I' not asking for it for free (I work for a large global company and open source is not even approved for anything but pilot work at this point), but 60 or 90 days is better than 30. Where I work, we have many projects going on at one time, with a number of difficulties with interdepartmental coordination of efforts. I may get it installed on a server, and it may sit there for two to three weeks doing absolutely nothing until someone from the client department is available to test it. I have actually had 30 day evals expire while waiting to be tested.
As for point number two...that's crap also. If your software tested out ok, is on the corporate "approved" list, and is at least competitively priced with other similarly capable products, I will contact the vendor for purchase. The last thing I need is to be inundated with spam and pathetic calls from sales people. (Don't call us, we'll call you really works here)
I ordered some servers from Dell with Redhat preinstalled. The servers were great, but I was unimpressed with the installs. I think Dell packed way too much crap on the server. Essentially everything was checked during install, so I had to go through and do a lot of ripping out to get it cleaned up.
The best thing was that all of the driver support was there for the servers and everything worked right the first time.
Bottom line is that I love Dell machines, but I'd rather install the OS myself anyway so that I know exactly how it wass installed, and what went on to the system.
To answer your question honestly, I think it would be tough for you to break into the industry at your age. I think many people would equate your age to mean no experience, regardless of what you actually may have.
I don't think that should stop you from doing it though. I think you should pursue it if your goal is to work in the IT industry. Take an entry level admin position somewhere, then move up from there. I would also suggest college. Certs can be expired over time or upgrade cycles. Your college degree would never require renewal, and many employers demand it.
The up side is that it would put you in a much better position having certs and maybe a degree at a pretty young age as you begin looking for better paying and more challenging positions.
What you do with your career from there is all up to you.
In my opinion, it IS his fault. He is knowingly operating an open relay. Even if he didn't know, it is his responsibility to ensure that machines he runs are in compliance with rules the provider has in place. Ignorance is no excuse.
If I were to do the same with my mail server, I would certainly expect my provider to cut my service.
You don't have to like it, but I would say that it certainly makes it easier to go to work and effectively do your job if you do. That way you can concentrate on the tasks at hand, instead of what caliber handgun you'd like to use to blow your brains out that night.
I mean really....let's face facts. The first PC I bought was between $2500 and $3000, and by today's standards, that PC is only useful for propping my door open, or keeping my car from rolling while I change the oil. Years later, that same amount of cash has bought me the top of the line Dell Latitude laptop, with all of the bells and whistles.
I do however fully understand that not everyone out there makes a great living and can't afford to upgrade every couple years.
So I suppose you have to ask, where do you draw the line between backward compatibility, and keeping those of us with the latest and greatest happy?
My vote would obviously lean more towards the latest technology, and those without the latest would of course lean the other way. So how do we solve this to keep all of us happy?
That's a real question too, because I'm an infrastructure engineer, not a software developer, so I no idea how a developer would go about pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I never have all of the machines running at the same time, so my electric is a good bit less than that. The plus side however is that it cuts down on the heating in the winter.
Actually I only have a couple Windows machines. The majority of my machines run Redhat.
As for my statement, it wasn't about bulk costs, it was about one to one comparison. That Redhat did not offer a "home" user type of thing so that I could pay $5 or $10 per month to get the update functionality, whereas when I buy a Windows license, that is built into it for the life of the OS.
I was merely pointing out that home users should have the same advantages as corporate users, but at a home user price.
I also said that if my company allowed the use of Linux in production, I would most definitely opt for a corporate support option.
I think when I first looked at RHN it was $20 monthly. If I were still at a company that was running linux servers, I would definitely pay that fee. Right now however, the company I work for only allows linux in a pilot environment.
At home though, I have a 10 machine lab, most of which run Redhat on them. But still, if I want to get RHN, that's $240 per year. Like I told Redhat, I can get a Windows license cheaper than that, and that includes free use of the Windows update service. So if I have a two year upgrade cycle, I've paid $440 to Redhat, while paying about $200 to Microsoft. The difference being that if I remember correctly, that $240 annually to Redhat covers up to 10 machines, while the Windows fee only covers one. Still though, it's not like I grant myself a large IT budget for home.
Now that the cost for a home user to sign up has come down, I can definitely see myself using it. It makes updating much easier, and it allows me to do my part in supporting the Linux distribution that I prefer.
On how much longer Yahoo will last now that they have started forecully spoon feeding ads to people that use Yahoo, and now this pay-per-search bullshit.
Did you not read what I said? I said that if I (maybe I should clarify here - I meaning I/you/Any other citizen) disagree with what the government is doing, then they should take it up with the elected officials. That is my point. I didn't say that I will support the elected officials without question. I have many times contacted my elected representatives and told them which direction I think we should go on a particular issue. I will however offer my unconditional support to the American soldiers in any way that I can.
You get paid for killing other human beings.
Someone has to defend the borders. Thankfully we have people who volunteer for that task knowing full well the dangers they face.
If you want to equate the whole of the American armed forces to being guns for hire, then I cannot stop you. I can only tell you that in my extensive experience, that is not the case.
I'm afraid I still must disagree. After all, I do have some experience in this area. I do not have a low IQ, nor was I brainwashed. most of the people I served with didn't have a low IQ either. I volunteered because in my view, a soldier is someone who is doing a job that many simply cannot physically or mentally do, and others refuse to do. I can think of many nations where service in the military teaches you discipline, honor, and respect for others, and I personally am a better person for having served. I'm not saying that there aren't a few bad people that do commit crimes. There are, and they should be punished for it. But to coldly condemn all soldiers because of the acts of few is just as bad.
As for the war against terrorism, again, our men in uniform didn't choose this fight. They have traveled to Afghanistan because they were ordered to carry out a mission. So for that, right ot wrong, the soldier on the ground will have my support for as long as he is deployed there. As a citizen, if I feel that we have wrongly committed men to battle, it is my obligation to tell my elected officials. But that does not mean that I will support the soldier fighting the battle any less.
If it's true, fine. My point is that there are a lot of people who are printing what can't even loosely be defined as truth about this in an attempt to sway others views. My stand is use your own brain to read the truth. Don't swallow someone elses version of it then call the US a bunch of racist, oil war mongering people. Because that's simply not the case.
Actually I would feel the same. Many of them were soldiers just as our people are. If there were some story to be told, I would watch it and potentially gain insight to what the germans felt when we invaded them.
Yes you are correct. At present time, since there is no draft, they do have a choice, as did I.
One thing I would like to mention here is that innocence is not an issue for me, and never was. What is my issue is if you are armed and pose a direct threat to myself or my men, in which case, you will be killed, innocent or not.
Also, your "just following orders" threory here doesn't pan out either. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has a regulation that states that if I am given an unlawful order (such as killing an unarmed civilian), not only am I obligated NOT to follow the order, but it is my duty to report the incident to a superior officer.
Lastly, I am a Linux advocate. Not a Linux zealot. I strongly believe in using the right tool for the right job, even when it means not using Linux or open source software to accomplish the task.
Thankfully I didn't cry in front of the people that I went to see it with. What I felt instead was a sense of awe. The courage and determination those men (Shugart and Gordon)showed in going into what they knew to be near certain death absolutely amazes me. It makes me proud to have served with people such as that. Things like that will forever make the time I served worth it. I only wish more people could see it for what it is, instead of turning into that which it is not, a political battle. For down on the front lines, all it is about is you and your friends getting through it together.
People should instead boycott non US supporting fucks like you. I've met people like you before. That was the one thing that disgusted me about beging a soldier for so long, was knowing that in addition to defending the millions of patriotic and US supporting citizens, I also had to defend pieces of shit like you that are anti-american, that don't do their part in making america the great nation that it is. So for you I have one thing to say. If you think that strongly about it, why don't you find a better country and move there?
BTW, if I were you, I'd get my fucking facts straight before I posted them for the world to read showing what an ill informed moron I am. In other words, better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and to remove all doubt.
Main character? I think not. I saw the movie. The character who seemed to get the most attention to me was SSG Eversmann, the leader of chalk 4, not the soldier you refer to.
First, let me preface this by saying that I was a member of the United States Army for 11 years, and a member of an elite unit within that organization for my last 6. Some of my friends were in this battle.
I saw the movie the day it was released nation wide. I have a few observations about your comments.
The movie does have a few flaws. Big deal. All movies do. The simple fact is that this movie has relatively few, which in my book, is a good thing.
As for all of you bitching about the reason the US was in Somalia. Get over it. This movie wasn't meant to address the political agenda that took the Rangers and Delta operatives into Somalia. It was meant to tell the story of the battle that took the lives of 18 US soldiers and countless Somalian militia and civilians.
In case you people haven't noticed, soldiers don't choose the places they go, the missions they do, or the reasons why they do them. Their job is one simple task. Get it done.
For the rest of you bringing up issues about the potential for racism in a primarily white elite military unit, and the poor judgment of a US soldier with an under age Somali, all I have to say is that again, these things are not within the scope of the movie. Do you really want to sit through a six hour movie so that all of these little before and after details can be brought out? I don't. I guess the only thing I can say to you is read the news. Then you'll hear all of these things.
Bottom line? It was a good movie, some Hollywood license was taken, but overall I liked it.
Slashdot Mirror
I' not asking for it for free (I work for a large global company and open source is not even approved for anything but pilot work at this point), but 60 or 90 days is better than 30. Where I work, we have many projects going on at one time, with a number of difficulties with interdepartmental coordination of efforts. I may get it installed on a server, and it may sit there for two to three weeks doing absolutely nothing until someone from the client department is available to test it. I have actually had 30 day evals expire while waiting to be tested.
As for point number two...that's crap also. If your software tested out ok, is on the corporate "approved" list, and is at least competitively priced with other similarly capable products, I will contact the vendor for purchase. The last thing I need is to be inundated with spam and pathetic calls from sales people. (Don't call us, we'll call you really works here)
That's my .02 cents.
The best thing was that all of the driver support was there for the servers and everything worked right the first time.
Bottom line is that I love Dell machines, but I'd rather install the OS myself anyway so that I know exactly how it wass installed, and what went on to the system.
But that's just me...
I don't think that should stop you from doing it though. I think you should pursue it if your goal is to work in the IT industry. Take an entry level admin position somewhere, then move up from there. I would also suggest college. Certs can be expired over time or upgrade cycles. Your college degree would never require renewal, and many employers demand it.
The up side is that it would put you in a much better position having certs and maybe a degree at a pretty young age as you begin looking for better paying and more challenging positions.
What you do with your career from there is all up to you.
Nuff said...
If I were to do the same with my mail server, I would certainly expect my provider to cut my service.
You don't have to like it, but I would say that it certainly makes it easier to go to work and effectively do your job if you do. That way you can concentrate on the tasks at hand, instead of what caliber handgun you'd like to use to blow your brains out that night.
I do however fully understand that not everyone out there makes a great living and can't afford to upgrade every couple years.
So I suppose you have to ask, where do you draw the line between backward compatibility, and keeping those of us with the latest and greatest happy?
My vote would obviously lean more towards the latest technology, and those without the latest would of course lean the other way. So how do we solve this to keep all of us happy?
That's a real question too, because I'm an infrastructure engineer, not a software developer, so I no idea how a developer would go about pleasing all of the people all of the time.
I never have all of the machines running at the same time, so my electric is a good bit less than that. The plus side however is that it cuts down on the heating in the winter.
As for my statement, it wasn't about bulk costs, it was about one to one comparison. That Redhat did not offer a "home" user type of thing so that I could pay $5 or $10 per month to get the update functionality, whereas when I buy a Windows license, that is built into it for the life of the OS.
I was merely pointing out that home users should have the same advantages as corporate users, but at a home user price.
I also said that if my company allowed the use of Linux in production, I would most definitely opt for a corporate support option.
Just wanted to be clear about that.
I usually buy the box set when it comes out just to do my part to kick in. I think I'll probably sign up for this for the very same reason.
At home though, I have a 10 machine lab, most of which run Redhat on them. But still, if I want to get RHN, that's $240 per year. Like I told Redhat, I can get a Windows license cheaper than that, and that includes free use of the Windows update service. So if I have a two year upgrade cycle, I've paid $440 to Redhat, while paying about $200 to Microsoft. The difference being that if I remember correctly, that $240 annually to Redhat covers up to 10 machines, while the Windows fee only covers one. Still though, it's not like I grant myself a large IT budget for home.
Now that the cost for a home user to sign up has come down, I can definitely see myself using it. It makes updating much easier, and it allows me to do my part in supporting the Linux distribution that I prefer.
I'll take my guess at one more year.
You get paid for killing other human beings.
Someone has to defend the borders. Thankfully we have people who volunteer for that task knowing full well the dangers they face.
If you want to equate the whole of the American armed forces to being guns for hire, then I cannot stop you. I can only tell you that in my extensive experience, that is not the case.
As for the war against terrorism, again, our men in uniform didn't choose this fight. They have traveled to Afghanistan because they were ordered to carry out a mission. So for that, right ot wrong, the soldier on the ground will have my support for as long as he is deployed there. As a citizen, if I feel that we have wrongly committed men to battle, it is my obligation to tell my elected officials. But that does not mean that I will support the soldier fighting the battle any less.
If it's true, fine. My point is that there are a lot of people who are printing what can't even loosely be defined as truth about this in an attempt to sway others views. My stand is use your own brain to read the truth. Don't swallow someone elses version of it then call the US a bunch of racist, oil war mongering people. Because that's simply not the case.
Someone has to do it. Apparently we can't rely on you or on those who share your twisted view of what's right to protect our country and our people.
It makes me sick to think that people like you make blanket judgments on those who protect a nation.
I know who you are talking about. I'm just saying that he didn't seem like the main character to me. That's all.
Actually I would feel the same. Many of them were soldiers just as our people are. If there were some story to be told, I would watch it and potentially gain insight to what the germans felt when we invaded them.
One thing I would like to mention here is that innocence is not an issue for me, and never was. What is my issue is if you are armed and pose a direct threat to myself or my men, in which case, you will be killed, innocent or not.
Also, your "just following orders" threory here doesn't pan out either. The Uniform Code of Military Justice has a regulation that states that if I am given an unlawful order (such as killing an unarmed civilian), not only am I obligated NOT to follow the order, but it is my duty to report the incident to a superior officer.
Lastly, I am a Linux advocate. Not a Linux zealot. I strongly believe in using the right tool for the right job, even when it means not using Linux or open source software to accomplish the task.
Thankfully I didn't cry in front of the people that I went to see it with. What I felt instead was a sense of awe. The courage and determination those men (Shugart and Gordon)showed in going into what they knew to be near certain death absolutely amazes me. It makes me proud to have served with people such as that. Things like that will forever make the time I served worth it. I only wish more people could see it for what it is, instead of turning into that which it is not, a political battle. For down on the front lines, all it is about is you and your friends getting through it together.
BTW, if I were you, I'd get my fucking facts straight before I posted them for the world to read showing what an ill informed moron I am. In other words, better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and to remove all doubt.
Main character? I think not. I saw the movie. The character who seemed to get the most attention to me was SSG Eversmann, the leader of chalk 4, not the soldier you refer to.
I saw the movie the day it was released nation wide. I have a few observations about your comments.
The movie does have a few flaws. Big deal. All movies do. The simple fact is that this movie has relatively few, which in my book, is a good thing.
As for all of you bitching about the reason the US was in Somalia. Get over it. This movie wasn't meant to address the political agenda that took the Rangers and Delta operatives into Somalia. It was meant to tell the story of the battle that took the lives of 18 US soldiers and countless Somalian militia and civilians.
In case you people haven't noticed, soldiers don't choose the places they go, the missions they do, or the reasons why they do them. Their job is one simple task. Get it done.
For the rest of you bringing up issues about the potential for racism in a primarily white elite military unit, and the poor judgment of a US soldier with an under age Somali, all I have to say is that again, these things are not within the scope of the movie. Do you really want to sit through a six hour movie so that all of these little before and after details can be brought out? I don't. I guess the only thing I can say to you is read the news. Then you'll hear all of these things.
Bottom line? It was a good movie, some Hollywood license was taken, but overall I liked it.
You have to employ the use of a wipe utility to completely remove all traces of the file.
In my book, that's the only safe way to do it on any OS, although I only actually use Linux, Windows, and Solaris.
If I did I guess I'd be watching whatever three channels I could get from having an antanae and lots of DVDs.