertitable passel of fine software companies around the world; our only motivation is to preserve corporate dominance, which we believe is the best thing for the plebians of the world. I assure you're, we're an equal-opportunity oppressor.
You're absolutely right. Once the "kind-hearted capitalists" were allowed onto the 'net for commercial concerns, usage exploded. Because there was a monetary benefit in the creation and expansion of infrastructure, the various companies were like flies to flypaper. It was innevitable.
As far as paying for this, well, yes, you're right about that too, though not in the way that you think.
Instead of paying Microsoft, we're forced to put up with their market dominance and crushing of innovation.
Instead of a large access bill, we're forced to put up with banner ads and other outside-supported business models.
And instead of freedom from corporate tyranny, we're forced to deal the the MPAA and RIAA and their distorted views on IP law.
But hey, the tradeoff has been made. It's not about changing what you can't, it's about preventing what you can. That's why I can vote neither Gore nor Bush.
Mr. Hundt is indeed proficient in a "techie" kind of way, but in the Wired interview (especially the last two installments) he glazed over far too many issues to allow my to buy off on his view just yet. I think we all realize by now that Gore didn't actually claim to invent the Internet; Hundt touches on this. What he doesn't seem to realize (and Gore either, for that matter) is that the Internet would have developed without him -- it certainly didn't need his help. As for what Gore's actually done for the 'net community at large... wiring classrooms? Great. Wonderful. But not exactly a "fully completely" tech policy.
As for Bush, well, he stated once and for all last night that he favors filters for Fed-$-receiving institutions, so it goes without saying that his tech policy is likely to be, shall we say, less than savory.
If only either candidate had the balls to clearly elucidate their position on just one issue, this would all be so much easier.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found 2.0 to be a step in the right direction, but for one thing: new tabs take the focus away from your currently-focused tab. This despite NOT checking "When I open a link in a new tab, switch to it immediately." Please, bring back the "open tabs in the background" option.
While WUS will be nice when it comes out, SUS is here now, and it simply works. Sure, it's not very scalable, and if you've got a single SUS server it's an all-or-nothing deployment for target OUs... but seriously, it's free! It's functional! I've only got ~100 desktops to manage, but those desktops running 2000 or XP point to a SUS server for approved patches, and I can't count the number of steps it's saved me in the year it's been in place.
The moral of the story is, if you're NOT running a SUS server in your Windows infrastructure, start planning your deployment now -- you'll be glad you did.
"Latest and greatest"?
;)
Obviously, you've never used Debian.
The easy solution to this is to start asking tough questions, like "what's your sample size," and "how do you plan to plan to overcome CMOS errors in a sample this small?" Ok, so it's not a solution, but at least you'll get a laugh when the dumbass on the other end of the line asks what a sample size is.
And I thought I was the only poor bastard who still had to deal with it!
Our current ERP/MRP/business systems is all homegrown UNIBASIC, fed from a UNIDATA DB. As bad as UNIBASIC is, it's ten times worse in this case because it was converted to UNIBASIC from RPL (I think) back in the 80s. The machine translator they used didn't belive in anything resembling descriptive variable names, and as such, your variables in a strictly legacy program are IP(1) through IP(X) where X could be God-knows-how-high.
This doesn't even touch the fact that UNIDATA is nested-relational (multivalues, violating 1NF), so there's no way you're getting ODBC connections without creating a translation table.
Thank God we're switching to Oracle...
I've found these Procmail rules to judge Hotmail very effective.
:0
:0
>
:0
# Hotmail addresses never start with a number:
:0 H
* ^From:.*\<[0-9][^ ]*@hotmail\.com\>
{
LOG="Hotmail_numstart "
$SPAMDIR
}
# Hotmail addresses never have a host part:
:0 H
* ^From:.*@[^ ]*\.hotmail\.com\>
{
LOG="Hotmail_hostpart "
$SPAMDIR
}
# Hotmail messages have Originating-IP, except mail from abuse/policy.
:0 H
* ^From:.*@hotmail\.com\>
* ! ^From:.*\<(postmaster|abuse|policy)@hotmail\.com\
* ! ^X-Originating-IP: \[[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\.[0-9]+\]
{
LOG="Hotmail_noIP "
$SPAMDIR
}
Another article, more in-depth as to the prereqs for certification:
...to move to VA just to be able to vote for this guy?
Last year, I toured EROS Data Center (a USGS installation in South Dakota) with a bunch of my geek-type friends. The storage capactity in that place was crazy -- we're talking hundreds of TB here. In addition, they were planning on tripling capacity within 4 years, and consolidating all TerraPic storage onsite.
Quite the contrary -- I read /. because, for the most part, it's a great place to find other hard-core geeks. I work in the IT dept. at a medium sized company, and out of the 90 or so of us here, I can only think of 4 people besides myself that I would label "hard-core" -- the rest are moderately skilled and in it for the money.
Sounds like I might be heading down the same road -- the filtering software at the local public library (Pella, IA) filters Slashdot. =)
Well, speaking as one of the previously-mentioned "jack-booted thugs", I have to admit that I'm slightly offended that we're only associated with Microsoft. Actually, my bretheren and I represent a vertitable passel of fine software companies around the world; our only motivation is to preserve corporate dominance, which we believe is the best thing for the plebians of the world.
I assure you're, we're an equal-opportunity oppressor.
You're absolutely right. Once the "kind-hearted capitalists" were allowed onto the 'net for commercial concerns, usage exploded. Because there was a monetary benefit in the creation and expansion of infrastructure, the various companies were like flies to flypaper. It was innevitable.
As far as paying for this, well, yes, you're right about that too, though not in the way that you think.
Instead of paying Microsoft, we're forced to put up with their market dominance and crushing of innovation.
Instead of a large access bill, we're forced to put up with banner ads and other outside-supported business models.
And instead of freedom from corporate tyranny, we're forced to deal the the MPAA and RIAA and their distorted views on IP law.
But hey, the tradeoff has been made. It's not about changing what you can't, it's about preventing what you can. That's why I can vote neither Gore nor Bush.
Mr. Hundt is indeed proficient in a "techie" kind of way, but in the Wired interview (especially the last two installments) he glazed over far too many issues to allow my to buy off on his view just yet. I think we all realize by now that Gore didn't actually claim to invent the Internet; Hundt touches on this. What he doesn't seem to realize (and Gore either, for that matter) is that the Internet would have developed without him -- it certainly didn't need his help. As for what Gore's actually done for the 'net community at large... wiring classrooms? Great. Wonderful. But not exactly a "fully completely" tech policy.
As for Bush, well, he stated once and for all last night that he favors filters for Fed-$-receiving institutions, so it goes without saying that his tech policy is likely to be, shall we say, less than savory.
If only either candidate had the balls to clearly elucidate their position on just one issue, this would all be so much easier.