yep, the ones of us who realise that advertising is what keeps many sites free. Registration is bad enough to keep me away from most sites that require it, imagine how useless the web would become if you had to subscribe instead.
Download the 'media pack' that tells prospective advertisers all about the site and how many people will see the adverts.
If you take WHT, they say $20 CPM for a basic ad, with 8 million impressions I make that about $160k. If doing your own adverts is too hard, get a 3rd party to deliver adverts for you, adjuggler or adsense or someone.
so, first get paid per impression, *then* get a slashdotting....:)
If you havn't, make sure you get the unedited DVD version, not the crappy 15-cert one they very badly hacked.
(eg. at the end, a werewolf attacks with a sword sticking through him.. they cut the scene where the sword was implanted. That and a few others really made the cut version terrible to watch)
No, I run a Linux webserver so I know first hand what could go wrong.
The list of things to uninstall, protect, and configure is quite long for a new server. Not only that, once installed there are a lot of patches that are required. All of these things apply to remote systems.
Sure, people can say 'but theyre vulnerabilities in Apache, or PHP or xyz', but the same people don't make the same distinction between 'Windows' vulnerabilities and 'IIS' ones.
At the end of the day, I have to protect my servers from remote exploits and if just 1 gets through its very bad news for me.
Windows machines are the only things that require you to have the machines patched quickly otherwise they die/turn into zombies
Unlike Linux machines that need regular patching to prevent them being rooted? There's no difference between any OS when it comes to a security hole, you patch it or you run the risk of being hacked.
For your driving analogy - if a manufacturer issued a recall, they are warning you about a problem. They can then turn round and say 'we told you not to use the brakes', but the driver obviously knows better and went ahead anyway. If I told you not to get in a car because its brakes weren't working, and you did anyway, would it be my fault?
They should put the computers in the middle of the library, with big screens you can't hide with your body, so every passer-by can see what you're viewing. That'll stop all abuses of the system.
Maybe you could even display on a projector the current screen and a webcam view of that user, and randomly rotate through all computers. That might ensure the computers are used for legitimate research purposes:)
erm, if you think about it, uncontrolled immigration is *exactly* what killed the Roman Empire. Its just that these immigrants brought their own weapons with them and insisted on using them...
In this case, its not about doctor salaries, but administrative staff. So, say ten dollars per hour.
No, its not an argument against you, those same admin staff will take a bit more than 10 hours to train - you're talking an entire week, with a trainer.... so MS Office is still far more attractive, not only in terms of cost to the organisation, but also to the staff who get to put 'I know Word' on their CVs when they look for another job.
Yep, I've got it wrong way round. I'm sure I read a long while ago that originally it was designed for 'everything else', but I must have it confused with the state of the.com domain as it stands today.
Yep,.com actually means 'common', not commercial. If you wanted a company address, you'd use.co.us instead. (just like all other outside-the-usa companies do, eg..co.uk for a uk company.)
Its just that people *think*.com means a USA company because everyone uses it for that.
God, so right! At one company I used to work for, they moved from cc:mail to Lotus Notes as the email application, simply because the admin hated MS.
Meanwhile, we all wanted an email app that worked and was easy to use (this was in the days before thunderbird, and OSS in general) and we had to use Notes. pathetic.
Not really. Tuning the kernel is fine, but really doesn't give you much (IMHO) compared to tuning the applications you're using.
eg. If you're running a database server, what can you do to improve its performance (maybe buy MySQL Performance tuning), if you're running a web server what can you do (erm, buy Apache performance tuning), and err.. if you're running a file server.. then. erm.. I'll get my coat.
Surely it gives you enough information to understand how to tune each of the types of server. That's surely what you want, not a 'how-to tune a database server running mysql on the 2.6 kernel with the ReiserFS filesystem'
Again, it'll also be distro independant, Red Hat is just the same as Suse as Debian when you're discussing the merits of one filesystem over another.
Usually its not the 'approved browsers' issue that's the problem, but the fact that you need a single platform to write for.
So your idea is good, but instead of downloading firefox, download a custom app with the gecko engine in it (after all, it'll be there to run your app, not surf the web) and then you have a web application that looks and feels like a desktop app, but with only the hassle of downloading a 'launcher' app.
d'oh. yes sorry - in the case I was thinking of, it was the current version of IE, and when the new one broke, the app was fixed to handle the new cases. But always, targetting a known platform. always.
I know many people here won;t like to hear it, but the answer is to use IE only. So many companies have your problems that, in the end, they said "sod it, as long as it works on IE, it'll be fine".
You can blame MS as much as you like for any shortcomings in standards (though much of it lies at the door of Netscape in the first place - MS had to break standards to compete with the broken bits in netscape IIRC) but it doesn;t matter 1 fig - in the world of business my manager doesn't care or know the difference between IE and and other browser, he just wants results. Same with so many other managers, and the net effect of this - IE only policies.
That way, your apps work on the majority of desktops, especially those that your company will be using.
Now, if Ajax really is the new 'single target' to write for, then the world of webapps might well have finally matured. Bring it on!
1. When I say Linux, I think LAMP. That's where I use it, I don't use it on the desktop regardless of whether it it suitable or not (I dont care for the religion), or in embedded form either. I suppose, when I say 'Windows', I also mean all the apps that run there that I use too, including things like IIS and Outlook.
2. I don't think the Lab is there to discredit Linux, (there is too much cynicism around these days), I think that is it a true attempt to find out how Linux works - so Windows can interoperate better - to MSs advantage in migrated/ing organisations. They can say to organisations that are migrating, "you can keep some of those windows workstations, pretty please". And once a few are kept, any potential mass migration to Linux turns into a 'incremental migration', keeping as many windows boxes as possible before the corporate incentive loses interest.
So, anyway, whilst PHP isn't directly Linux, it is part of the whole "Linux experience", along with Apache and Sendmail et al. I doubt they'll ignore this most poplar part of 'Linux' because its not part of the kernel.
My point was, MS embraces and extends a lot of stuff, and I know they want as big a piece of the web application market as they can get (not only to sell more windows OSes to run them on). So, as PHP is very popular on the internet, I would think that they'd be interested in providing a migration path for Linux developers to bring their code to the Windows platform.
Isn't that what the original question was - what are the guys in the Linux lab doing when they look at Linux? they ain't playing games after all!
That made me think - is there any plans to make PHP a full member of the.NET environment?
I'm thinking where MS provides a PHP language for the.NET compiler so you can write windows apps in PHP, or take your existing PHP code and compile it to run on IIS and against SQL Server instead of MySQL.
I guess the same could be asked for Perl, but I think PHP is far more fashionable for web apps today.
Slashdot Mirror
yep, the ones of us who realise that advertising is what keeps many sites free. Registration is bad enough to keep me away from most sites that require it, imagine how useless the web would become if you had to subscribe instead.
Yep, adsense is not the answer for their site.
h tml?site=webhostingtalk
:)
They need something like this: http://www.inetinteractive.com/advertising/index.
Download the 'media pack' that tells prospective advertisers all about the site and how many people will see the adverts.
If you take WHT, they say $20 CPM for a basic ad, with 8 million impressions I make that about $160k. If doing your own adverts is too hard, get a 3rd party to deliver adverts for you, adjuggler or adsense or someone.
so, first get paid per impression, *then* get a slashdotting....
If you havn't, make sure you get the unedited DVD version, not the crappy 15-cert one they very badly hacked.
(eg. at the end, a werewolf attacks with a sword sticking through him.. they cut the scene where the sword was implanted. That and a few others really made the cut version terrible to watch)
a victim of /. and no posts about it! Got to be a first of some sort :)
No, I run a Linux webserver so I know first hand what could go wrong.
The list of things to uninstall, protect, and configure is quite long for a new server. Not only that, once installed there are a lot of patches that are required. All of these things apply to remote systems.
Sure, people can say 'but theyre vulnerabilities in Apache, or PHP or xyz', but the same people don't make the same distinction between 'Windows' vulnerabilities and 'IIS' ones.
At the end of the day, I have to protect my servers from remote exploits and if just 1 gets through its very bad news for me.
Windows machines are the only things that require you to have the machines patched quickly otherwise they die/turn into zombies
Unlike Linux machines that need regular patching to prevent them being rooted? There's no difference between any OS when it comes to a security hole, you patch it or you run the risk of being hacked.
For your driving analogy - if a manufacturer issued a recall, they are warning you about a problem. They can then turn round and say 'we told you not to use the brakes', but the driver obviously knows better and went ahead anyway. If I told you not to get in a car because its brakes weren't working, and you did anyway, would it be my fault?
They should put the computers in the middle of the library, with big screens you can't hide with your body, so every passer-by can see what you're viewing. That'll stop all abuses of the system.
:)
Maybe you could even display on a projector the current screen and a webcam view of that user, and randomly rotate through all computers. That might ensure the computers are used for legitimate research purposes
erm, if you think about it, uncontrolled immigration is *exactly* what killed the Roman Empire. Its just that these immigrants brought their own weapons with them and insisted on using them...
However, what about the bit at the end - "were moving our incident management system to Linux". Does anyone know which system that is?
In this case, its not about doctor salaries, but administrative staff. So, say ten dollars per hour.
No, its not an argument against you, those same admin staff will take a bit more than 10 hours to train - you're talking an entire week, with a trainer.... so MS Office is still far more attractive, not only in terms of cost to the organisation, but also to the staff who get to put 'I know Word' on their CVs when they look for another job.
Yep, I've got it wrong way round. I'm sure I read a long while ago that originally it was designed for 'everything else', but I must have it confused with the state of the .com domain as it stands today.
Yep, .com actually means 'common', not commercial. If you wanted a company address, you'd use .co.us instead. (just like all other outside-the-usa companies do, eg. .co.uk for a uk company.)
.com means a USA company because everyone uses it for that.
Its just that people *think*
Web based... who in their right mind would use a web app for retail sales?
Everyone who has an online, ecommerce shop?
God, so right! At one company I used to work for, they moved from cc:mail to Lotus Notes as the email application, simply because the admin hated MS.
Meanwhile, we all wanted an email app that worked and was easy to use (this was in the days before thunderbird, and OSS in general) and we had to use Notes. pathetic.
Not really. Tuning the kernel is fine, but really doesn't give you much (IMHO) compared to tuning the applications you're using.
eg. If you're running a database server, what can you do to improve its performance (maybe buy MySQL Performance tuning), if you're running a web server what can you do (erm, buy Apache performance tuning), and err.. if you're running a file server.. then. erm.. I'll get my coat.
Surely it gives you enough information to understand how to tune each of the types of server. That's surely what you want, not a 'how-to tune a database server running mysql on the 2.6 kernel with the ReiserFS filesystem'
Again, it'll also be distro independant, Red Hat is just the same as Suse as Debian when you're discussing the merits of one filesystem over another.
Usually its not the 'approved browsers' issue that's the problem, but the fact that you need a single platform to write for.
So your idea is good, but instead of downloading firefox, download a custom app with the gecko engine in it (after all, it'll be there to run your app, not surf the web) and then you have a web application that looks and feels like a desktop app, but with only the hassle of downloading a 'launcher' app.
d'oh. yes sorry - in the case I was thinking of, it was the current version of IE, and when the new one broke, the app was fixed to handle the new cases. But always, targetting a known platform. always.
Why look at the upside, when the glass-half-empty is so much more fun?
:)
http://www.despair.com/pessimistmug.html
I know many people here won;t like to hear it, but the answer is to use IE only. So many companies have your problems that, in the end, they said "sod it, as long as it works on IE, it'll be fine".
You can blame MS as much as you like for any shortcomings in standards (though much of it lies at the door of Netscape in the first place - MS had to break standards to compete with the broken bits in netscape IIRC) but it doesn;t matter 1 fig - in the world of business my manager doesn't care or know the difference between IE and and other browser, he just wants results. Same with so many other managers, and the net effect of this - IE only policies.
That way, your apps work on the majority of desktops, especially those that your company will be using.
Now, if Ajax really is the new 'single target' to write for, then the world of webapps might well have finally matured. Bring it on!
Fair enough points, but I'll 'disagree' here:
1. When I say Linux, I think LAMP. That's where I use it, I don't use it on the desktop regardless of whether it it suitable or not (I dont care for the religion), or in embedded form either. I suppose, when I say 'Windows', I also mean all the apps that run there that I use too, including things like IIS and Outlook.
2. I don't think the Lab is there to discredit Linux, (there is too much cynicism around these days), I think that is it a true attempt to find out how Linux works - so Windows can interoperate better - to MSs advantage in migrated/ing organisations.
They can say to organisations that are migrating, "you can keep some of those windows workstations, pretty please". And once a few are kept, any potential mass migration to Linux turns into a 'incremental migration', keeping as many windows boxes as possible before the corporate incentive loses interest.
So, anyway, whilst PHP isn't directly Linux, it is part of the whole "Linux experience", along with Apache and Sendmail et al. I doubt they'll ignore this most poplar part of 'Linux' because its not part of the kernel.
A lot of ISPs cap your bandwidth usage and then charge you for going over the set limit.
This is especially true of budget connections, where you get only 1-2GB/month (which is fine for email and the odd bit of surfing)
My point was, MS embraces and extends a lot of stuff, and I know they want as big a piece of the web application market as they can get (not only to sell more windows OSes to run them on). So, as PHP is very popular on the internet, I would think that they'd be interested in providing a migration path for Linux developers to bring their code to the Windows platform.
Isn't that what the original question was - what are the guys in the Linux lab doing when they look at Linux? they ain't playing games after all!
That made me think - is there any plans to make PHP a full member of the .NET environment?
.NET compiler so you can write windows apps in PHP, or take your existing PHP code and compile it to run on IIS and against SQL Server instead of MySQL.
I'm thinking where MS provides a PHP language for the
I guess the same could be asked for Perl, but I think PHP is far more fashionable for web apps today.
Did anyone else read that and think, 'Microsoft Linux' in the same way as you read 'RedHat Linux' or 'Suse Linux'??