If you do, AD is your only realistic choice. Group Policy alone justifies using it.
Added to that, it's not especially difficult getting Unix machines to talk to AD for authentication and other information (it's just LDAP, after all).
It's a hell of a lot easier to integrate and manage a handful of unix machines in a Windows environment than it is to integrate and manage a hundred Windows desktops in a unix environment. IME, that's typically the scenario (unix servers for mail, fileserving, DB, etc and Windows desktops).
The only people I've ever met who tried to pronounce Linux and Linus similarly were both from India. Draw whatever conclusions you feel comfortable with.
Everyone I know here in Australia (including myself) whose introduction to Linux was via the written word rather than spoken, pronounces 'Linux' as you describe.
I've always considered 'linnucks' to be an Americanised pronounciation, and it's never made sense to me, as it suggests the word is spelt 'Linnux' (ie: double 'n'). I can see how an accent can get to 'Leenucks' (ie: how Linus prnounces it) but I've never understood where 'linnucks' came from.
Yet their two core businesses still have mediocre or (worse than mediocre) products (inside, the glitz and glamor is grade A) and to subsidize all these directions, these two products are either involuntary (Windows) or overpriced (office).
Were this really true, then neither product would be as popular as it is. Simple fact is the only other OS as polished and easy as Windows is OS X, and it comes saddled with a requirement for buying typically expensive and/or underpowered hardware.
Office got where it is by being the best option, as hard as that may be for some to understand.
In keeping for the last one, I want to stop paying the MS tax (paying for a Windows License on a new computer.)
So don't buy PCs that come with Windows. Duh. Despite the rantings and ravings of people on Slashdot, it has/always/ been possible to purchase PCs without Windows.
Device Drivers. Manufactures will be forced to release specs or drivers if MS has less than majority markey share.
Bollocks. They'd just be producing closed, proprietry drivers for other OSes. You'd be in precisely the same situation, just with a different company to aim your displeasure at.
Linux would be a lot more attractive to hardware manufacturers if they didn't have to worry about - and deal with - every minor kernel revision breaking their drivers. Every remotely mainstream OS conquered this problem over a decade ago, but Linux still requires either the entire driver, or some kludgy wrapper layer, to be recompiled with every kernel update.
The driver situation is merely another sympton of the general developmental instability and inconsistency rife throughout the entire Linux platform, that everyone except Linux zealots understand is one of the major issues holding it back in the commercial world. Vendors like Red Hat and Suse make valiant efforts at attempting to improve this situation, but typically earn little more than contempt and abuse from the Linux community for doing so.
On the other hand, I've had Fedex deliver things (typically anything larger than a shoebox is a bad idea) with terrible results. Like the time they delivered a $1,200 200lb portable air conditioner that was labeled as clearly having to be delivered up three flights of stairs and all they had was a scrawny teenage girl who couldn't even get the package out of the vehicle, much less up the curb and three flights of stairs.
That's a pretty generous definition of "portable"...
UPS, on the other hand, delivered my 500lbs of steel (power-rack for olympic barbell lifting) - and arranged to have two people in the UPS truck who carried every package and all 500lbs of it up three flights of stairs and into my living room without so much as a scratch on any of the parts.
Ah, now I understand. You probably call 700L refrigerators "portable" as well;).
I, for example, would be happy to leave BT running 24/7, seeding files, but I simply can't afford to do that, because at 2mbps, I can chew up 10GB in just 11 hours (actually less, because you have to include transmitted traffic too), and unless I want to have unusable internet access for the remaining 30.5 days of the month, I have to strictly control the amount of traffic I transmit and receive.
Yowza, NZ ISPs count uploads in your quota ? And I thought the Aussie ones were stingy.
This is exactly true. I administer over 2,000 machines (mixed platform environment). We started installing Firefox as part our standard package over a year ago.
How are you remotely managing those Firefox installs for that many machines without GPOs ?
I'm no expert on this stuff, but I think some of the basic design flaws in IE were Active X (what were they thinking?!), [...]
In-house applications accessed from corporate intranet portals on secure LANs/WANs.
[...] overly-tight system integration (inflating minor security flaws into complete system compromise), [...]
Typically this occurs not because of IE's "system integration" (which is really no more "tight" than, say, khtml in KDE or WebCore in OS X) but because the user is running as an Administrator.
[...] and the way it handled MIME types based on file extensions (part of the former design flaw, really)
Yeah, that was pretty stupid. Not really a design flaw though - more of a policy mistake.
If Google releases an online office suite, it's over for Microsoft. Imagine an office productivity suite that doesn't require installation, is always up-to-date, and is integrated with the 'net.
And can't be used without an active internet connection.
Not to mention there's that whole "renting software" thing that is supposed to be A Bad Thing (but presumably it's ok when Google does it ?).
On the upside, it would allow for a whole new range of excuses students can use for not doing their homework....
The biggest problem that we have is that users want to store their Archive PST files on their laptop and then scream at us when their HD dies and they lose their old emails. It's a no win situation for us.. Management won't authorize more Exchange server space; if we force them to store their PST on a file server, they complain; if they lose a PST on a bad laptop HD they complain.
[...]
Any suggestions!?!?!?
Folder Redirection (put them in My Documents and redirect it) or a dedicated share that's mapped with "offline files". That way they still have them on the local machine for offline access, but they're also stored on the server for security.
However, I believe you need to tweak a registry setting (or something similar) so offline folders and/or folder redirection will sync.PST files.
I've been wondering if it would be feasible to lock the laptops WAY down (bare minimum of applications to connect) and have people use "Terminal Services" to operate an internal computer rather than having everything installed on the "remote" computer.
Kind of defeats the purpose of having a laptop, though...
actually my discussion is about whether people condone or endorse this "market" and illegal behavior.
I wasn't aware intel had been found guilty of a crime.
yes , it happens all the time and we are awash with unethical and dishonest commerce.
An inescapable side effect of increasing corporatisation and the "free market".
my post was about that people, such as yourself, don't care a whit that business take ethics into consideration or even that the people should address their government to ensure that it's done in the overall public benefit.
It isn't that I don't care, merely that I don't see any feasible alternative. The only alternatives to the current situation are either a completely "free market" - which would probably have AMD out of business within a year - or yet more government regulation and control. History suggests heavily government-regulated markets aren't particularly good for consumers.
so what do you want from companies and business in general?
Same thing everyone else does - the best products at the lowest prices.
do you think that any way they can make money, should be done?
Personally, no - but I'm not trying to run a business, and thus my opinion is not relevant to someone who is. But I would consider such behaviour to be the recommended and expected course of action in a "free market".
do you see any limit to what can be done in the name of business and profits?
Not really, no - although I can see the legal system stepping in after the fact.
And, again, this has nothing to do with "justice" and everything to do with capitalism.
should intel be able to strongarm retailers into not selling amd products?
Should the government be able to strongarm two non-government entities out of mutually agreeable business arrangements ?
more importantly, should intel continue their predatory and harmful business practices?
I've yet to hear of intel doing anything I'd consider "predatory and harmful".
clearly, they've been doing so for at least 10-15 years.
Naturally, because to AMD fanboys like yourself, the fact that until quite recently products based around AMDs processors have been, at best, comparitively mediocre (and largely, utter crap) never enters into the equation.
Intel have a commanding market position because historically they have delivered products with the highest performance and quality in the x86 market. AMD's recent achievements, vis a vis x86-64 and the Opteron processor, are an aberration (and I applaude them for it). Indeed, up until the early-mid '90s, AMD were little more than an intel reseller, and for the majority of the time since then, their products have had lower performance and consistently been dependant on slow, unreliable supporting hardware.
AMD suffering from predatory practices ? Please. Apart from a handful of examples (the first Athlons, the Opteron, x86-64 spring immediately to mind) AMD has been trailing intel since the x86 market was born, but the main reason they're not king of the hill is because of intel "strongarming" resellers not to sell AMD based machines ? The only business practices AMD have suffered from are VIA's extensive quests for the slowest, buggiest, most unreliable chipsets on the market. They alone have done more to hurt AMD's market penetration than intel could ever hope to do with sole supplier contracts.
do you approve of those actions or will you simply say "that is the way of the world" and ignore my questions?
with modern notions of justice, we can be rest assured that nothing will be done to help AMD or any other company that gets crushed by illegal monopolists.
This has nothing to do with "justice", and everything to do with "the market".
whether you think that's right or not can be discussed further but it's clear that people in general don't give a sh*t about honest commerce, [...]
"Honest commerce". Heh, that'd be like "military intelligence" and "ethical journalism", right ?
Okay this is getting out of hand here. I HATE modern cars (I'm 22). For many reasons. Every feature added to cars now a days decreases the ability for younger kids to acutally DRIVE! I know people that can't back their car up with out a backup display screen and warning sensor. I know a woman that can't change lanes with out her on board display screen in her Lincoln.
These people would have such disastrous driving skills anyway. The difference is that with more modern vehicles they're at least somewhat less dangerous in their incompetence.
Personally, as a driving (and riding) enthusiast, I love the march of technology in vehicles. My only real gripe is the recent tendency of manufacturers to make vehicles with automatic transmissions and "sport-shifters", then market them as being just like a manual. Sometimes they've actually forsaken a model with a manual transmission altogether for these hideous creations (vehicles that actually have real manual gearboxes and use a computer-controlled clutch to "fake" being an automatic are ok). Automatics are great for stop-start-city and long-distance driving, and for people who can't use a manual, but for really enjoying a drive, they suck.
But things like automatic chokes, fuel injection, ABS, traction control (as long as you can switch it off), power steering, electronic AWD/braking stability controls systems, better reliability, less maintenance, lighter, stronger chassis, etc - hell, yeah, bring 'em on.
This OnStar is not only a bad idea for future drivers...but its a MONEY MAKER for the auto makers
Don't think so small. This is just a prelude to:
a) automatic fines for breaking certain road laws (most obviously, speeding).
b) an easy way for insurance companies to avoid paying out claims.
I'd give the Government 5 years tops after such a system was commonplace before they passed legislation to enable the two things above, under the guise of "road safety".
This is all pointless BS that will jack the price of the car up 2000 bucks, distract drivers more, and cause a loss of skill in driving.
There is no "loss of skill in driving". Good drivers and people who want to become good drivers will still do so. The vast majority of people on the road will remain incompetent, but at least the technology will make them somewhat less of a hazard to themselves and others.
well considering the fact that most PCs that shipped w/ Win95 can run XP just fine [...]
I think you mean Win98 there - Windows 95 was shipping on 486s (and being installed at home on 386s).
From what I've seen, if you have a ca. 1Ghz P3 or faster with 512MB+ of RAM and a semi-decent video card, you'll be fine. Which covers hardware that's 5+ years old _today_, plus some very cheap and modest upgrades. Not only is that perfectly reasonable, it's no different to anyone else's products.
Not really. OS X is about as much a microkernel as NT is - which is to say, in theory but not in practice.
Both are designed around discrete modules providing services via messaging, like a microkernel.
Unfortunately, they also both run just about everything in kernel mode, removing the stability benefit of a microkernel design (in exchange for better performance).
However, I suspect both would be relatively easy to turn back into a real microkernel (move most stuff back into user mode) if the hardware ever gets fast enough (which it might, with multicore CPUs starting to appear) due to their extremely modular designs.
Nor is it particularly immodest to say that his file system is considerably more mature when he's spent almost 10 years more on it than the other.
It's worth pointing out that Microsoft have spent even longer creating "WinFS". Back in the early '90s, it (or, rather, the functionality) was part of their grand vision called "Cairo".
This is before we even get to the actual filesystem WinFS sits on top of - NTFS - that's been kicking around since at least 1993. Reiser4 doesn't appear to be doing a great deal more than NTFS was designed to do 15 years ago.
Comparing Reiser4 to WinFS, Reiser says in the interview, "Reiser4 is a much more mature design, representing a 10 year effort"."
Comparing ReiserFS and WinFS is a bit like comparing Qt and Explorer - nonsensical. They're different things, operating at different levels, to serve different purposes.
Come on, how are the parties involved supposed to carry any credibility when making such a *basic* and *fundamental* misunderstanding -/WinFS is not a filesystem/. They also seem to misunderstand what Spotlight is - again comparing it as a filesystem, when it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Added to that, it's not especially difficult getting Unix machines to talk to AD for authentication and other information (it's just LDAP, after all).
It's a hell of a lot easier to integrate and manage a handful of unix machines in a Windows environment than it is to integrate and manage a hundred Windows desktops in a unix environment. IME, that's typically the scenario (unix servers for mail, fileserving, DB, etc and Windows desktops).
Everyone I know here in Australia (including myself) whose introduction to Linux was via the written word rather than spoken, pronounces 'Linux' as you describe.
I've always considered 'linnucks' to be an Americanised pronounciation, and it's never made sense to me, as it suggests the word is spelt 'Linnux' (ie: double 'n'). I can see how an accent can get to 'Leenucks' (ie: how Linus prnounces it) but I've never understood where 'linnucks' came from.
Evidence ?
They're trying to prevent you from being able to watch your legally purchased media.
That seems like a rather counter-productive business plan.
Or is it possible you're referring to something else through the haze of paranoia ?
Were this really true, then neither product would be as popular as it is. Simple fact is the only other OS as polished and easy as Windows is OS X, and it comes saddled with a requirement for buying typically expensive and/or underpowered hardware.
Office got where it is by being the best option, as hard as that may be for some to understand.
In keeping for the last one, I want to stop paying the MS tax (paying for a Windows License on a new computer.)
So don't buy PCs that come with Windows. Duh. Despite the rantings and ravings of people on Slashdot, it has /always/ been possible to purchase PCs without Windows.
Device Drivers. Manufactures will be forced to release specs or drivers if MS has less than majority markey share.
Bollocks. They'd just be producing closed, proprietry drivers for other OSes. You'd be in precisely the same situation, just with a different company to aim your displeasure at.
Linux would be a lot more attractive to hardware manufacturers if they didn't have to worry about - and deal with - every minor kernel revision breaking their drivers. Every remotely mainstream OS conquered this problem over a decade ago, but Linux still requires either the entire driver, or some kludgy wrapper layer, to be recompiled with every kernel update.
The driver situation is merely another sympton of the general developmental instability and inconsistency rife throughout the entire Linux platform, that everyone except Linux zealots understand is one of the major issues holding it back in the commercial world. Vendors like Red Hat and Suse make valiant efforts at attempting to improve this situation, but typically earn little more than contempt and abuse from the Linux community for doing so.
That's a pretty generous definition of "portable"...
UPS, on the other hand, delivered my 500lbs of steel (power-rack for olympic barbell lifting) - and arranged to have two people in the UPS truck who carried every package and all 500lbs of it up three flights of stairs and into my living room without so much as a scratch on any of the parts.
Ah, now I understand. You probably call 700L refrigerators "portable" as well ;).
Yowza, NZ ISPs count uploads in your quota ? And I thought the Aussie ones were stingy.
How are you remotely managing those Firefox installs for that many machines without GPOs ?
In-house applications accessed from corporate intranet portals on secure LANs/WANs.
[...] overly-tight system integration (inflating minor security flaws into complete system compromise), [...]
Typically this occurs not because of IE's "system integration" (which is really no more "tight" than, say, khtml in KDE or WebCore in OS X) but because the user is running as an Administrator.
[...] and the way it handled MIME types based on file extensions (part of the former design flaw, really)
Yeah, that was pretty stupid. Not really a design flaw though - more of a policy mistake.
So, in other words, it wouldn't actually be the same code at all ?
And can't be used without an active internet connection.
Not to mention there's that whole "renting software" thing that is supposed to be A Bad Thing (but presumably it's ok when Google does it ?).
On the upside, it would allow for a whole new range of excuses students can use for not doing their homework....
Two what ?
[...]
Any suggestions!?!?!?
Folder Redirection (put them in My Documents and redirect it) or a dedicated share that's mapped with "offline files". That way they still have them on the local machine for offline access, but they're also stored on the server for security.
However, I believe you need to tweak a registry setting (or something similar) so offline folders and/or folder redirection will sync .PST files.
Kind of defeats the purpose of having a laptop, though...
I wasn't aware intel had been found guilty of a crime.
yes , it happens all the time and we are awash with unethical and dishonest commerce.
An inescapable side effect of increasing corporatisation and the "free market".
my post was about that people, such as yourself, don't care a whit that business take ethics into consideration or even that the people should address their government to ensure that it's done in the overall public benefit.
It isn't that I don't care, merely that I don't see any feasible alternative. The only alternatives to the current situation are either a completely "free market" - which would probably have AMD out of business within a year - or yet more government regulation and control. History suggests heavily government-regulated markets aren't particularly good for consumers.
so what do you want from companies and business in general?
Same thing everyone else does - the best products at the lowest prices.
do you think that any way they can make money, should be done?
Personally, no - but I'm not trying to run a business, and thus my opinion is not relevant to someone who is. But I would consider such behaviour to be the recommended and expected course of action in a "free market".
do you see any limit to what can be done in the name of business and profits?
Not really, no - although I can see the legal system stepping in after the fact.
And, again, this has nothing to do with "justice" and everything to do with capitalism.
should intel be able to strongarm retailers into not selling amd products?
Should the government be able to strongarm two non-government entities out of mutually agreeable business arrangements ?
more importantly, should intel continue their predatory and harmful business practices?
I've yet to hear of intel doing anything I'd consider "predatory and harmful".
clearly, they've been doing so for at least 10-15 years.
Naturally, because to AMD fanboys like yourself, the fact that until quite recently products based around AMDs processors have been, at best, comparitively mediocre (and largely, utter crap) never enters into the equation.
Intel have a commanding market position because historically they have delivered products with the highest performance and quality in the x86 market. AMD's recent achievements, vis a vis x86-64 and the Opteron processor, are an aberration (and I applaude them for it). Indeed, up until the early-mid '90s, AMD were little more than an intel reseller, and for the majority of the time since then, their products have had lower performance and consistently been dependant on slow, unreliable supporting hardware.
AMD suffering from predatory practices ? Please. Apart from a handful of examples (the first Athlons, the Opteron, x86-64 spring immediately to mind) AMD has been trailing intel since the x86 market was born, but the main reason they're not king of the hill is because of intel "strongarming" resellers not to sell AMD based machines ? The only business practices AMD have suffered from are VIA's extensive quests for the slowest, buggiest, most unreliable chipsets on the market. They alone have done more to hurt AMD's market penetration than intel could ever hope to do with sole supplier contracts.
do you approve of those actions or will you simply say "that is the way of the world" and ignore my questions?
What actions am I supposed to be approving of ?
This has nothing to do with "justice", and everything to do with "the market".
whether you think that's right or not can be discussed further but it's clear that people in general don't give a sh*t about honest commerce, [...]
"Honest commerce". Heh, that'd be like "military intelligence" and "ethical journalism", right ?
This is not strictly true. For example, Apple hardware doesn't get any cheaper over time, it just gets replaced by newer models.
Software also gets updated (in place) during its lifetime, hardware does not - that ongoing maintenance must be funded.
I stumbled across this the other day while I was researching MRTG stuff. You may find it helpful.
More accurate (and descriptive) terms are "reactive" and "proactive".
These people would have such disastrous driving skills anyway. The difference is that with more modern vehicles they're at least somewhat less dangerous in their incompetence.
Personally, as a driving (and riding) enthusiast, I love the march of technology in vehicles. My only real gripe is the recent tendency of manufacturers to make vehicles with automatic transmissions and "sport-shifters", then market them as being just like a manual. Sometimes they've actually forsaken a model with a manual transmission altogether for these hideous creations (vehicles that actually have real manual gearboxes and use a computer-controlled clutch to "fake" being an automatic are ok). Automatics are great for stop-start-city and long-distance driving, and for people who can't use a manual, but for really enjoying a drive, they suck.
But things like automatic chokes, fuel injection, ABS, traction control (as long as you can switch it off), power steering, electronic AWD/braking stability controls systems, better reliability, less maintenance, lighter, stronger chassis, etc - hell, yeah, bring 'em on.
This OnStar is not only a bad idea for future drivers...but its a MONEY MAKER for the auto makers
Don't think so small. This is just a prelude to:
a) automatic fines for breaking certain road laws (most obviously, speeding).
b) an easy way for insurance companies to avoid paying out claims.
I'd give the Government 5 years tops after such a system was commonplace before they passed legislation to enable the two things above, under the guise of "road safety".
This is all pointless BS that will jack the price of the car up 2000 bucks, distract drivers more, and cause a loss of skill in driving.
There is no "loss of skill in driving". Good drivers and people who want to become good drivers will still do so. The vast majority of people on the road will remain incompetent, but at least the technology will make them somewhat less of a hazard to themselves and others.
Why ? XP is a fairly trivial, largely drop-in change from Windows 2000 - certainly /vastly/ cheaper than any migration to Linux would be.
I think you mean Win98 there - Windows 95 was shipping on 486s (and being installed at home on 386s).
From what I've seen, if you have a ca. 1Ghz P3 or faster with 512MB+ of RAM and a semi-decent video card, you'll be fine. Which covers hardware that's 5+ years old _today_, plus some very cheap and modest upgrades. Not only is that perfectly reasonable, it's no different to anyone else's products.
For people with legal copies of whatever-it-is they want to watch, they won't be "putting up" with anything...
Not really. OS X is about as much a microkernel as NT is - which is to say, in theory but not in practice.
Both are designed around discrete modules providing services via messaging, like a microkernel.
Unfortunately, they also both run just about everything in kernel mode, removing the stability benefit of a microkernel design (in exchange for better performance).
However, I suspect both would be relatively easy to turn back into a real microkernel (move most stuff back into user mode) if the hardware ever gets fast enough (which it might, with multicore CPUs starting to appear) due to their extremely modular designs.
It's worth pointing out that Microsoft have spent even longer creating "WinFS". Back in the early '90s, it (or, rather, the functionality) was part of their grand vision called "Cairo".
This is before we even get to the actual filesystem WinFS sits on top of - NTFS - that's been kicking around since at least 1993. Reiser4 doesn't appear to be doing a great deal more than NTFS was designed to do 15 years ago.
Comparing ReiserFS and WinFS is a bit like comparing Qt and Explorer - nonsensical. They're different things, operating at different levels, to serve different purposes.
Come on, how are the parties involved supposed to carry any credibility when making such a *basic* and *fundamental* misunderstanding - /WinFS is not a filesystem/. They also seem to misunderstand what Spotlight is - again comparing it as a filesystem, when it isn't.