Both are needed for people to live functional lives.
I live my life quite functionally without religion, thanks. Quite frankly, I think the implication that it's impossible to live morally without religion to be both hypocritical and grossly insulting.
What lol'ed me wasn't the laptop batteries but the batteries of the plane! You know, flying a plane needs batteries too. What about those? Are those safe?
Unlike the batteries that J Random Idiot has bouncing around inside his luggage, their risk can be accurately assessed.
So, 12-13 years is pretty conservative. 17 for introduction and 14 for relatively widespread corporate adoption is a bit closer.
I was quite deliberately being *very* conservative. 12-13 years is when it appeared in Windows 9x and was available across the entire Windows product line.
The typicalUnix/Linux/BSD admin administers thousands of servers by themselves.
Utter bullshit. In environments that are mostly static, and where hundreds of said machines are essentially identical, it borders on feasibility. However, these sorts of environment are few, far between, and nothing close to "typical".
Even with all the scripting in Windows now (PowerShell, WSH) and.NET - the tools for a Windows admin to be able to administer as many systems as a Unix/Linux/BSD admin are just not there. The systems are too instable and need too much personal attention at the very least - even if the tools overall were there.
The centralised management tools for UNIX systems are, to say the least, archaic, esoteric and cryptic.
The few UNIX admins I have worked with who genuinely managed large numbers of heterogeneous machines (dozens, maybe hundreds) well on their own, did it with homegrown tools and processes - that they had been perfecting them for 5-10+ years - highly tuned to their own environments, which were largely static. Their toolchains were not generic, and would never have been functional in other organisations without large amounts of changes, assuming they would even be allowed to copy them over in the first place.
The _typical_ UNIX admin manages a machine count of maybe a few dozen (probably less), and struggles to do it well because the prepackaged tools for doing so are dismal.
In the private sector, the idea is to come in under budget, and the savings can (potentially) be counted towards profit -- meaning more power and prestige to the person in charge of the project.
I have _never_ worked in a company where this is true. The old adage about coming in under budget meaning they just gave you less money next time has always held true (which has certainly been proven the few times I did make the mistake of coming in under budget).
I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated?
Because it serves no purpose other than to incite hatred of, and aggression towards, particular stereotypes.
explain to me what a) brought on these draconian laws/ideals [...]
Under the Liberals: because that's just what they do.
Under Labor: buying off independents.
b) what the opposition is doing against it?
Publicly I'm sure they're condemning it as "unAustralian". Privately, they'll be cheering it on, given they got the whole ball rolling.
I've always (maybe naively) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place. This censorship movement seems... odd.
They're loud and proud, but ultimately a minority. Most Australians will simply assume such stupid laws will never be enforced, and hence aren't worth getting upset about.
When I have no practical way of avoiding software activation, I use software that requires activation. The only other option is for my business to lose money (or maybe even fail to operate). So what are these unique circumstances that justify imposing the onerous burden of "activation" upon your customers ?
How long before Microsoft turns off activation servers for XP? Yeah, I "should" buy a new version of Windows, but what if I have a non-Internet-connected legacy computer somewhere that I have to reload XP onto, and Microsoft has stopped offering activation?
Microsoft have said they'll issue a patch when XP is EOLed that will disable activation.
As Microsoft keeps tightening up on people, I really have to wonder why anyone still puts up with it.
Because the vast, vast, vast majority of people who actually own legitimate copies of Windows are never affected by it.
I understand that they are a company, entitled to sell licenses to their stuff, and to enforce those licenses. But this seems to be changing the rules on legitimate users after they already bought the licenses.
In what way ? If you have a legit copy, the worst thing that's going to happen - if you're in the tiny minority who get hit by a false positive - is that you have to ring up Microsoft and get a different serial number. It's not like they'll deprive you of your copy of Windows.
Funny thing though - Apple is *notorious* about controlling your experience with their hardware and software yet their OS updates have no restrictions, no serial numbers, no registration. It's the honor system that you don't share the DVD with all your friends.
Apple have the luxury of a great big hardware dongle called a Mac. Microsoft do not.
if msft does nothing to discourage bad practices then no vendor will either.
Bullshit. There's plenty of software out there that properly uses things like least privilege.
Oh and I hav etalked to the vendor they don't give a shit. they won't change until forced to change. The only company that can do that is the platform host.
So Microsoft should *deliberately break customers' software* ? Why do I feel confident you'd be one of the people complaining loudly about bad support and "forced upgrades" if they actually did that ?
Anyway, back to your original claim:
everyone has a poor coding practice, or even designs. however MSFT is the only company to support such poor designs 10-12 years later.
What software or vendor are you thinking of that this doesn't apply to ?
Rather than quoting him, why don't you just go and reread the post, where you'll see it's quite obvious he's only interested in version 10.20.
Strangely enough, I reread it in the process of quoting it. The primary interest is obviously in 10.20 (which, as I noted in another post, is downloadable from the first site found looking for "Process Explorer 10.2") but the assertion was about "all earlier versions".
As I said originally, he's trolling with paranoid conspiracy theories. While Slashdot, as one of the internet's premier anti-Microsoft sites, is certainly the right place to be doing that, making a claim so trivial to demonstrate as false was just sloppy.
And because ofmsft poor coding practices and designs you have to use for the rest of life as explorer.exe, windows update , windows messanger(or this years name), outlook, and word all use parts of the same buggy trident backend.
Reusing code is "poor coding practices and designs" ? Can you identify any platforms, then, that don't suffer from "poor coding practices and designs" ?
ANY version of Windows, post XPsp2, has the latest version of Process Explorer buried in it somewhere and will AUTOMATICALLY over-write any old version, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS FOUND.
In the ATC application I support the workstations are very important. They are used 100% of the time and unanticipated downtime is a critical problem.
Firstly, patching is in no way "unanticipated downtime".
Secondly, if your environment can't sustain workstations being unavailable *even on a schedule*, then it's not meeting the requirements it was supposedly designed for.
Some organizations who have operational requirements to provide a service continuously. For them there is no acceptable downtime.
And they've designed their systems properly such that not only the planned - but also unplanned - outage of a single server is both non-disruptive, and transparent.
"Service" and "server" are not synonymous. This is especially true once you move outside of trivial environments. If your HA service can't sustain the outage of an individual server, then its *fundamental architecture* is broken, and what OS is running barely even counts as semantics.
The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation. Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.
More importantly, if your service architecture can't handle the scheduled outage of individual servers, then it is unquestionably broken.
If you are concerned with individual server uptimes having a bearing on anything except your e-penis, then You're Doing It Wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Both are needed for people to live functional lives.
I live my life quite functionally without religion, thanks. Quite frankly, I think the implication that it's impossible to live morally without religion to be both hypocritical and grossly insulting.
What lol'ed me wasn't the laptop batteries but the batteries of the plane! You know, flying a plane needs batteries too. What about those? Are those safe?
Unlike the batteries that J Random Idiot has bouncing around inside his luggage, their risk can be accurately assessed.
So, 12-13 years is pretty conservative. 17 for introduction and 14 for relatively widespread corporate adoption is a bit closer.
I was quite deliberately being *very* conservative. 12-13 years is when it appeared in Windows 9x and was available across the entire Windows product line.
The typicalUnix/Linux/BSD admin administers thousands of servers by themselves.
Utter bullshit. In environments that are mostly static, and where hundreds of said machines are essentially identical, it borders on feasibility. However, these sorts of environment are few, far between, and nothing close to "typical".
Even with all the scripting in Windows now (PowerShell, WSH) and .NET - the tools for a Windows admin to be able to administer as many systems as a Unix/Linux/BSD admin are just not there. The systems are too instable and need too much personal attention at the very least - even if the tools overall were there.
The centralised management tools for UNIX systems are, to say the least, archaic, esoteric and cryptic.
The few UNIX admins I have worked with who genuinely managed large numbers of heterogeneous machines (dozens, maybe hundreds) well on their own, did it with homegrown tools and processes - that they had been perfecting them for 5-10+ years - highly tuned to their own environments, which were largely static. Their toolchains were not generic, and would never have been functional in other organisations without large amounts of changes, assuming they would even be allowed to copy them over in the first place.
The _typical_ UNIX admin manages a machine count of maybe a few dozen (probably less), and struggles to do it well because the prepackaged tools for doing so are dismal.
In the private sector, the idea is to come in under budget, and the savings can (potentially) be counted towards profit -- meaning more power and prestige to the person in charge of the project.
I have _never_ worked in a company where this is true. The old adage about coming in under budget meaning they just gave you less money next time has always held true (which has certainly been proven the few times I did make the mistake of coming in under budget).
Ignoring for a second that you misunderstand what "moral authority" means...
Law!=Morality
This is completely wrong. Laws are a codification of the morals a given society wants everyone to abide by.
Honestly, when it was all said and done, I'm a bit skeptical that BSG really did have a series bible.
Sure it did. It was the _story_ they were making up on the fly, not "facts" like character backgrounds and how fast a ship was.
I am not a member or supporter in anyway of the KKK, Nazis, etc., but why is certain speech categorized as "hate" and therefore not allowed to be even stated?
Because it serves no purpose other than to incite hatred of, and aggression towards, particular stereotypes.
Who decides what is hate?
A jury of your peers.
Australia is laid back, but is also one of the most conservative populaces. There are oasis of left wing attitudes in say Melbourne.
Huh ? What relevance does an "oasis of left wing attitudes" have to do with conservatism and censoring porn ? Those are right-wing policies.
explain to me what a) brought on these draconian laws/ideals [...]
Under the Liberals: because that's just what they do.
Under Labor: buying off independents.
b) what the opposition is doing against it?
Publicly I'm sure they're condemning it as "unAustralian". Privately, they'll be cheering it on, given they got the whole ball rolling.
I've always (maybe naively) thought of Australia as a laid-back and liberal kind of a place. This censorship movement seems... odd.
They're loud and proud, but ultimately a minority. Most Australians will simply assume such stupid laws will never be enforced, and hence aren't worth getting upset about.
You lost me here.....windows has the equivalent of /home directories??
Yes.
I don't use windows that much [...]
Clearly, since it's something that appeared in Windows around 12-13 years ago.
When I have no practical way of avoiding software activation, I use software that requires activation. The only other option is for my business to lose money (or maybe even fail to operate). So what are these unique circumstances that justify imposing the onerous burden of "activation" upon your customers ?
Just out of curiosity... what's your take on Xserve with Mac OS X Server?
An uninspiring low-end dual-socket server with a big pricetag.
How long before Microsoft turns off activation servers for XP? Yeah, I "should" buy a new version of Windows, but what if I have a non-Internet-connected legacy computer somewhere that I have to reload XP onto, and Microsoft has stopped offering activation?
Microsoft have said they'll issue a patch when XP is EOLed that will disable activation.
My company has a couple of products that require activation, but only when we're backed into a corner and have absolutely no choice.
So you're just a hypocrite then ?
As Microsoft keeps tightening up on people, I really have to wonder why anyone still puts up with it.
Because the vast, vast, vast majority of people who actually own legitimate copies of Windows are never affected by it.
I understand that they are a company, entitled to sell licenses to their stuff, and to enforce those licenses. But this seems to be changing the rules on legitimate users after they already bought the licenses.
In what way ? If you have a legit copy, the worst thing that's going to happen - if you're in the tiny minority who get hit by a false positive - is that you have to ring up Microsoft and get a different serial number. It's not like they'll deprive you of your copy of Windows.
Funny thing though - Apple is *notorious* about controlling your experience with their hardware and software yet their OS updates have no restrictions, no serial numbers, no registration. It's the honor system that you don't share the DVD with all your friends.
Apple have the luxury of a great big hardware dongle called a Mac. Microsoft do not.
if msft does nothing to discourage bad practices then no vendor will either.
Bullshit. There's plenty of software out there that properly uses things like least privilege.
Oh and I hav etalked to the vendor they don't give a shit. they won't change until forced to change. The only company that can do that is the platform host.
So Microsoft should *deliberately break customers' software* ? Why do I feel confident you'd be one of the people complaining loudly about bad support and "forced upgrades" if they actually did that ?
Anyway, back to your original claim:
everyone has a poor coding practice, or even designs. however MSFT is the only company to support such poor designs 10-12 years later.
What software or vendor are you thinking of that this doesn't apply to ?
everyone has a poor coding practice, or even designs. however MSFT is the only company to support such poor designs 10-12 years later.
Which major piece of software are you thinking of that was designed less than "10-12 years" ago ?
how come in 2010 I have a cd with software that requires windows 98 dll's to install properly?
Maybe you should ask the vendor responsible for developing it.
Rather than quoting him, why don't you just go and reread the post, where you'll see it's quite obvious he's only interested in version 10.20.
Strangely enough, I reread it in the process of quoting it. The primary interest is obviously in 10.20 (which, as I noted in another post, is downloadable from the first site found looking for "Process Explorer 10.2") but the assertion was about "all earlier versions".
As I said originally, he's trolling with paranoid conspiracy theories. While Slashdot, as one of the internet's premier anti-Microsoft sites, is certainly the right place to be doing that, making a claim so trivial to demonstrate as false was just sloppy.
And because ofmsft poor coding practices and designs you have to use for the rest of life as explorer.exe, windows update , windows messanger(or this years name), outlook, and word all use parts of the same buggy trident backend.
Reusing code is "poor coding practices and designs" ? Can you identify any platforms, then, that don't suffer from "poor coding practices and designs" ?
He did specifically say 10.20 in his origial post. Time for bed, grandpa.
From his post:
ANY version of Windows, post XPsp2, has the latest version of Process Explorer buried in it somewhere and will AUTOMATICALLY over-write any old version, REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT IS FOUND.
In the ATC application I support the workstations are very important. They are used 100% of the time and unanticipated downtime is a critical problem.
Firstly, patching is in no way "unanticipated downtime".
Secondly, if your environment can't sustain workstations being unavailable *even on a schedule*, then it's not meeting the requirements it was supposedly designed for.
Some organizations who have operational requirements to provide a service continuously. For them there is no acceptable downtime.
And they've designed their systems properly such that not only the planned - but also unplanned - outage of a single server is both non-disruptive, and transparent.
"Service" and "server" are not synonymous. This is especially true once you move outside of trivial environments. If your HA service can't sustain the outage of an individual server, then its *fundamental architecture* is broken, and what OS is running barely even counts as semantics.
The occasional reboot, under controlled circumstances, is an excellent test of what will happen in an emergency situation. Mainly, it answers the question of whether the server and required services actually will all come back up by themselves.
More importantly, if your service architecture can't handle the scheduled outage of individual servers, then it is unquestionably broken.
If you are concerned with individual server uptimes having a bearing on anything except your e-penis, then You're Doing It Wrong.