Wrong. The company is paying you for whatever the contract says they are paying you for. No more, no less.
That may not be true where the contract is signed. Some localities do not allow such contractual exclusions. As always, consult an experienced contract attorney before you decide to roll your own contract.
I'm getting married next year, and my fiancée and I, like most couples, are hiring a photographer.
We hired the photographer to take OUR images, when TV news crews do that, they need to have you sign a release to use the footage. Your likeness belongs to you, and no one else.
For $5000 you'd think we own the photos right? WRONG! The negatives are held by the photographer. Each photo has a "Do not duplicate" stamp on the back....nice huh?
I think i'm going to start charging my clients for all the computers and network gear I install, but i'm going to have them sign an agreement saying I own the gear, and they have to pay me to make any alterations to the network or systems! Can you imagine that?
Programming tools, development environments, and languages have gotten easier in the past 10 years. That does not replace good software design. Efficiency and serviceability cannot be added to a bad software project by switching languages or development tools. Only good design principles can make good software.
The Linux kernel, while monolithic, seems to be a great example of this...massively complicated, but easily broken down into parts that all fit well together and can be replaced easily. (And documented well...for the most part).
Even in the Princeton area...which is surprising since everyone here has the "NIMBY" attitude when it comes to cell towers.
I've had them all, Cellular One, Metrophone, Cingular, Omnipoint, Voice Stream, T mobile....and the only one who seems somewhat reliable in this area (and most of the north east) is Verizon.
No, I don't work for them.
-ted
Server roll-outs are SLOWER than desktops...
on
Longhorn Server Scrapped
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I just migrated all of our NT4 servers to windows 2000 advanced server in February, a good TWO years after the introduction of the Windows 2000 server products.
Since then i've had to apply countless service-packs, security patches, fixes....some of which made some servers unbootable. Lots of organizations still run Windows NT 4 server....why?
Two reasons:
1. It suits their needs just fine. 2. They want to wait until service packs and security fixes slow to a trickle before committing lots of time and resources to the upgrade.
Does Microsoft think that adding a new product to the mix will make IT managers less gun-shy about a newly released server OS? Gimme a break.
I won't be moving from windows 2000 server for AT LEAST 3 more years. Even if.Net server was released tomorrow, I wouldn't touch it for about 5 years.
Last time I went to a "sales pitch lunch" for SGI stuff in PA a few years ago, I realized I didn't need to buy SGI equipment to do the low-end stuff our company was doing (3d rendering, multimedia....etc). SGI was catering to the low-end and couldn't compete there. Intel and MS were more cost competitive. Needless to say, we bought nothing from them.
The high-end scientific guys were drooling over the Origin machines....and were willing to fork out for the processing power. This should have been a clue to the SGI product planners. I think they are better reading their markets now and this type of focus may actually save SGI.
Seriously, all computers suck...Mac, Sun, PCs running windows, PCs running Unix....etc. They all eventually break, and they break too often. I'll admit, some do suck less than others, but I won't even think about starting that topic here.
You have given me more information on OS X server than any of the Mac "salespeople" I have to deal with. It's greatly appreciated.
We are mostly a PC shop, but my boss is a Mac nut....it might just be time to convince him to let me buy an OS X server:)
In fact, the AD replication process is actually fairly complex...
You said it! Have you ever configured two bridgehead servers? Ugh, no fun to set up, but it works pretty well once up and running.
I have to admit, the Active Directory replication process is pretty cool. It manages lots of info, does conflict resolution well, and does not need tight time synchronization.
...including the ability to change a clone into a master if the master fails...
Does the failover have to happen manually? I like the idea that if one of my AD-DCs fails, I automatically have another master (since all Active Directory domain controllers have a writeable copy of the Active Directory). Does OS X have the ability to "auto-promote" a slave to a master?
Can Mac OS X and OS X server determine whether or not a user is an administrative or non-privileged user when it authenticates against an Active Directory?
Example: I enter my boss into Active Directory as a non-administrative user. He logs into OS X on his desktop (assume i've gotten OS X server to work with Active Directory), what level of privileges does he have? Will he be allowed to make administrative changes on his workstation?
If he can not, then the OS X/Active Directory interoperability might work well enough to manage the Mac users on my network.
One DOES...Microsoft's DHCP server must register itself with Active Directory. This keeps rogue DHCP servers off the network. This is a nice feature in a large organization. How many networks have been interupted by some bozo accedentally activating DHCP on his windows NT/2000 server box? I know of a few.
Sure, that doesn't stop the same bozo from enabling DHCP on his wireless access-point/router...but it does help.
I guess what I want is Linux or OS X to act like an Active Directory DC....to do all the things that Microsoft's AD-DC's do.
The point is ease of administration. I like being able to modify DNS records on one server and have them propagate to other servers via Active Directory replicaton.
Same goes for user lists. I can add users to any one of my AD servers (in different physical locations) and have them appear in all the other AD servers.
It would be nice to have that Active Directory integration in OS X. Don't tell me it isn't possible....Novell released their directory services for Linux....why can't Apple develop an Active Directory "integrator" for their server OS? It would probably gain them more customers. (Me anyway).
Just because OS X supports LDAP for authentication does not mean there will be seamless integration with Active Directory.
Active Directory (at least the MS implementation) is like a network-level "registry". It holds everything from integrated DNS records, to DHCP server authorization, users, permissions, replication controls and information....you get the idea.
To participate in most of this, you need to have client side stuff that can take advantage of all of this. OK, you get samba authentication without needing LDAP support on OS X, but who cares...that isn't enough for "seemless" integration.
Can you add users to OS X and have them appear in Active directory?....I don't think so.
Can you get your DHCP server (on OS X) to authenticate itself in Active Directory?...probably not.
Can you get user lists and permissions to replicate into OS X's user list? Maybe...but i'm still not sure about that.
Lastly...can you get a user to log into OS X and have OS X process login scripts replicated to domain controllers? Doubtful...most of the windows login scripts don't apply to the Unix world.
I may be wrong on this stuff. My experience with OS X has been a handful of workstations connecting to a windows file server via samba. It seems that the platforms are too far apart to get this "seemless" integration.
It appears the best you can do is simple user authentication....it might be worth it if the OS X server can get it's user list from the Active Directory machines. Does anyone know if this is possible? I'd love it if a Linux distribution could do that so I don't have to maintain two sets of user lists.
OK, I stand corrected...they don't all suck. I like the Boston T, but then again, I don't travel it every day. As far as public transportation capacity figures go; I studied it in my college engineering classes, and there isn't nearly enough capacity in the world to effectively move everyone around. Maybe the solution is a matter of scale...maybe we just need more capacity and that will make the system better and more enjoyable...I honestly don't know.
As far as dumping money into roads versus public transportation networks.....you can buy a whole hell of alot of roads for the cost of a decent size train or subway line. (Unless you decide to put the road under neath Boston...that jacks up the price a little).
I guess the problem isn't public vs. private transporation, the problem is that there are too many damn people living in a small area, and they all need to get to work. I don't think there is an optimal solution.
-ted
Yeah, lots of people don't use public transport...
on
Pipeline Mass Transit?
·
· Score: 2
C'mon....do the math. Total up the world's capacity of public transportation....and then compare it to the number of people in the world who commute....the two figures aren't even close. If the system worked well, and was economical, people would ditch their cars for it. My fiancee commutes to Jersey City, NJ every day. It costs her $400/mo for that privilage and it SUCKS.
I'm a realist...humans are free and independent creatures...they like forms of transporation that are ready when they are. The best implementation of that is the car.
Now, your crack about the middle east is low. I like driving my PERSONAL automobile. It is gas fueled, but it isn't a gas-guzzling SUV....it's a VW golf, and it gets great gas milage. I'd use an ethanol-gasoline mix if I could buy it somewhere near me.
Public transporation is a failure...ask the guys running Amtrak, they'll tell you that EVERY public transporation system in the world is government funded/supported because they can't sustain themselves on their paying riders.
We need to develop fuel efficent PERSONAL transporation and the infrastructure to support it. That's the only model that will work.
As far as the American without a passport comment...my parents are Greek, and i've been to Greece many times (and other places in Europe). Public transport there sucks as well. I'd much rather drive my own car on the autobahn.....
The automobile became the worlds most popular form of transportation for one reason...it goes where you want it to go, when you are ready to go there.
The idea of public transporation is a joke. Busses and trains never really go where you want to go...and if they do, they are late getting there. Most public transporation is very uncomfortable, inconvenient and expensive, which is why 90% of the world doesn't use it.
We should spend more time and energy making private transporation more efficient, environmentally friendly, and enjoyable....not waste time and resources (public and private) on the failed idea of public transporation.
Does the certification include the two security patches downloaded this morning? More IIS roll up patches and an Unchecked buffer in PPTP implementation.
While the P4 architecture may not be as "effecient" as the PIII architecture, the P4 platform does benefit from a higher bandwidth memory bus. DDR sdram and Rambus are great for database servers....way better than the SDR sdram that the PIII xeon was stuck with.
The purpose of my post wasn't to debate the benefits of Satellite radio, or the limitations of digital ground-based radio. You are correct: satellite radio is a (technically) better alternative to standard analog ground based radio.
My point is that the business model is doomed. The buying public knows it, and so does Wall Street (as reflected in the stock prices). The public has decided, despite the technological benefits, that a single receiver subscription for $10.00/mo. is not worth it. Each receiver has a monthly cost....that just doesn't fly. Maybe 5 receivers per account would be a better model...who knows?
Digital radio does give existing radio users an upgrade path, at their convenience, with no additional recurring charge. That's the model joe-sixpack is comfortable with, and that's the model that will succeed.
These sattelite radio companies are dead meat. They don't even have competition from digital radio yet and they are struggling.
Current radio operators will soon roll out digital signals alongside their analog counterparts. This will allow people to upgrade slowly to digital recievers without missing any programming.
Slashdot Mirror
Wrong. The company is paying you for whatever the contract says they are paying you for. No more, no less.
That may not be true where the contract is signed. Some localities do not allow such contractual exclusions. As always, consult an experienced contract attorney before you decide to roll your own contract.
-ted
I'm getting married next year, and my fiancée and I, like most couples, are hiring a photographer.
We hired the photographer to take OUR images, when TV news crews do that, they need to have you sign a release to use the footage. Your likeness belongs to you, and no one else.
For $5000 you'd think we own the photos right? WRONG! The negatives are held by the photographer. Each photo has a "Do not duplicate" stamp on the back....nice huh?
I think i'm going to start charging my clients for all the computers and network gear I install, but i'm going to have them sign an agreement saying I own the gear, and they have to pay me to make any alterations to the network or systems! Can you imagine that?
-ted
Programming tools, development environments, and languages have gotten easier in the past 10 years. That does not replace good software design. Efficiency and serviceability cannot be added to a bad software project by switching languages or development tools. Only good design principles can make good software.
The Linux kernel, while monolithic, seems to be a great example of this...massively complicated, but easily broken down into parts that all fit well together and can be replaced easily. (And documented well...for the most part).
-ted
Gee...they used to just spray the trees with a noxious spray....I guess that didn't keep the tree theves away.
-ted
The line is the same at all the holiday parties:
Host: So what do yo do for a living?
Me: I'm the Network Administrator at a small private school.
Host: Really? Hey, you know something about computers! I've got this problem...can you help me out? I'm sure it will only take a second.
Me: If you know it will only take a second, then why do you need me?
Holiday parties would only be worse if I was a doctor...
-ted
Even in the Princeton area...which is surprising since everyone here has the "NIMBY" attitude when it comes to cell towers.
I've had them all, Cellular One, Metrophone, Cingular, Omnipoint, Voice Stream, T mobile....and the only one who seems somewhat reliable in this area (and most of the north east) is Verizon.
No, I don't work for them.
-ted
I just migrated all of our NT4 servers to windows 2000 advanced server in February, a good TWO years after the introduction of the Windows 2000 server products.
.Net server was released tomorrow, I wouldn't touch it for about 5 years.
Since then i've had to apply countless service-packs, security patches, fixes....some of which made some servers unbootable. Lots of organizations still run Windows NT 4 server....why?
Two reasons:
1. It suits their needs just fine.
2. They want to wait until service packs and security fixes slow to a trickle before committing lots of time and resources to the upgrade.
Does Microsoft think that adding a new product to the mix will make IT managers less gun-shy about a newly released server OS? Gimme a break.
I won't be moving from windows 2000 server for AT LEAST 3 more years. Even if
-ted
After all, he does have a computer science degree....
-ted
Last time I went to a "sales pitch lunch" for SGI stuff in PA a few years ago, I realized I didn't need to buy SGI equipment to do the low-end stuff our company was doing (3d rendering, multimedia....etc). SGI was catering to the low-end and couldn't compete there. Intel and MS were more cost competitive. Needless to say, we bought nothing from them.
The high-end scientific guys were drooling over the Origin machines....and were willing to fork out for the processing power. This should have been a clue to the SGI product planners. I think they are better reading their markets now and this type of focus may actually save SGI.
-ted
You'll be able to buy the Origin machine (or something like it) for $999.99 at walmart.
-ted
If your time is worth nothing.
Seriously, all computers suck...Mac, Sun, PCs running windows, PCs running Unix....etc. They all eventually break, and they break too often. I'll admit, some do suck less than others, but I won't even think about starting that topic here.
-ted
You have given me more information on OS X server than any of the Mac "salespeople" I have to deal with. It's greatly appreciated.
:)
...including the ability to change a clone into a master if the master fails...
We are mostly a PC shop, but my boss is a Mac nut....it might just be time to convince him to let me buy an OS X server
In fact, the AD replication process is actually fairly complex...
You said it! Have you ever configured two bridgehead servers? Ugh, no fun to set up, but it works pretty well once up and running.
I have to admit, the Active Directory replication process is pretty cool. It manages lots of info, does conflict resolution well, and does not need tight time synchronization.
Does the failover have to happen manually? I like the idea that if one of my AD-DCs fails, I automatically have another master (since all Active Directory domain controllers have a writeable copy of the Active Directory). Does OS X have the ability to "auto-promote" a slave to a master?
-ted
Agreed on the DHCP point.
Can Mac OS X and OS X server determine whether or not a user is an administrative or non-privileged user when it authenticates against an Active Directory?
Example: I enter my boss into Active Directory as a non-administrative user. He logs into OS X on his desktop (assume i've gotten OS X server to work with Active Directory), what level of privileges does he have? Will he be allowed to make administrative changes on his workstation?
If he can not, then the OS X/Active Directory interoperability might work well enough to manage the Mac users on my network.
-ted
One DOES...Microsoft's DHCP server must register itself with Active Directory. This keeps rogue DHCP servers off the network. This is a nice feature in a large organization. How many networks have been interupted by some bozo accedentally activating DHCP on his windows NT/2000 server box? I know of a few.
Sure, that doesn't stop the same bozo from enabling DHCP on his wireless access-point/router...but it does help.
I guess what I want is Linux or OS X to act like an Active Directory DC....to do all the things that Microsoft's AD-DC's do.
-ted
The point is ease of administration. I like being able to modify DNS records on one server and have them propagate to other servers via Active Directory replicaton.
Same goes for user lists. I can add users to any one of my AD servers (in different physical locations) and have them appear in all the other AD servers.
It would be nice to have that Active Directory integration in OS X. Don't tell me it isn't possible....Novell released their directory services for Linux....why can't Apple develop an Active Directory "integrator" for their server OS? It would probably gain them more customers. (Me anyway).
-ted
Just because OS X supports LDAP for authentication does not mean there will be seamless integration with Active Directory.
Active Directory (at least the MS implementation) is like a network-level "registry". It holds everything from integrated DNS records, to DHCP server authorization, users, permissions, replication controls and information....you get the idea.
To participate in most of this, you need to have client side stuff that can take advantage of all of this. OK, you get samba authentication without needing LDAP support on OS X, but who cares...that isn't enough for "seemless" integration.
Can you add users to OS X and have them appear in Active directory?....I don't think so.
Can you get your DHCP server (on OS X) to authenticate itself in Active Directory?...probably not.
Can you get user lists and permissions to replicate into OS X's user list? Maybe...but i'm still not sure about that.
Lastly...can you get a user to log into OS X and have OS X process login scripts replicated to domain controllers? Doubtful...most of the windows login scripts don't apply to the Unix world.
I may be wrong on this stuff. My experience with OS X has been a handful of workstations connecting to a windows file server via samba. It seems that the platforms are too far apart to get this "seemless" integration.
It appears the best you can do is simple user authentication....it might be worth it if the OS X server can get it's user list from the Active Directory machines. Does anyone know if this is possible? I'd love it if a Linux distribution could do that so I don't have to maintain two sets of user lists.
-ted
Can you imagine the gripes when CPUs become asynchronous? People may actually have to look at the performance of the thing before buying.
Seller: "This model is the fastest."
Buyer: "No way, there isn't a clock speed listed on this thing...it must suck!"
-ted
OK, I stand corrected...they don't all suck. I like the Boston T, but then again, I don't travel it every day. As far as public transportation capacity figures go; I studied it in my college engineering classes, and there isn't nearly enough capacity in the world to effectively move everyone around. Maybe the solution is a matter of scale...maybe we just need more capacity and that will make the system better and more enjoyable...I honestly don't know.
As far as dumping money into roads versus public transportation networks.....you can buy a whole hell of alot of roads for the cost of a decent size train or subway line. (Unless you decide to put the road under neath Boston...that jacks up the price a little).
I guess the problem isn't public vs. private transporation, the problem is that there are too many damn people living in a small area, and they all need to get to work. I don't think there is an optimal solution.
-ted
C'mon....do the math. Total up the world's capacity of public transportation....and then compare it to the number of people in the world who commute....the two figures aren't even close. If the system worked well, and was economical, people would ditch their cars for it. My fiancee commutes to Jersey City, NJ every day. It costs her $400/mo for that privilage and it SUCKS.
I'm a realist...humans are free and independent creatures...they like forms of transporation that are ready when they are. The best implementation of that is the car.
Now, your crack about the middle east is low. I like driving my PERSONAL automobile. It is gas fueled, but it isn't a gas-guzzling SUV....it's a VW golf, and it gets great gas milage. I'd use an ethanol-gasoline mix if I could buy it somewhere near me.
Public transporation is a failure...ask the guys running Amtrak, they'll tell you that EVERY public transporation system in the world is government funded/supported because they can't sustain themselves on their paying riders.
We need to develop fuel efficent PERSONAL transporation and the infrastructure to support it. That's the only model that will work.
As far as the American without a passport comment...my parents are Greek, and i've been to Greece many times (and other places in Europe). Public transport there sucks as well. I'd much rather drive my own car on the autobahn.....
-ted
The automobile became the worlds most popular form of transportation for one reason...it goes where you want it to go, when you are ready to go there.
The idea of public transporation is a joke. Busses and trains never really go where you want to go...and if they do, they are late getting there. Most public transporation is very uncomfortable, inconvenient and expensive, which is why 90% of the world doesn't use it.
We should spend more time and energy making private transporation more efficient, environmentally friendly, and enjoyable....not waste time and resources (public and private) on the failed idea of public transporation.
-ted
Does the certification include the two security patches downloaded this morning? More IIS roll up patches and an Unchecked buffer in PPTP implementation.
You're only as secure as the next patch...
-ted
While the P4 architecture may not be as "effecient" as the PIII architecture, the P4 platform does benefit from a higher bandwidth memory bus. DDR sdram and Rambus are great for database servers....way better than the SDR sdram that the PIII xeon was stuck with.
-ted
That's possible. It all depends on the NIC manufacturer's implementation.
-ted
The purpose of my post wasn't to debate the benefits of Satellite radio, or the limitations of digital ground-based radio. You are correct: satellite radio is a (technically) better alternative to standard analog ground based radio.
My point is that the business model is doomed. The buying public knows it, and so does Wall Street (as reflected in the stock prices). The public has decided, despite the technological benefits, that a single receiver subscription for $10.00/mo. is not worth it. Each receiver has a monthly cost....that just doesn't fly. Maybe 5 receivers per account would be a better model...who knows?
Digital radio does give existing radio users an upgrade path, at their convenience, with no additional recurring charge. That's the model joe-sixpack is comfortable with, and that's the model that will succeed.
-ted
These sattelite radio companies are dead meat. They don't even have competition from digital radio yet and they are struggling.
Current radio operators will soon roll out digital signals alongside their analog counterparts. This will allow people to upgrade slowly to digital recievers without missing any programming.
Sirius and XM will be gone in two years.
-ted