I'll go after stabilizing rings first. For those who don't know, these are little rings of extra mass that you glue onto your CDs. This extra mass somehow decreases the error rate of your CD, because with the extra mass, it now spins more smoothly.
Except that CDs spin between 200 and 500 RPM, because it's not like a record, which means all that extra mass makes the servo work harder (since it's a constantly changing speed, and not a steady speed like vinyl), and burn out faster. The users of these little devices claim it improves the high end, and also improves the bass, but someone tell me, with a digital input of either 1 or 0, how this device changes not just a few 1's or 0's, but many of them, as an equalizer would, so that the highs are higher, and lows even lower.
With non-audio CDs, you want the data, as fast as you can, hence multi-speed CDs. If you read the specs on CD drives, it'll read at like 50x at the outside edge, and 12x at the inside. With music CDs, it's 1x, everywhere on the disk. You have to vary the spinning speed to make the pits on the disk flash by at the same bit rate when you are reading from different places on the disk.
As for tube vs. transistor amps, the real test is how well the output signal matches the input signal. Most tube amps afficianados complain that transistor and digital amps lack "warmth", meaning that something they are used to hearing is, or isn't there anymore. Since transistor amps present an output signal closer to the input signal, I'll leave the readers to judge
Many of the systems being suggested here aren't that good. Klipsch's are like every other horn system, they are efficient at certain frequencies, and inefficient at others. And like other horn instruments, like trombones and trumpets, they have frequencies where standing waves set up, and make the system louder or softer. This makes horn systems fine for auditoriums and stadiums, where you need high volume and low fidelity, but poor choices for home where you have lower volumes, and lower background noise. Bose is adequate, but they are better at marketing than engineering.
In the myth arena is Monster Cable, green markers on CD-ROMs, CD-ROM stabilizers (inertia/momentum rings), titanium vibration isolation cones, and vacuum tubes. If someone ones me to post more on those, I will, but they are of no proven benefit, and are aimed at those with money to waste.
What you are after is something you are happy with. In the end, what you buy matters no more than whether its an AMD or an Intel in the box. If you're happy with it while it's running, and you are comfortable with what you spent -- then you've got a good system. There are various people who fancy themselves to be "golden ears", able to somehow hear statistically insignificant levels of distortion that even the best musicians cannot hear, and marketers continually create products aimed at people who don't want to be left out; who want to feel they are in this top tier; who purchase these overpriced, snake-oil products because some "friend" recommended it.
My system: Accoustic Research AR-5's for the front channels, powered by a Carver amp, with a Carver preamp doing the Dolbly decoding from a Pioneer 414 (?) DVD player. The center channel is an RCA center channel picked up for cheap at Radio Shack. The rear channels are from some place that was discontinuing the model, and instead of $300/apiece, I got them for $75/apiece. The subwoofer is under construction, and I've got more amps for it.
You need: good, full-range front channel speakers, preferably about 2 cu. ft. in size. A decent center channel, smaller rear channels (since Dolby surround and all those cuts all the bass and much of the high-end). A subwoofer is optional, but with the big front-channel speakers I've got, I don't really need it when playing Bond films or The Matrix.
I'm tired of seeing this copy protection aimed at "pirates." All of the copy protection schemes I've seen aired are designed to coax more money out of the consumer out of pay-per-use schemes.
Since a DVD pirate, with $20,000 worth of mastering equipment avaialable, can make perfect copies without decoding or altering the content, how will copy protection on my hard drive help thwart Chinese DVD piracy?
EuroBryce is right on the money. Corporations don't want to use Win 95/98/ME. Any of them that have used Win 2000 or even vanilla NT recognize how much more stable, reliable, and easier to manage it is.
Win 98/ME is designed for lightweight use, and gaming. It's not a serious choice for corporations. It's too easy for the user to break -- if it doesn't break on its own.
Once you go pre-emptive multitasking, you'll never go back.
The whole concept of version numbering is antiquated. Much of it is marketing hoopla, and an attempt to equate similar but different packages by competing companies. Take Netscape staying at 4.7 forever, then announcing their next version would be version 6, with version 5 never having been available. What does it mean to me? Was there ever a version 5? Is Windows ME or Windows 2000 newer?
I favor describing a new release by it's release date, serializing it by year, month, then date. Even the non-technical can understand how old a release is. Patches should be points to the serialized version, so that we know which @#!! version the patch applies to. Make patches lettered, and you'll not confuse the two. Thus 19991223.d is clearly a bug fix, but not as "new" and "featured" as 20000115.a.
The actual version number is irrelevant, The age/vintage of the code, the improvements since release, and the reliability of the code when it was released are the deciding factors. Going with date-based release numbers indicates the evolution from one release to the next, and allows the vendor to avoid the marketing pressures of "new" releases at regular intervals. The product just simply improves over time.
The management aversion to adopting a ".0" release is also becoming antiquated. Few companies have the patience or capital to abandon the rollout of a "Z.0" product in favor of a competing "Z.2" product, owing to some rabbit's foot aversion to.0 releases. (If the rollout of Software Z.0 is plagued with problems, no big company would abandon it, and wholesale move its users to CompetingSoftware Z.2.) If a rollout of a new version of a product experiences problems, the company will usually have to discover work arounds, and wait for the vendor to produce fixes. Which is more painful, fixing the boat you have, or building a new fleet midstream? (bad metaphor, but it's late.)
Find a way to avoid deferring major code changes until a major release, and instead make those features available more quickly.
Remeber reading an article a while ago about Iceland, where they hope to have enough geothermal powered/heated greenhouses to be self-sufficient in about a decade or two.
The article mentioned how they generated power from steam, then piped the "waste heat" as if it were a public sewer, and instead heated homes with it.
DOLS. Domino Offline Services. Interesting ActiveX widget that allows your web browser to cache information from a web application locally, disconnect from the web server entirely (as in laptop), interact with it, reconnect, and have the changes replicate back with the online version. All via the web. Slick.
one of the big expenses is loading and unloading. also an opportunity for pilferage. some of the companies who unload at docks complain that 10% just disappears -- sort of a tithe to the dockworkers.
by packing the trains onto a bigger boat, you make a cheaper loading/unloading decision, but you still get some benefit from boat traffic. the rule of thumb I remember is that trucks are cheap, trains cost 10% of what trucks do, and boats cost 10% of what trains do.
Addendum to my fourth point. All that OS and hardware stability is thrown out the window if the admin for the system is a moron, or if there's not enough talent around there to support it. At my current client site, all the mail servers for 53,000 users are quad-processor NT boxes.
Addendum to my sixth point. A Domino server can act as a generic IMAP or POP server. Then you can use Netscape, Eudora, Pegasus, or whatever on the client end. I don't know if that saves money. Also look at iNotes, which is aimed at the Exchange and web client-only access to a Domino server. http://www.lotus.com/inotes
Addendum to my eigthth point. Better LDAP connectivity than Exchange. You can also use it for authentication, lookups for delivery....
Thirteenth, and I can't beleive I forgot this in the context of Microsoft Exchange, but VIRUSES! Egads! You don't, yet, have to worry about that with Domino. On the client, there's a thing called an ECL (Execution Control List), which is set from a hidden document in the public directory. It specifies what level of access people can get. Unsigned things get no access. Signed gets varying (you specify) access to the file system, current database, env. variables, non-notes databases, external code, external programs, ability to send mail, ability to read other db's, ability to modify other db's, ability to export data, and finally access to the ECL itself. It won't stop the user from launching a trojan, but it does severely limit the damage that can be done. Throw in that MAPI isn't configured by default, which means all those MAPI virii don't have a send mechanism.
Fourteenth, if you throw in some remedial applications, you might find folks using Domino more. There's a lot of handy stock database templates that come with the server -- and you can even make the server act as an NNTP server.
... put all that money into an investing account, then use the interest to build big ferries, drive all the trains onto those ferries, and shuttle everything back and forth.
I think I can speak authoritatively.:-) If people where you work wanna argue, give them the URL to this message.
First, switching to Exchange will fix what? As in, what's broken now that'll work better later?
Second, Why are they proposing this? "Other companies do it" is no more a reason now than it was when you were a teenager and all your friends were jumping off of bridges.
Third, switching to Exchange would better utilize things how? Higher CPU loads for those same machines? More disk space use? When they say, "better use of the system", what the hell do they mean?
Fourth, don't switch operating systems unless you've got someone there, who'll hang around, that knows that operating system. A different operating system doesn't mean higher uptime. People ususally forget the better hardware and more stable OS (without flakey hardware drivers) that most unix systems are blessed with.
Fifth, nothing else really does calendaring yet. There's no standard for it. Once there's an agreed-upon standard, then it'll get popular. Till then, you're stuck. Once there's a standard, it'll get integrated with AIM, and you can check your buddy's calendar, or even send invites. Everything listed on freshmeat is web-based. Does it do repeating? Free-time search? Resource reservation? Resource approval? Room reservation?
Sixth, talk to your Lotus rep. Tell them you can't afford it, and that you'll have to switch to something else unless there's a price break. You've got MBA's there that supposedly know the art of negotiation. Make them prove it! Maybe you can run everyone with POP or IMAP clients, or web-only, and save some money there (by not having Notes clients on all the desktops).
Seventh, not using all of something's features is not a reason to abandon it. Why aren't you using it all? Simple Domino database authoring is the easiest/fastest rapid application development system I've ever seen, aside from OpenDX. Switching away from Notes means you'll have to use MS SQL server. Sticking with Notes means you can still use MS SQL, or you can use Notes (non-relationally), or DB2, or Oracle, or even MySQL -- but with an easy front-end. Throw in WebSphere (which is kick-ass on its own), and you've just done single-sign-on.
Eighth, did I mention LDAP?
Ninth, you can use IIS as the web server, and use MS Authentication, plus active server pages, perl, CGI, PHP, and all those tasty IIS plug-ins.
Tenth, you can't find a more secure email system. PGP and similar will encrypt the messages, sure, but with Domino, you can encrypt the message one way, and the mail file another way (encrypted on disk!), and also set permissions so that the mail admin can't read email. Plus the encryption is like PKI, where you pick a recipient, and it's encrypted with their public key before it even leaves your computer. No hitting the keyservers first.
Eleventh, Domino integrates greatly with SameTime (http://www.lotus.com/sametime) with is a competitor to AIM, but includes all that tasty h.323 conferencing stuff, via JAVA. Yes, audio and video over JAVA. Plus whiteboard, buddy lists, and AOL AIM connectivity! And once the standard AIM-style client protocol is agreed upon, it'll be able to connect.
Twelvth, (is that spelt rite?) there's QuickPlace (http://www.lotus.com/quickplace), but that's getting esoteric, and is a weak argument in your case.
And finally, for my last point, THERE IS A COST TO CONVERTING. Everyone forgets that. You'll have to buy new things, convert messages, install 1,000 copies of the new software, train everyone, convert private address books, convert public address books, learn new things, buy a second server to hold everything (while you're doing the converting, which'll take a month or two). You'll also have to put up with MS's primitive message store, where you attempt to salvage one or two messages out of a multi-gigabyte database that is everyone's messages. Since Domino uses a seperate file for each user, a lot less gets corrupt, or has to be restored, when hardware goes bad.
Considering that a "hit" textbook can bring the author in $300,000 per year in royalties -- why exactly should they do for free what could make them comfortable for the rest of their life?
Yeah, I know not all of us do things for money, but if you do the things in the beginning that make money, you'll then have enough money to do all the public good/charity/open source stuff you want.
Whilst someone may write in perfect syntax, that does not mean they have used the correct algorithms, or that the program has good construction. Form vs. substance.
For an extreme example, look to politicians, who say nothing perfectly.
The DVD is, what, 30 frames per second, and your screen is rendering 70, 72, 75, or something like that. Could just be the difference in one frequency going against another, which results in some interference.
Try changing the refresh rate of your display.
If that ain't it, then I'll buy the Macrovision reason given above. On my Matrox G200-TV, I've never seen anything like this under Win98 or Win2000, even when watching Matrix. (Last time I looked, the card, but not the tuner was supported under SuSE, my Linux of choice, that's why.)
My main complaint was not that the CS programs wanted me to take additional classes. I agree with that. I _should_ have to.
Something like, oh, 4-8 classes (12-24 credits) should take care of any weaknesses. The programs I checked with all wanted 60-80 credits before I could even start my MS. I was not given credit for any classes, including the C classes I took from a CS department. Since I had not a BS in CS, they wanted me to start from zero.
I looked at several MS programs, and they all wanted me to go back and get a BS in CS -- in terms of coursework, not in terms of actual degress. The advisors would hold up the list of courses that CS undergrads would have to take, then cross out anything that wasn't taught by either the CS department, or one of the engineering departments.
I know in their prejudice that they looked no further than my degree in Geography. The two years of calculus and the year of statistics was overlooked. The 3 semesters of programming was overlooked. The logic class was overlooked. The year of physics was ignored. The fact that I was working as a systems administrator at the time (third year of the job) was ignored. I knew Pascal, C, and VB, and had to play with perl, sed, and awk on a daily basis (and several obtuse macro langauges dealing with GIS). Throw in teaching myself a helluva lot. (Having a great boss is why. He'd give me a manual and say, "We need to do X, figure out how to do it, explain it to me, then do it.")
Anyway, you'll run into lots of bias because you're not one of the little CS elves from the beginning. I gave up on a MS in CS, but that doesn't mean I'm recommending it. My life stabilized (got married), we moved, and I'm now well paid. I want to rid myself of the bad programming habits I have, but fitting in classes around a 50 hour work week plus 10 hours of commuting leaves little school time.
Go for it while you have time. Some of us work because we get paid, and some of us work because we aspire to be craftsmen, hewing form and function from raw ones and zeros. Craftsmen tend to live happier lives, because work is actually fun.
It was on my mind because of the/. post on LED's just a coupla days ago. It was the British branch of some LED VAP vendor:
http://www.solargb.co.uk/
Beware before you click. They take over your browser. You lose scroll bars, ActiveX launches, navigation bar disappears, the menu bar disappears, and a window the size of your desktop pops up. Rather rude.
Personally, I think only Lynx is safe enough to visit pr0n websites.:-)
Actually, I don't think everything should be free. I pay for HBO. I subscribe to quite a few magazines, and even Consumer Reports web site (which only charges you if you access it). Charge me 10 cents, or a quarter every time I read an article, or better yet, charge me that for every day I access it, which is a fairer standard.
It's a measure of intrusiveness. Here I am, doing something, and it's interrupted by a pop-up. For example, SciFi channel tries to make their commercial endorsements part of the content, and even will go looong stretches without advertising. CNN (not the web site) throws out advertising when something interesting happens. They realize that sometimes the revenue generation methods must sometimes take a back seat.
It's the commercial-channel metaphors (ABC, NBC, CBS) that provide the most advertising, the most intrusive advertising, and the least content. Channels like Comedey, Cartoon, HBO, SciFi, all are somehow making money, but I mind their commercials less, the commercial placement less, and enjoy the experience more.
As for adverts in print, I never look at the ones in newspapers. Some of the ones in magazines, I look at. As for blow cards and tear-outs, I go through a magazine, remove them all, then begin reading. Blow-cards = pop-ups = intrusive.
I quite realize these companies need to make a profit. But selling advertising space isn't the be-all end-all method of making money. I know that, with print, my subscription really just pays for creation and delivery, but that advertising pays for writer/editor salaries.
I hate pop-ups. I don't even look at what they are. If you can't have the navigation as part of the window, why bother?
And while I'm on a rant, don't check what resolution I'm running at, then resize my browser. Maybe I don't want to run my browser maximized.
Stop applying print and television metaphors to the web! It is a new medium. Break some ground! Do something interesting! Think out of your tiny little boxes! I don't want my browsing interrupted every three minutes for a one-minute advertisement, nor do I want only 21 minutes of content for every 30 minutes of air-time.
You might check OSHA's web site about noise exposure, and limits, then wander over to Radio Shack and buy a decibel meter, then see if it's even legal for you to spend that much time in a noisy environment.
Most employers could care less about safety and their computer geeks. Save your ears. Ruining them now, and being deaf when you're old, sucks.
Has been doing this for quite a while. The state was/is divided into two LATAs, and that meant that the two universities (the big ones, anyway) had to use different phone companies for their half of the state (and the T1 backbones), but had to get Montana Power Company (which owned a bunch of fiber) to connect the two. Why? Some strange law about phone companies completing circuits between LATAs, and that was somehow illegal.
The whole thing made sense to me when it was explained, and the fellow doing the explaining was one of these scarily brilliant, but obtuse folks. He used to write his documents in raw postscript, in vi, when he wanted something fancy.
Anyway, power companies have lots of right-of-ways, they know how to get something from them to the customer, they have field people, they understand outages, they know how to bury, hang, wire, and do all that other stuff. So, in short, it shouldn't be much of a stretch.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll go after stabilizing rings first. For those who don't know, these are little rings of extra mass that you glue onto your CDs. This extra mass somehow decreases the error rate of your CD, because with the extra mass, it now spins more smoothly.
Except that CDs spin between 200 and 500 RPM, because it's not like a record, which means all that extra mass makes the servo work harder (since it's a constantly changing speed, and not a steady speed like vinyl), and burn out faster. The users of these little devices claim it improves the high end, and also improves the bass, but someone tell me, with a digital input of either 1 or 0, how this device changes not just a few 1's or 0's, but many of them, as an equalizer would, so that the highs are higher, and lows even lower.
With non-audio CDs, you want the data, as fast as you can, hence multi-speed CDs. If you read the specs on CD drives, it'll read at like 50x at the outside edge, and 12x at the inside. With music CDs, it's 1x, everywhere on the disk. You have to vary the spinning speed to make the pits on the disk flash by at the same bit rate when you are reading from different places on the disk.
As for tube vs. transistor amps, the real test is how well the output signal matches the input signal. Most tube amps afficianados complain that transistor and digital amps lack "warmth", meaning that something they are used to hearing is, or isn't there anymore. Since transistor amps present an output signal closer to the input signal, I'll leave the readers to judge
Many of the systems being suggested here aren't that good. Klipsch's are like every other horn system, they are efficient at certain frequencies, and inefficient at others. And like other horn instruments, like trombones and trumpets, they have frequencies where standing waves set up, and make the system louder or softer. This makes horn systems fine for auditoriums and stadiums, where you need high volume and low fidelity, but poor choices for home where you have lower volumes, and lower background noise. Bose is adequate, but they are better at marketing than engineering.
In the myth arena is Monster Cable, green markers on CD-ROMs, CD-ROM stabilizers (inertia/momentum rings), titanium vibration isolation cones, and vacuum tubes. If someone ones me to post more on those, I will, but they are of no proven benefit, and are aimed at those with money to waste.
What you are after is something you are happy with. In the end, what you buy matters no more than whether its an AMD or an Intel in the box. If you're happy with it while it's running, and you are comfortable with what you spent -- then you've got a good system. There are various people who fancy themselves to be "golden ears", able to somehow hear statistically insignificant levels of distortion that even the best musicians cannot hear, and marketers continually create products aimed at people who don't want to be left out; who want to feel they are in this top tier; who purchase these overpriced, snake-oil products because some "friend" recommended it.
My system: Accoustic Research AR-5's for the front channels, powered by a Carver amp, with a Carver preamp doing the Dolbly decoding from a Pioneer 414 (?) DVD player. The center channel is an RCA center channel picked up for cheap at Radio Shack. The rear channels are from some place that was discontinuing the model, and instead of $300/apiece, I got them for $75/apiece. The subwoofer is under construction, and I've got more amps for it.
You need: good, full-range front channel speakers, preferably about 2 cu. ft. in size. A decent center channel, smaller rear channels (since Dolby surround and all those cuts all the bass and much of the high-end). A subwoofer is optional, but with the big front-channel speakers I've got, I don't really need it when playing Bond films or The Matrix.
I'm tired of seeing this copy protection aimed at "pirates." All of the copy protection schemes I've seen aired are designed to coax more money out of the consumer out of pay-per-use schemes.
Since a DVD pirate, with $20,000 worth of mastering equipment avaialable, can make perfect copies without decoding or altering the content, how will copy protection on my hard drive help thwart Chinese DVD piracy?
The CIO is in charge of Information, in whatever vague form it is. The CTO is in charge of the technology, whatever that means.
As for companies that have both, the CTO is in charge of the databases, but the CIO is in charge of the information in the databases.
Strange, yes, but management is designed for massively parallel, redudant, overpaid, underutilized positions the higher up you go.
EuroBryce is right on the money. Corporations don't want to use Win 95/98/ME. Any of them that have used Win 2000 or even vanilla NT recognize how much more stable, reliable, and easier to manage it is.
Win 98/ME is designed for lightweight use, and gaming. It's not a serious choice for corporations. It's too easy for the user to break -- if it doesn't break on its own.
Once you go pre-emptive multitasking, you'll never go back.
The whole concept of version numbering is antiquated. Much of it is marketing hoopla, and an attempt to equate similar but different packages by competing companies. Take Netscape staying at 4.7 forever, then announcing their next version would be version 6, with version 5 never having been available. What does it mean to me? Was there ever a version 5? Is Windows ME or Windows 2000 newer?
.0 releases. (If the rollout of Software Z.0 is plagued with problems, no big company would abandon it, and wholesale move its users to CompetingSoftware Z.2.) If a rollout of a new version of a product experiences problems, the company will usually have to discover work arounds, and wait for the vendor to produce fixes. Which is more painful, fixing the boat you have, or building a new fleet midstream? (bad metaphor, but it's late.)
I favor describing a new release by it's release date, serializing it by year, month, then date. Even the non-technical can understand how old a release is. Patches should be points to the serialized version, so that we know which @#!! version the patch applies to. Make patches lettered, and you'll not confuse the two. Thus 19991223.d is clearly a bug fix, but not as "new" and "featured" as 20000115.a.
The actual version number is irrelevant, The age/vintage of the code, the improvements since release, and the reliability of the code when it was released are the deciding factors. Going with date-based release numbers indicates the evolution from one release to the next, and allows the vendor to avoid the marketing pressures of "new" releases at regular intervals. The product just simply improves over time.
The management aversion to adopting a ".0" release is also becoming antiquated. Few companies have the patience or capital to abandon the rollout of a "Z.0" product in favor of a competing "Z.2" product, owing to some rabbit's foot aversion to
Find a way to avoid deferring major code changes until a major release, and instead make those features available more quickly.
Remeber reading an article a while ago about Iceland, where they hope to have enough geothermal powered/heated greenhouses to be self-sufficient in about a decade or two.
The article mentioned how they generated power from steam, then piped the "waste heat" as if it were a public sewer, and instead heated homes with it.
DOLS. Domino Offline Services. Interesting ActiveX widget that allows your web browser to cache information from a web application locally, disconnect from the web server entirely (as in laptop), interact with it, reconnect, and have the changes replicate back with the online version. All via the web. Slick.
http://www.lotus.com/dols
No client required. only a web browser.
one of the big expenses is loading and unloading. also an opportunity for pilferage. some of the companies who unload at docks complain that 10% just disappears -- sort of a tithe to the dockworkers.
by packing the trains onto a bigger boat, you make a cheaper loading/unloading decision, but you still get some benefit from boat traffic. the rule of thumb I remember is that trucks are cheap, trains cost 10% of what trucks do, and boats cost 10% of what trains do.
Addendum to my fourth point. All that OS and hardware stability is thrown out the window if the admin for the system is a moron, or if there's not enough talent around there to support it. At my current client site, all the mail servers for 53,000 users are quad-processor NT boxes.
Addendum to my sixth point. A Domino server can act as a generic IMAP or POP server. Then you can use Netscape, Eudora, Pegasus, or whatever on the client end. I don't know if that saves money. Also look at iNotes, which is aimed at the Exchange and web client-only access to a Domino server. http://www.lotus.com/inotes
Addendum to my eigthth point. Better LDAP connectivity than Exchange. You can also use it for authentication, lookups for delivery....
Thirteenth, and I can't beleive I forgot this in the context of Microsoft Exchange, but VIRUSES! Egads! You don't, yet, have to worry about that with Domino. On the client, there's a thing called an ECL (Execution Control List), which is set from a hidden document in the public directory. It specifies what level of access people can get. Unsigned things get no access. Signed gets varying (you specify) access to the file system, current database, env. variables, non-notes databases, external code, external programs, ability to send mail, ability to read other db's, ability to modify other db's, ability to export data, and finally access to the ECL itself. It won't stop the user from launching a trojan, but it does severely limit the damage that can be done. Throw in that MAPI isn't configured by default, which means all those MAPI virii don't have a send mechanism.
Fourteenth, if you throw in some remedial applications, you might find folks using Domino more. There's a lot of handy stock database templates that come with the server -- and you can even make the server act as an NNTP server.
... put all that money into an investing account, then use the interest to build big ferries, drive all the trains onto those ferries, and shuttle everything back and forth.
I think I can speak authoritatively. :-) If people where you work wanna argue, give them the URL to this message.
First, switching to Exchange will fix what? As in, what's broken now that'll work better later?
Second, Why are they proposing this? "Other companies do it" is no more a reason now than it was when you were a teenager and all your friends were jumping off of bridges.
Third, switching to Exchange would better utilize things how? Higher CPU loads for those same machines? More disk space use? When they say, "better use of the system", what the hell do they mean?
Fourth, don't switch operating systems unless you've got someone there, who'll hang around, that knows that operating system. A different operating system doesn't mean higher uptime. People ususally forget the better hardware and more stable OS (without flakey hardware drivers) that most unix systems are blessed with.
Fifth, nothing else really does calendaring yet. There's no standard for it. Once there's an agreed-upon standard, then it'll get popular. Till then, you're stuck. Once there's a standard, it'll get integrated with AIM, and you can check your buddy's calendar, or even send invites. Everything listed on freshmeat is web-based. Does it do repeating? Free-time search? Resource reservation? Resource approval? Room reservation?
Sixth, talk to your Lotus rep. Tell them you can't afford it, and that you'll have to switch to something else unless there's a price break. You've got MBA's there that supposedly know the art of negotiation. Make them prove it! Maybe you can run everyone with POP or IMAP clients, or web-only, and save some money there (by not having Notes clients on all the desktops).
Seventh, not using all of something's features is not a reason to abandon it. Why aren't you using it all? Simple Domino database authoring is the easiest/fastest rapid application development system I've ever seen, aside from OpenDX. Switching away from Notes means you'll have to use MS SQL server. Sticking with Notes means you can still use MS SQL, or you can use Notes (non-relationally), or DB2, or Oracle, or even MySQL -- but with an easy front-end. Throw in WebSphere (which is kick-ass on its own), and you've just done single-sign-on.
Eighth, did I mention LDAP?
Ninth, you can use IIS as the web server, and use MS Authentication, plus active server pages, perl, CGI, PHP, and all those tasty IIS plug-ins.
Tenth, you can't find a more secure email system. PGP and similar will encrypt the messages, sure, but with Domino, you can encrypt the message one way, and the mail file another way (encrypted on disk!), and also set permissions so that the mail admin can't read email. Plus the encryption is like PKI, where you pick a recipient, and it's encrypted with their public key before it even leaves your computer. No hitting the keyservers first.
Eleventh, Domino integrates greatly with SameTime (http://www.lotus.com/sametime) with is a competitor to AIM, but includes all that tasty h.323 conferencing stuff, via JAVA. Yes, audio and video over JAVA. Plus whiteboard, buddy lists, and AOL AIM connectivity! And once the standard AIM-style client protocol is agreed upon, it'll be able to connect.
Twelvth, (is that spelt rite?) there's QuickPlace (http://www.lotus.com/quickplace), but that's getting esoteric, and is a weak argument in your case.
And finally, for my last point, THERE IS A COST TO CONVERTING. Everyone forgets that. You'll have to buy new things, convert messages, install 1,000 copies of the new software, train everyone, convert private address books, convert public address books, learn new things, buy a second server to hold everything (while you're doing the converting, which'll take a month or two). You'll also have to put up with MS's primitive message store, where you attempt to salvage one or two messages out of a multi-gigabyte database that is everyone's messages. Since Domino uses a seperate file for each user, a lot less gets corrupt, or has to be restored, when hardware goes bad.
Considering that a "hit" textbook can bring the author in $300,000 per year in royalties -- why exactly should they do for free what could make them comfortable for the rest of their life?
Yeah, I know not all of us do things for money, but if you do the things in the beginning that make money, you'll then have enough money to do all the public good/charity/open source stuff you want.
Whilst someone may write in perfect syntax, that does not mean they have used the correct algorithms, or that the program has good construction. Form vs. substance.
For an extreme example, look to politicians, who say nothing perfectly.
The DVD is, what, 30 frames per second, and your screen is rendering 70, 72, 75, or something like that. Could just be the difference in one frequency going against another, which results in some interference.
Try changing the refresh rate of your display.
If that ain't it, then I'll buy the Macrovision reason given above. On my Matrox G200-TV, I've never seen anything like this under Win98 or Win2000, even when watching Matrix. (Last time I looked, the card, but not the tuner was supported under SuSE, my Linux of choice, that's why.)
Aside from the complaint of too little money, I'd like to hear compelling arguments against doing it.
Complaints about scarce resources, NASA's finite bank account, and similar such questions should be directed to your Congressman.
written like a die-hard shell user!
:-)
My main complaint was not that the CS programs wanted me to take additional classes. I agree with that. I _should_ have to.
Something like, oh, 4-8 classes (12-24 credits) should take care of any weaknesses. The programs I checked with all wanted 60-80 credits before I could even start my MS. I was not given credit for any classes, including the C classes I took from a CS department. Since I had not a BS in CS, they wanted me to start from zero.
I think that's excessive.
I looked at several MS programs, and they all wanted me to go back and get a BS in CS -- in terms of coursework, not in terms of actual degress. The advisors would hold up the list of courses that CS undergrads would have to take, then cross out anything that wasn't taught by either the CS department, or one of the engineering departments.
I know in their prejudice that they looked no further than my degree in Geography. The two years of calculus and the year of statistics was overlooked. The 3 semesters of programming was overlooked. The logic class was overlooked. The year of physics was ignored. The fact that I was working as a systems administrator at the time (third year of the job) was ignored. I knew Pascal, C, and VB, and had to play with perl, sed, and awk on a daily basis (and several obtuse macro langauges dealing with GIS). Throw in teaching myself a helluva lot. (Having a great boss is why. He'd give me a manual and say, "We need to do X, figure out how to do it, explain it to me, then do it.")
Anyway, you'll run into lots of bias because you're not one of the little CS elves from the beginning. I gave up on a MS in CS, but that doesn't mean I'm recommending it. My life stabilized (got married), we moved, and I'm now well paid. I want to rid myself of the bad programming habits I have, but fitting in classes around a 50 hour work week plus 10 hours of commuting leaves little school time.
Go for it while you have time. Some of us work because we get paid, and some of us work because we aspire to be craftsmen, hewing form and function from raw ones and zeros. Craftsmen tend to live happier lives, because work is actually fun.
It was on my mind because of the /. post on LED's just a coupla days ago. It was the British branch of some LED VAP vendor:
:-)
http://www.solargb.co.uk/
Beware before you click. They take over your browser. You lose scroll bars, ActiveX launches, navigation bar disappears, the menu bar disappears, and a window the size of your desktop pops up. Rather rude.
Personally, I think only Lynx is safe enough to visit pr0n websites.
Actually, I don't think everything should be free. I pay for HBO. I subscribe to quite a few magazines, and even Consumer Reports web site (which only charges you if you access it). Charge me 10 cents, or a quarter every time I read an article, or better yet, charge me that for every day I access it, which is a fairer standard.
It's a measure of intrusiveness. Here I am, doing something, and it's interrupted by a pop-up. For example, SciFi channel tries to make their commercial endorsements part of the content, and even will go looong stretches without advertising. CNN (not the web site) throws out advertising when something interesting happens. They realize that sometimes the revenue generation methods must sometimes take a back seat.
It's the commercial-channel metaphors (ABC, NBC, CBS) that provide the most advertising, the most intrusive advertising, and the least content. Channels like Comedey, Cartoon, HBO, SciFi, all are somehow making money, but I mind their commercials less, the commercial placement less, and enjoy the experience more.
As for adverts in print, I never look at the ones in newspapers. Some of the ones in magazines, I look at. As for blow cards and tear-outs, I go through a magazine, remove them all, then begin reading. Blow-cards = pop-ups = intrusive.
I quite realize these companies need to make a profit. But selling advertising space isn't the be-all end-all method of making money. I know that, with print, my subscription really just pays for creation and delivery, but that advertising pays for writer/editor salaries.
then, to go with the green ketchup out there, they'll come up with green, glowing ketchup.
Then, to go with the green, glowing ketchup, we'll all decide that it'd be easier to find our kids if they glowed, gently....
I hate pop-ups. I don't even look at what they are. If you can't have the navigation as part of the window, why bother?
And while I'm on a rant, don't check what resolution I'm running at, then resize my browser. Maybe I don't want to run my browser maximized.
Stop applying print and television metaphors to the web! It is a new medium. Break some ground! Do something interesting! Think out of your tiny little boxes! I don't want my browsing interrupted every three minutes for a one-minute advertisement, nor do I want only 21 minutes of content for every 30 minutes of air-time.
You might check OSHA's web site about noise exposure, and limits, then wander over to Radio Shack and buy a decibel meter, then see if it's even legal for you to spend that much time in a noisy environment.
Most employers could care less about safety and their computer geeks. Save your ears. Ruining them now, and being deaf when you're old, sucks.
Has been doing this for quite a while. The state was/is divided into two LATAs, and that meant that the two universities (the big ones, anyway) had to use different phone companies for their half of the state (and the T1 backbones), but had to get Montana Power Company (which owned a bunch of fiber) to connect the two. Why? Some strange law about phone companies completing circuits between LATAs, and that was somehow illegal.
The whole thing made sense to me when it was explained, and the fellow doing the explaining was one of these scarily brilliant, but obtuse folks. He used to write his documents in raw postscript, in vi, when he wanted something fancy.
Anyway, power companies have lots of right-of-ways, they know how to get something from them to the customer, they have field people, they understand outages, they know how to bury, hang, wire, and do all that other stuff. So, in short, it shouldn't be much of a stretch.