You seem to be confusing redundancy with performance. I didn't suggest the small read-only servers for redundancy sake, but rather to distribute the load off onto the client network segments.
10bT is inadequante because it's completely unsuitable for a single user much less 30. The problem is throughput down to the client.
The word for the day is PERFORMANCE. The problem with loading apps onto a file server is that PERFORMANCE suffers tremendously.
This is a paradigm that became obsolete in the mid 1990's. It surprises me the number of people who still hold onto it without understanding the tradeoff it presents.
I'm even more amazed at the number of times I've had to go in and fix a performance problem by simply installing the software locally to a harddrive.
Just last month I had to do this. Somebody installed an application that uses 300Megs of disk space onto a file server and setup the client machines to run it from there. Off a 10bT switched LAN this resulted in completely unacceptable performance.
Just because you don't understand an issue is no reason to call it utter nonsense. Instead you should ask questions, maybe you could learn and not repeat the mistakes of those who come before you.
You would automate it, either with Ghost or sysprep or RIS, etc.
"Imagine a Linux network where applications are all stored on central file servers. "
Yes you can do that, but you'll have to upgrade your network to 100baseT to the desktop, switched to gigabit in the closet with each closet having a file/print server that did nothing but provide the read-only executable content to the clients.
I don't need to imagine because we used to do things this way. As the computers became faster, this way of doing things became less and less efficient. Actually it became less efficient about the time Pentium's first came out in '94.
"What would an enterprise level apt-get look like? "
That's the RedHat Network. Their service they charge $20/month per desktop for.
"We, on the other hand, can deploy a desktop that will download our diagram program on the fly when someone clicks on the file icon. "
I assume you are speaking of Windows 2000 here, as that is the way it can operate using Windows Installer Services.
While I feel Microsoft's software is substantially better than any solution one could deploy with Linux, I do feel their licensing structures have gotten entirely out of hand in recent years.
Competition on this level will cause Microsoft to revisit their pricing and become more competitive. Essentionally causing the same thing to happen to MS as MS caused to Sun, Novell, Oracle, etc. when they came in and undercut those companies by half or more.
In each and every case you provide an example of a partner who thought they could screw over Microsoft and turned out they weren't as smart as they thought. IBM, Apple, Sun...
Except Intel. Anybody who would sit there and argue that Intel has not had a tremendously successful partnership with Microsoft is smoking crack. They support Linux not in a reaction to Microsoft, but rather to expand their markets.
Your hatred will make you strong... I guess. That's what the Emperor said anyway, right?
Personally what I find far more disturbing is the number of websites which store my credit card number after I complete a transaction... for my convenience.
This has been going on for years. Strangely nobody complains about it. Instead when Microsoft suggests a service which might provide a different alternative to these insecure solutions, a bunch of people start whining.
This anti-everything-MS attitude isn't very well founded in reality or technical knowhow. I find it disappointing and wonder why I should grant any value to such an opinion.
I just find it interesting that you can't comprehend this and immediately assume that anyone saying good things about Microsoft must be in their employ.
If people are allowed to like the Amiga, OS/2 or Linux. Why can't people like Windows?
"who has a well known history of screwing over its own partners."
Care to provide some examples?
The company I work for has partnered with Microsoft last year on their homeadvisor.com website. The section we worked on turned into a failure and the plug was pulled less than a year later, but Microsoft refunded to our company our investment into the site.
I knew someone else back in '94 who started a small company that was partnered with Microsoft and writing utilities for Windows NT. Microsoft helped them startup, paid for an ISDN hookup into their office so they could more easily communicate with Redmond, and then two years later bought out the company and moved them all to Redmond. The guys were more than happy to make that move!
Every company I'm aware of that has partnered with Microsoft has been treated very fairly.
Even Seattle Computing which provided the original MS-DOS was treated very well. While the initial contract was for only a few thousand, they received much more than that over time, and many of the companies employees ended up working at MS and becoming some of their early millionaire programmers.
I guess I'm curious about this well known history.
This seems like a case of "I hate Microsoft, and I'm going to say whatever I can to try to make them look bad, even though I can't really justify it."
If you read/. the people here complain because it's biased against Linux.
If you read the Microsoft biased websites, however, the people there complain because Ziff-Davis is biased against Windows and has too much pro-Linux coverage.
One thing I notice in most magazines, they generally always print glowing reviews. I think this is because of limited space, mostly. They ignore the bad products and focus on good ones because that's what people want to hear about.
I pretty much read the same group of websites I have for the past 3 years. Slashdot, news.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com. Occasionally I bop on over to activewin.com, tomshardware.com.
Now/. has always reposted stuff, some of it interesting. I don't mind that.
But the past year they are signifigantly behind the other news sites I monitor. An important development in the Microsoft case will appear on news.com(actually I subscribed to the courts email list so I know about it before it's posted there, although usually not what the legal gibberish actually means), and it won't show up on slashdot until the next day.
"we pretty much have to take the author's word for it (not that I doubt him). "
Actually, I do doubt him. Can someone point to a trial transcript which claims the license is a Trade Secret?
The DOJ clearly had access to the OEM license agreements as these were brought up in the trial with regards to modifying the OS to remove Internet Explorer.
If this were the case, it would be evidence of exclusionary behavior that coincided with the previous consent decree preventing Microsoft from charging computer makers for DOS whether or not a computer shipped with it.
So there I doubt him.
Although I also agree that the DOJ lawyers were completely inept for bringing this case to trial the way they did. Browser? Oh good grief.
I probably shouldn't be so critical, but. I went through much the same learning process when I was a youngin out of college 8 years back.
Except then, a good 10baseT card(3c509) would set you back about $100 or so and a 8 port hub cost around $300.
So at that time, using 10base2 was actually somewhat excusable. RG58 cable was about the same price as CAT-5, just add a couple of terminators.
Still it was a nightmare, and when we moved offices I said we should pull in CAT-5 and buy a hub.
I guess perhaps the difference is that back in that day of my learning. I knew that I didn't know everything, so I went around asking questions of others. I certainly didn't spout my illinformed opinion off in a column, like this guy did.
Even today, I know the limits of my knowledge and I won't recommend to others that which I am not damn sure about.
One doesn't have to be a savvy computer user to realize Netscape 4.x sucks.
When I start going to websites and they come up looking wrong, or throwing error messages, or whatever. I say "this sucks."
If I start using a different browser and obtain better results, I say "this doesn't suck."
Such has been the case with Netscape versus IE. In the early days of v2 and v3 it was IE that exhibited the "this sucks" problems. That behavior has since reversed, and so has each products marketshare as a result.
From what I've seen of the Netscape -> Mozilla progress it appears it's because Netscapes initial design was pretty poor and it wasn't easily maintainable as it progressed.
Most people simply aren't going to install Netscape simply because it's a piece of shit and has been for about 4 years now. (although NS6 is better it still lags behind IE5.5)
In the 1980's Honda cut into Chevrolet's marketshare pretty hard. They sold cars that were affordable and higher quality than what Chevy had available.
You are essentially arguing that this was somehow unfair to Chevy because customers are not stupid and will not spend more money and buy a piece of junk, so by default they are going to buy a Honda.
While that might be true, I don't see the consumer being harmed, just Chevrolet.
Slashdot Mirror
*Shudder*
One might as well just link to goats.ex.
You seem to be confusing redundancy with performance. I didn't suggest the small read-only servers for redundancy sake, but rather to distribute the load off onto the client network segments.
10bT is inadequante because it's completely unsuitable for a single user much less 30. The problem is throughput down to the client.
The word for the day is PERFORMANCE. The problem with loading apps onto a file server is that PERFORMANCE suffers tremendously.
This is a paradigm that became obsolete in the mid 1990's. It surprises me the number of people who still hold onto it without understanding the tradeoff it presents.
I'm even more amazed at the number of times I've had to go in and fix a performance problem by simply installing the software locally to a harddrive.
Just last month I had to do this. Somebody installed an application that uses 300Megs of disk space onto a file server and setup the client machines to run it from there. Off a 10bT switched LAN this resulted in completely unacceptable performance.
Just because you don't understand an issue is no reason to call it utter nonsense. Instead you should ask questions, maybe you could learn and not repeat the mistakes of those who come before you.
No.
ILOVEYOU showed the coding ills of Microsoft Outlook.
Anybody who didn't go in and fix there systems after ILOVEYOU deserved whatever they got. Sheesh
Any company that was hit by Sircam should immediately fire their IT staff responsible for email.
The company I work for didn't have any problems with Sircam. Never even made it in the door.
I used to work computing support at a University.
A person with a PhD is extremely skilled in one and only one subject.
Everything else, they know less than the average joe off the street.
It's really quite terrifying.
I was trying to think of what company that could be.
:)
Not a huge company like Boeing, as they talk of only 7,000 employees.
The company is growing rapidly.
The company runs evening and night shifts.
The company has point of sale terminals.
The company must not be highly profitable from the description.
The company doesn't seem to have very bright IT people.
Some signs point to Amazon.com, but I can't be sure.
"What if I had to do 700 of these things? "
You would automate it, either with Ghost or sysprep or RIS, etc.
"Imagine a Linux network where applications are all stored on central file servers. "
Yes you can do that, but you'll have to upgrade your network to 100baseT to the desktop, switched to gigabit in the closet with each closet having a file/print server that did nothing but provide the read-only executable content to the clients.
I don't need to imagine because we used to do things this way. As the computers became faster, this way of doing things became less and less efficient. Actually it became less efficient about the time Pentium's first came out in '94.
"What would an enterprise level apt-get look like? "
That's the RedHat Network. Their service they charge $20/month per desktop for.
"We, on the other hand, can deploy a desktop that will download our diagram program on the fly when someone clicks on the file icon. "
I assume you are speaking of Windows 2000 here, as that is the way it can operate using Windows Installer Services.
While I feel Microsoft's software is substantially better than any solution one could deploy with Linux, I do feel their licensing structures have gotten entirely out of hand in recent years.
Competition on this level will cause Microsoft to revisit their pricing and become more competitive. Essentionally causing the same thing to happen to MS as MS caused to Sun, Novell, Oracle, etc. when they came in and undercut those companies by half or more.
In each and every case you provide an example of a partner who thought they could screw over Microsoft and turned out they weren't as smart as they thought. IBM, Apple, Sun...
Except Intel. Anybody who would sit there and argue that Intel has not had a tremendously successful partnership with Microsoft is smoking crack. They support Linux not in a reaction to Microsoft, but rather to expand their markets.
Your hatred will make you strong... I guess. That's what the Emperor said anyway, right?
Personally what I find far more disturbing is the number of websites which store my credit card number after I complete a transaction... for my convenience.
This has been going on for years. Strangely nobody complains about it. Instead when Microsoft suggests a service which might provide a different alternative to these insecure solutions, a bunch of people start whining.
This anti-everything-MS attitude isn't very well founded in reality or technical knowhow. I find it disappointing and wonder why I should grant any value to such an opinion.
I just find it interesting that you can't comprehend this and immediately assume that anyone saying good things about Microsoft must be in their employ.
If people are allowed to like the Amiga, OS/2 or Linux. Why can't people like Windows?
"who has a well known history of screwing over its own partners."
Care to provide some examples?
The company I work for has partnered with Microsoft last year on their homeadvisor.com website. The section we worked on turned into a failure and the plug was pulled less than a year later, but Microsoft refunded to our company our investment into the site.
I knew someone else back in '94 who started a small company that was partnered with Microsoft and writing utilities for Windows NT. Microsoft helped them startup, paid for an ISDN hookup into their office so they could more easily communicate with Redmond, and then two years later bought out the company and moved them all to Redmond. The guys were more than happy to make that move!
Every company I'm aware of that has partnered with Microsoft has been treated very fairly.
Even Seattle Computing which provided the original MS-DOS was treated very well. While the initial contract was for only a few thousand, they received much more than that over time, and many of the companies employees ended up working at MS and becoming some of their early millionaire programmers.
I guess I'm curious about this well known history.
This seems like a case of "I hate Microsoft, and I'm going to say whatever I can to try to make them look bad, even though I can't really justify it."
Why do you care?
"Entrusting your info to someone else is inherently dangerous. "
Do you live in a cave with your money under a mattress?
I'm just wondering how you get by in life without services such as telephone, banking, etc. You must never do any shopping on the internet either.
I must say Ziff-Davis is doing something right.
/. the people here complain because it's biased against Linux.
If you read
If you read the Microsoft biased websites, however, the people there complain because Ziff-Davis is biased against Windows and has too much pro-Linux coverage.
One thing I notice in most magazines, they generally always print glowing reviews. I think this is because of limited space, mostly. They ignore the bad products and focus on good ones because that's what people want to hear about.
I pretty much read the same group of websites I have for the past 3 years. Slashdot, news.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com. Occasionally I bop on over to activewin.com, tomshardware.com.
/. has always reposted stuff, some of it interesting. I don't mind that.
Now
But the past year they are signifigantly behind the other news sites I monitor. An important development in the Microsoft case will appear on news.com(actually I subscribed to the courts email list so I know about it before it's posted there, although usually not what the legal gibberish actually means), and it won't show up on slashdot until the next day.
"I firmly beleive that any company that views software as a product and can't adapt to a service model is living on barrowed time. "
Do you consider a spell checker to be a product or a service?
"we pretty much have to take the author's word for it (not that I doubt him). "
Actually, I do doubt him. Can someone point to a trial transcript which claims the license is a Trade Secret?
The DOJ clearly had access to the OEM license agreements as these were brought up in the trial with regards to modifying the OS to remove Internet Explorer.
If this were the case, it would be evidence of exclusionary behavior that coincided with the previous consent decree preventing Microsoft from charging computer makers for DOS whether or not a computer shipped with it.
So there I doubt him.
Although I also agree that the DOJ lawyers were completely inept for bringing this case to trial the way they did. Browser? Oh good grief.
I probably shouldn't be so critical, but. I went through much the same learning process when I was a youngin out of college 8 years back.
Except then, a good 10baseT card(3c509) would set you back about $100 or so and a 8 port hub cost around $300.
So at that time, using 10base2 was actually somewhat excusable. RG58 cable was about the same price as CAT-5, just add a couple of terminators.
Still it was a nightmare, and when we moved offices I said we should pull in CAT-5 and buy a hub.
I guess perhaps the difference is that back in that day of my learning. I knew that I didn't know everything, so I went around asking questions of others. I certainly didn't spout my illinformed opinion off in a column, like this guy did.
Even today, I know the limits of my knowledge and I won't recommend to others that which I am not damn sure about.
Having perused the article, many of his suggestions like using 10base2 and 386 computers are simply moronic.
He's penny wise and pound foolish.
The author would be a good name to put on a blacklist.. i.e. "Don't ever hire this guy to manage a network."
Are you sure it was the NSA?
Perhaps that's the real purpose behind the SETI@home project?
One doesn't have to be a savvy computer user to realize Netscape 4.x sucks.
When I start going to websites and they come up looking wrong, or throwing error messages, or whatever. I say "this sucks."
If I start using a different browser and obtain better results, I say "this doesn't suck."
Such has been the case with Netscape versus IE. In the early days of v2 and v3 it was IE that exhibited the "this sucks" problems. That behavior has since reversed, and so has each products marketshare as a result.
From what I've seen of the Netscape -> Mozilla progress it appears it's because Netscapes initial design was pretty poor and it wasn't easily maintainable as it progressed.
Perhaps, but Netscape is the one who started giving the browser away for free to consumers.
The first Microsoft browser I encountered was included in the Plus! pack for 95, whereas I always downloaded Netscape.
Oh blather.
Most people simply aren't going to install Netscape simply because it's a piece of shit and has been for about 4 years now. (although NS6 is better it still lags behind IE5.5)
In the 1980's Honda cut into Chevrolet's marketshare pretty hard. They sold cars that were affordable and higher quality than what Chevy had available.
You are essentially arguing that this was somehow unfair to Chevy because customers are not stupid and will not spend more money and buy a piece of junk, so by default they are going to buy a Honda.
While that might be true, I don't see the consumer being harmed, just Chevrolet.
That's like asking where would Visual Studio go.
It's a development tool, and it would go under the OS side of the house.
But it's unlikely there will be another split ruling.
Does mySQL even implement caching of query plans?
I can't find any information to suggest that it does, so maybe this doesn't really matter.