Maybe because PowerShell treats everything as a.NET object, so you get all the power of using.NET methods against that data, whereas bash treats everything through the pipeline as text, and so of course they are quite different.
For tail, you go get-content -path -tail . Not an equivalent for head though. select-string is basically grep, with support for regex and all.
There is basically no lock-in to any virtualisation platform these days. They all use essentially open virtual hard disk formats and it's trivial to convert from one to the other. But you end up locked in anyway, as all your scripting & management is targeted at whatever platform you choose - be it KVM/vSphere/Hyper-V. So choose the one that makes managing it easiest for you. If you like bash, choose KVM. If you like PowerShell, choose Hyper-V or vSphere.
Somehow it doesn't seem to be a problem for all those iPad users. And have you ever seen anyone using a touch screen device? They don't sit there with their arms out in front of them, like the original "Gorilla Arm" complaints.
If you're getting muscle strain touching the computer screen, go to the gym. For heavens sake, it's not like you're being asked to lift a sack of potatoes or shovel coal. You're touching an incredibly smooth surface with very little muscle force or tension.
They're not making money off open-source software. They're making money off closed source software, by using open-source to decimate the market. Their strategy is to scorch the earth of mobile providers (like they did with RSS sync tools) with an open source phone OS and continue to make money from their closed source search product.
Late reply, but I'm guessing that if you're considering a Hyper-V solution, you're probably in the Windows ecosystem and will likely have a Windows administrative workstation somewhere...
You can manage Hyper-V using the MMC tools from a remote workstation, you don't necessarily need VMM, although at a certain scale it becomes desirable - at which point you incur cost. Although you could use another wrapper over the top - like OpenStack for instance.
Your claim was: " In order to run any guest under HyperV, you still have to have a host machine running HyperV. Guess how you get that? That's right, by buying Windows."
That has been demonstrated by me & the other poster to be 100% false. To get a host machine running Hyper-V, you don't have to buy Windows - you can download the 100% free Hyper-V server. Saying that because you need to have an admin workstation is moving the goalposts. It is correct to say that you will need to have a Windows management station (Windows 8 will do) but your claim was that to run a Hyper-V host you need to buy Windows, and your claim is wrong.
Read again. Hyper-V Server is 100% free - you do not have to buy Windows to get it, you download the ISO from the Microsoft site, and install it. It's fully functional (HA,live migration, live storage migration etc etc). If you wanted to run a whole bunch of Linux VM's on it then you could do that without paying microsoft a cent.
They both can, your 100K employee global firm is simply wrong. WP7 & 8 both support remote wipe. They don't have much other management, but they do support remote wipe.
Actually if you bother to read the article it looks like they had a reasonably good process going on behind the scenes i.e. cert owners got alerted & pushed the new cert in an update. The only problem was that they forgot to mark it as containing critical information (well, and their monitoring tools didn't alert them say a week out to say that the certs hadn't been renewed). So there is definitely room to improve the process, but saying that there is not a whole lot of good process is drawing a long bow.
Take a look at SMB3 (released with Windows 8/Windows Server 2012) and I believe with experimental support in Samba 4(?). Massive improvements in speed, bandwidth utilisation and overall chattiness. It's quite a different beast.
It's slightly faster than Win7, still runs all my apps, and has much better battery life. Those things alone are enough to get me to move to it, although I've been using it since beta. I'm basically using it like Win7 with a different Start Menu. I don't find it "jarring", and the fact that it's customisable to let me move all my most frequently used things close means it's actually better than the old start menu anyway. For my really frequently used stuff I pin them to the taskbar anyway, just like I used to do in Win7. And for the most part I use the Windows key on my keyboard because it's more efficient than moving my hand to the mouse. I tend not to use too many "metro" apps usually because I have a desktop app (i.e. I use Outlook instead of the Mail app, FoxIt reader instead of the reader app). If a metro app happens to be the default I'll use that unless it doesn't do what I want. One metro app I really like is the video app, mainly because it has DLNA support in it which lets me stream video directly to my TV.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Hyper-V got live migration 2 years ago (that's in 2009 when Windows Server 2008 R2 released). Clustering Hyper-V is available for free with Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 (the absolutely 100% free hypervisor that supports things like live migration & dynamic memory). And as for market share - all the reputable analyst numbers show that Hyper-V is second to VMware, Xen is third & KVM doesn't feature.
So the original poster is correct - they didn't do their analysis properly. If they'd planned properly they would have figured out that they could get maximum benefit by doing the migration properly. Of course, if they'd done their analysis they would have realised that their problems weren't to do with windows, rather to do with how their infrastructure was operated and managed.
The way they do filtering with NuFW is interesting - it can authorize outgoing connections based on the _application_ that is trying to create the connection, by calling back to a PAM module on the client machine. And there are rulesets depending on the logged in user group. Beats forcing everyone to use proxies.
Microsoft's ISA/TMG/Proxy has been able to do this since version 1...
You are confusing designed by default with default behaviour. They are two different things. Default behaviour in the Win2k/XP timeframe was poor - Vista & Win7 change this.
I also suggest that you read the Windows 7 logo program requirements: http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9668061. One of the guidelines is around proper behaviour with UAC, and another is around programs putting data in the right place.
You know, bitching about self signed certs is actually a Good Thing. I'd rather my device/client told me that a cert is only self signed, then that gives me an indication of the level of trust (a self signed certificate just says "i'm ok, trust me").
Only a short comment - calling iTunes "great desktop software" might be considered delusional in some places:). iTunes is fairly average at best, it's media management is pretty poor, and it's library functionality is pretty bad. MediaMonkey is a far far better piece of software for managing your media.
Interesting. a) it is an open standard b) there can be no conforming implementation because the standard has not been finalised. You can bitch about this once the standard has been released, but until then there is no way to conform c) by the same token we should also reject ODF, since the specification is both vague and incomplete (formulas anyone?)
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe because PowerShell treats everything as a .NET object, so you get all the power of using .NET methods against that data, whereas bash treats everything through the pipeline as text, and so of course they are quite different.
For tail, you go get-content -path -tail . Not an equivalent for head though. select-string is basically grep, with support for regex and all.
There is basically no lock-in to any virtualisation platform these days. They all use essentially open virtual hard disk formats and it's trivial to convert from one to the other. But you end up locked in anyway, as all your scripting & management is targeted at whatever platform you choose - be it KVM/vSphere/Hyper-V. So choose the one that makes managing it easiest for you. If you like bash, choose KVM. If you like PowerShell, choose Hyper-V or vSphere.
If you are so fat and lazy that moving your arm 24 inches occassionally is causing you strain, then using a touch screen is the least of your worries.
Somehow it doesn't seem to be a problem for all those iPad users. And have you ever seen anyone using a touch screen device? They don't sit there with their arms out in front of them, like the original "Gorilla Arm" complaints.
If you're getting muscle strain touching the computer screen, go to the gym. For heavens sake, it's not like you're being asked to lift a sack of potatoes or shovel coal. You're touching an incredibly smooth surface with very little muscle force or tension.
They're not making money off open-source software. They're making money off closed source software, by using open-source to decimate the market. Their strategy is to scorch the earth of mobile providers (like they did with RSS sync tools) with an open source phone OS and continue to make money from their closed source search product.
Late reply, but I'm guessing that if you're considering a Hyper-V solution, you're probably in the Windows ecosystem and will likely have a Windows administrative workstation somewhere...
You can manage Hyper-V using the MMC tools from a remote workstation, you don't necessarily need VMM, although at a certain scale it becomes desirable - at which point you incur cost. Although you could use another wrapper over the top - like OpenStack for instance.
Your claim was: " In order to run any guest under HyperV, you still have to have a host machine running HyperV. Guess how you get that? That's right, by buying Windows."
That has been demonstrated by me & the other poster to be 100% false. To get a host machine running Hyper-V, you don't have to buy Windows - you can download the 100% free Hyper-V server. Saying that because you need to have an admin workstation is moving the goalposts. It is correct to say that you will need to have a Windows management station (Windows 8 will do) but your claim was that to run a Hyper-V host you need to buy Windows, and your claim is wrong.
Read again. Hyper-V Server is 100% free - you do not have to buy Windows to get it, you download the ISO from the Microsoft site, and install it. It's fully functional (HA,live migration, live storage migration etc etc). If you wanted to run a whole bunch of Linux VM's on it then you could do that without paying microsoft a cent.
http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/server-cloud/hyper-v-server/default.aspx
It syncs with Exchange - why would you want to sync it with a client side app?
And WP has had cut & paste for a while now...
They both can, your 100K employee global firm is simply wrong. WP7 & 8 both support remote wipe. They don't have much other management, but they do support remote wipe.
Actually if you bother to read the article it looks like they had a reasonably good process going on behind the scenes i.e. cert owners got alerted & pushed the new cert in an update. The only problem was that they forgot to mark it as containing critical information (well, and their monitoring tools didn't alert them say a week out to say that the certs hadn't been renewed). So there is definitely room to improve the process, but saying that there is not a whole lot of good process is drawing a long bow.
Take a look at SMB3 (released with Windows 8/Windows Server 2012) and I believe with experimental support in Samba 4(?). Massive improvements in speed, bandwidth utilisation and overall chattiness. It's quite a different beast.
Outlook has it (and Outlook Web Access) since 2010 or so.
It's slightly faster than Win7, still runs all my apps, and has much better battery life. Those things alone are enough to get me to move to it, although I've been using it since beta. I'm basically using it like Win7 with a different Start Menu. I don't find it "jarring", and the fact that it's customisable to let me move all my most frequently used things close means it's actually better than the old start menu anyway. For my really frequently used stuff I pin them to the taskbar anyway, just like I used to do in Win7. And for the most part I use the Windows key on my keyboard because it's more efficient than moving my hand to the mouse.
I tend not to use too many "metro" apps usually because I have a desktop app (i.e. I use Outlook instead of the Mail app, FoxIt reader instead of the reader app). If a metro app happens to be the default I'll use that unless it doesn't do what I want. One metro app I really like is the video app, mainly because it has DLNA support in it which lets me stream video directly to my TV.
RedHat don't make much money from selling GPL code, they make money from consulting & support. And it's hard work for them.
Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Hyper-V got live migration 2 years ago (that's in 2009 when Windows Server 2008 R2 released). Clustering Hyper-V is available for free with Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 (the absolutely 100% free hypervisor that supports things like live migration & dynamic memory). And as for market share - all the reputable analyst numbers show that Hyper-V is second to VMware, Xen is third & KVM doesn't feature.
SHIFT+F10 will give you access to a command prompt during setup, which you can then use to vew status messages and parameters and stuff...
But surely a 3MB patch is still less than the entire browser download - so therefore less bandwidth?
So the original poster is correct - they didn't do their analysis properly. If they'd planned properly they would have figured out that they could get maximum benefit by doing the migration properly. Of course, if they'd done their analysis they would have realised that their problems weren't to do with windows, rather to do with how their infrastructure was operated and managed.
The way they do filtering with NuFW is interesting - it can authorize outgoing connections based on the _application_ that is trying to create the connection, by calling back to a PAM module on the client machine. And there are rulesets depending on the logged in user group. Beats forcing everyone to use proxies.
Microsoft's ISA/TMG/Proxy has been able to do this since version 1...
You are confusing designed by default with default behaviour. They are two different things. Default behaviour in the Win2k/XP timeframe was poor - Vista & Win7 change this.
I also suggest that you read the Windows 7 logo program requirements: http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9668061. One of the guidelines is around proper behaviour with UAC, and another is around programs putting data in the right place.
You know, bitching about self signed certs is actually a Good Thing. I'd rather my device/client told me that a cert is only self signed, then that gives me an indication of the level of trust (a self signed certificate just says "i'm ok, trust me").
Only a short comment - calling iTunes "great desktop software" might be considered delusional in some places :). iTunes is fairly average at best, it's media management is pretty poor, and it's library functionality is pretty bad. MediaMonkey is a far far better piece of software for managing your media.
Interesting.
a) it is an open standard
b) there can be no conforming implementation because the standard has not been finalised. You can bitch about this once the standard has been released, but until then there is no way to conform
c) by the same token we should also reject ODF, since the specification is both vague and incomplete (formulas anyone?)