So why are so many people still running XP? (And I'm not suggesting Vista isn't a great OS - but if you have a computer to run a particular program, and it doesn't - well all the technical advantages in the world won't make it useful)
Ditto, clean install just plain fails. Going back to 9.04 and I'll regroup from there.
Of course, as a Linux I could also look at a different distro.
For what it's worth it looks like the problem is about hardware - as I said the clean install fails (doesn't find a hard disk). If you want to upgrade it might be worth booting the live CD and seeing if it can see the hard disk before proceeding (the problem is apparent before it would write to the disk). If that helps. Otherwise, my advice - sit this out for a while, if you have 9.04 working you don't need to take the risk.
Mine is a disaster. Now am I dropping Ubuntu? No, I'll drop back to 9.04 (I have all the data - I've been around the block enough times to not make that mistake). However, I might look at Red Hat if the problems aren't resolved quickly.
And here's the advantage of Linux - I can move to another supplier, I'm not locked in.
There are two sides to this (at least). If you're moving your data "to the cloud" you'd expect that "the cloud" is one hell of a lot more reliable than you are. Let's face it, they should be - the economics of scale mean it's a lot cheaper for them to host your data and lots of other's data, than it is for you alone.
But that isn't what's happened in this case, here Microsoft (!) haven't even covered the basics. This is stunning.
So does this call into question "cloud computing" or just Microsoft's "cloud computing"? This is a difficult question to answer, without being able to see for yourself your cloud partner's infrastructure and procedures you can't really be sure... But would anyone make such a foolish mistake? Microsoft have proven that the answer is "yes, if it's Microsoft", the real question is should that be just: "yes"?
I think most of us now want a more hybrid approach, "in the cloud" is nice, but I also want a "local copy".
Then you have to think about the other kind of "lose" where others gain access to data they shouldn't see...
The kind of filesystem have help - I'm familiar with ZFS concepts so I'll stick to those:
In ZFS when you write to a file you don't write over the pre-exisiting data, you write elsewhere then that gets mapped in upon success, the old data is still there and you can see the aged mapping (you know what was there). Now you can at this point recycle this space. However, you can switch this pruning off, now you have a complete record of everything that was ever done on the disk. To stop it ever running out of space I can either: Add disks to the disk-pool to stop that, or prune very old data (older than a give age - maybe 6 months?).
Err... This is cloud computing, right? Why do you have off-site backups every week or so?! The data should be stored in multiple geographic locations ALL THE TIME. The ZFS suggestion isn't as dumb as you might think, you tell ZFS not to prune old data, then if stuff gets "deleted" it's still on the disk (I won't bore you with an explanation here). You're right ZFS won't help you against something that destroys (physically) the disks (so multiple locations are required) but it will help you against hacking or software errors.
Of course, ZFS isn't the only way to do this; the reader might have their own ideas too (I'm not suggesting they are any less right than the one detailed here).
I think it depends on how you're looking at it. A.C. says "OK, if you think Apple's displays are expensive ignore them" (I think that what he/she is saying anyway). That seems valid if we're comparing computers...
I did like the crack about Dell not making an OS - that made me laugh.
But sure, if you want to be a "laptop hunter" then you'll find a way to discount Apple's products. A rabid Mac-fan will tell you to go compare like for like and you need to find a Dell display with a camera, speakers, charger for the laptop, USB-hub... you get the idea, and you can't do it - Dell don't make one. You've got to realise sooner or later you're not comparing like for like - the ranges don't match up. So it has to be a judgment call.
Does it? It looks like Windows 7 appeals primarily to users running Vista, and little to anyone else. If this IS true then Microsoft have a problem. Of course, there is the counter argument - these early adopters are just that: "early adopters" and of course they were on Vista, and of course, they moved to Windows 7 early.
However, it will be interesting to see how Windows 7 appeals outside Vista users - these users do seem to like Windows 7, and why not, it is very like Vista, but with significant improvements. For XP users things aren't nearly as clear cut, Windows 7 is very unlike XP and while it's an improvement on Vista it won't necessarily run the applications that Vista failed to run, it also might not run on their system (although they might feel that now is a more reasonable time to upgrade their hardware).
In short, I don't think this tells us much, but it does lead to some interesting questions. For Microsoft the indications are still positive, but things are still far from certain.
One thing I don't see, is a migration of users back to the Windows platforms, those who've switched to the Mac or Linux seem unlikely to return (of course, the numbers are pretty insignificant). The real question is, can Windows 7 get XP users "back in the fold" or will they continue to use XP in significant numbers, and will users still switch to other platforms (and will that ever reach a "critical mass"?)
What do I think? Hey if I know that, I'd really be "Insightful".
OK, I get that. So MOST of the time it's just like IE (horribly insecure) but pages can opt for Chrome if they wish (and I'd guess if I were trying to do something nasty to your computer and I do opt for Chrome then it would be a reasonable assumption that I wanted to exploit Chrome in some way).
OK I get it. So it's no different than say Flash really (except Flash does have a bad rep for security).
I guess it's useful for companies who need to run IE6 (because they have some nasty legacy web app that requires it) but want to migrate to a "modern" browser (are probably developing new code to do so) users can gain the advantage of fast Javascript and HTML5 AND still use the legacy apps that need IE6. Useful, but yeah, I guess by definition no more secure than IE6, and potentially less secure (if an exploit is found for Chrome).
Still seems like a useful stepping stone. Of course, I'd not recommend my "friends or family" to use this - they don't need downstream compatibility with IE6.
Given that this is IE6, I think any talk about security is somewhat moot. Unless I don't understand it, this should make IE6 more secure - Chrome after all is a "modern" browser, and the page will be run inside that, and not actually touch the rest of IE6's feature set. I really don't see this at all, it strikes me that this is FUD. Maybe I'm missing the point here.
Anyway, if users actually cared about security they'd not be running IE6 - even Microsoft see the upgrade from that as "critical".
Is that really true? The problem with the Ribbon (in the general sense) is that it's fine if a small picture can represent what you're trying to do - but some operations don't lend themselves to little pictures. Take "Save As" for example, or "Revert to last saved", even "Select All"!
The other problem is new users, we all recognise that three little lines usually represent text, but if you don't recognise that then "Left align", "Right align", "Centre" and "Justify" make no sense (and yeah, I thought it was obvious - but I've been asked about it enough that I'm beginning to doubt it is).
The problem with little pictures is they can be more cryptic. Now the ribbon is more suited to "modern" wide displays, but it does less well than menus on cramped displays (I'm thinking NetBook) a Menu will scroll (yes, I know it's horrible) but the ribbon is worse.
Don't get me started about how it makes you use the mouse all the time - constantly reaching for the mouse is a productivity killer.
So no, I'm not at all convinced that the Ribbon is a better way. As a UI element, it's interesting and I can see the utility in places but I don't think pictures are always better than words.
Who let's the Java developers near the database server (that's just silly)? One of the fields might not contain a value you and boom before you know it there's an exception being thrown all around the office - that's just silly;-)
Well as an "IT" person I can see the hiring is more difficult for "IT noobz". I'll accept that. However there is no excuse for allowing other staff to abuse the IT staff (or indeed vice versa). I'm all for carrot but occasionally the stick is useful;-)
If you've yet to employee this person, it's simple: Don't.
If you have then, can you turn the situation around? Have you given them what they could reasonably expect? (If not: do it) If you really don't trust them think about why you're employing them. Hopefully they've not been in post long - get rid of them.
If they've been in post for a while then ask yourself: "How the heck did this happen?!" you'll find the reason in the mirror!
If I select the person then I'm making the judgement call about them and their capabilities - so I could get this completely, but the mistake is mine. If I outsource this, well I don't get any input into this. Would I allow someone else to select employees for inside the company?! (No, I flippin' well wouldn't)
Also I have control over the treatment of this person, I can make sure they're not mistreated or abused. Can treat this person with respect and compassion (when they need it), this is no assurance they'll do the same for me, but it can't hurt can it?
Does it matter if it is within your own country? If the firm you outsource to gets taken over you have no idea what the new yahoos are like, your relationship can sour overnight. I'd agree going to another country can add more problems, but it can still go royally wrong within your own country.
If it's core to the business, you'll still be accountable (ultimately) so is it really worth the risk?
Trust isn't just about: "Is this {insert expletive here} going to {insert expletive here} me?". It's also is this person up to the job? Are the backups they take any use? (Do they even take them?) How quickly could they get us up and running again? Then there is the basic lack of security inherent in modern IT (which let's face it is laughable) Install a keylogger? Trust is a much more thorny subject than "are they out to get me?"
Seriously? You're saying: "I'm quite happy with whatever you decide" on something core to the business?! So whoever they hire (and let's not forget the idea is to get this as cheaply as possible) is perfectly "OK"?
I worry about this nonsense. I'd want to meet the person, get to know them, make sure they were treated fairly. Before anyone thinks this is a race issue, it isn't - I'm don't care about the colour of their skin, their gender or what what they believe in. I just want someone who seems trustworthy, and someone I know can talk to me if they have a problem. So yes, I want them to come into my office. I want them to be happy. No I don't want to stand behind them watching their every move - I want to trust them.
No I'm confused - what the hell has the iPhone got to do with it? Podcasting got it's "name" from the old "Click Wheel" iPod - right? And I thought using RSS with enclosures to deliver audio (and later video) actually came to the iPod later and existed before. Wasn't it invented by Dave Winer and Adam Curry?
How come I know this and the patent office doesn't?
Me: "Hey, can you come over and type your password so I can sort it." Dude with problem: "There shouldn't be a password!" Me (after pushing at an empty password prompt): "Oh, yeah - never mind"
Slashdot Mirror
So why are so many people still running XP? (And I'm not suggesting Vista isn't a great OS - but if you have a computer to run a particular program, and it doesn't - well all the technical advantages in the world won't make it useful)
I've had Windows Servers blow up after installing patches... No matter what OS, test patches before deployment (if you can).
Ditto, clean install just plain fails. Going back to 9.04 and I'll regroup from there.
Of course, as a Linux I could also look at a different distro.
For what it's worth it looks like the problem is about hardware - as I said the clean install fails (doesn't find a hard disk). If you want to upgrade it might be worth booting the live CD and seeing if it can see the hard disk before proceeding (the problem is apparent before it would write to the disk). If that helps. Otherwise, my advice - sit this out for a while, if you have 9.04 working you don't need to take the risk.
Mine is a disaster. Now am I dropping Ubuntu? No, I'll drop back to 9.04 (I have all the data - I've been around the block enough times to not make that mistake). However, I might look at Red Hat if the problems aren't resolved quickly.
And here's the advantage of Linux - I can move to another supplier, I'm not locked in.
Mod the parent up!
There are two sides to this (at least). If you're moving your data "to the cloud" you'd expect that "the cloud" is one hell of a lot more reliable than you are. Let's face it, they should be - the economics of scale mean it's a lot cheaper for them to host your data and lots of other's data, than it is for you alone.
But that isn't what's happened in this case, here Microsoft (!) haven't even covered the basics. This is stunning.
So does this call into question "cloud computing" or just Microsoft's "cloud computing"? This is a difficult question to answer, without being able to see for yourself your cloud partner's infrastructure and procedures you can't really be sure... But would anyone make such a foolish mistake? Microsoft have proven that the answer is "yes, if it's Microsoft", the real question is should that be just: "yes"?
I think most of us now want a more hybrid approach, "in the cloud" is nice, but I also want a "local copy".
Then you have to think about the other kind of "lose" where others gain access to data they shouldn't see...
The kind of filesystem have help - I'm familiar with ZFS concepts so I'll stick to those:
In ZFS when you write to a file you don't write over the pre-exisiting data, you write elsewhere then that gets mapped in upon success, the old data is still there and you can see the aged mapping (you know what was there). Now you can at this point recycle this space. However, you can switch this pruning off, now you have a complete record of everything that was ever done on the disk. To stop it ever running out of space I can either: Add disks to the disk-pool to stop that, or prune very old data (older than a give age - maybe 6 months?).
So it helps.
Err... This is cloud computing, right? Why do you have off-site backups every week or so?! The data should be stored in multiple geographic locations ALL THE TIME. The ZFS suggestion isn't as dumb as you might think, you tell ZFS not to prune old data, then if stuff gets "deleted" it's still on the disk (I won't bore you with an explanation here). You're right ZFS won't help you against something that destroys (physically) the disks (so multiple locations are required) but it will help you against hacking or software errors.
Of course, ZFS isn't the only way to do this; the reader might have their own ideas too (I'm not suggesting they are any less right than the one detailed here).
I think it depends on how you're looking at it. A.C. says "OK, if you think Apple's displays are expensive ignore them" (I think that what he/she is saying anyway). That seems valid if we're comparing computers...
I did like the crack about Dell not making an OS - that made me laugh.
But sure, if you want to be a "laptop hunter" then you'll find a way to discount Apple's products. A rabid Mac-fan will tell you to go compare like for like and you need to find a Dell display with a camera, speakers, charger for the laptop, USB-hub ... you get the idea, and you can't do it - Dell don't make one. You've got to realise sooner or later you're not comparing like for like - the ranges don't match up. So it has to be a judgment call.
Well, you could always use a cheaper display...
Is that the only reason? I'd be staggered if the only reason PC owners don't buy Mac is because they can't afford them. How cheap do Macs need to be?
If that's true then most PCs must be of the "low end" type, Celeron rather than Core 2 Duo - right? Is that true?
Does it? It looks like Windows 7 appeals primarily to users running Vista, and little to anyone else. If this IS true then Microsoft have a problem. Of course, there is the counter argument - these early adopters are just that: "early adopters" and of course they were on Vista, and of course, they moved to Windows 7 early.
However, it will be interesting to see how Windows 7 appeals outside Vista users - these users do seem to like Windows 7, and why not, it is very like Vista, but with significant improvements. For XP users things aren't nearly as clear cut, Windows 7 is very unlike XP and while it's an improvement on Vista it won't necessarily run the applications that Vista failed to run, it also might not run on their system (although they might feel that now is a more reasonable time to upgrade their hardware).
In short, I don't think this tells us much, but it does lead to some interesting questions. For Microsoft the indications are still positive, but things are still far from certain.
One thing I don't see, is a migration of users back to the Windows platforms, those who've switched to the Mac or Linux seem unlikely to return (of course, the numbers are pretty insignificant). The real question is, can Windows 7 get XP users "back in the fold" or will they continue to use XP in significant numbers, and will users still switch to other platforms (and will that ever reach a "critical mass"?)
What do I think? Hey if I know that, I'd really be "Insightful".
OK, I get that. So MOST of the time it's just like IE (horribly insecure) but pages can opt for Chrome if they wish (and I'd guess if I were trying to do something nasty to your computer and I do opt for Chrome then it would be a reasonable assumption that I wanted to exploit Chrome in some way).
OK I get it. So it's no different than say Flash really (except Flash does have a bad rep for security).
I guess it's useful for companies who need to run IE6 (because they have some nasty legacy web app that requires it) but want to migrate to a "modern" browser (are probably developing new code to do so) users can gain the advantage of fast Javascript and HTML5 AND still use the legacy apps that need IE6. Useful, but yeah, I guess by definition no more secure than IE6, and potentially less secure (if an exploit is found for Chrome).
Still seems like a useful stepping stone. Of course, I'd not recommend my "friends or family" to use this - they don't need downstream compatibility with IE6.
Anyway thanks for the clarification.
Given that this is IE6, I think any talk about security is somewhat moot. Unless I don't understand it, this should make IE6 more secure - Chrome after all is a "modern" browser, and the page will be run inside that, and not actually touch the rest of IE6's feature set. I really don't see this at all, it strikes me that this is FUD. Maybe I'm missing the point here.
Anyway, if users actually cared about security they'd not be running IE6 - even Microsoft see the upgrade from that as "critical".
Is that really true? The problem with the Ribbon (in the general sense) is that it's fine if a small picture can represent what you're trying to do - but some operations don't lend themselves to little pictures. Take "Save As" for example, or "Revert to last saved", even "Select All"!
The other problem is new users, we all recognise that three little lines usually represent text, but if you don't recognise that then "Left align", "Right align", "Centre" and "Justify" make no sense (and yeah, I thought it was obvious - but I've been asked about it enough that I'm beginning to doubt it is).
The problem with little pictures is they can be more cryptic. Now the ribbon is more suited to "modern" wide displays, but it does less well than menus on cramped displays (I'm thinking NetBook) a Menu will scroll (yes, I know it's horrible) but the ribbon is worse.
Don't get me started about how it makes you use the mouse all the time - constantly reaching for the mouse is a productivity killer.
So no, I'm not at all convinced that the Ribbon is a better way. As a UI element, it's interesting and I can see the utility in places but I don't think pictures are always better than words.
Who let's the Java developers near the database server (that's just silly)? One of the fields might not contain a value you and boom before you know it there's an exception being thrown all around the office - that's just silly ;-)
Well as an "IT" person I can see the hiring is more difficult for "IT noobz". I'll accept that. However there is no excuse for allowing other staff to abuse the IT staff (or indeed vice versa). I'm all for carrot but occasionally the stick is useful ;-)
If you've yet to employee this person, it's simple: Don't.
If you have then, can you turn the situation around? Have you given them what they could reasonably expect? (If not: do it) If you really don't trust them think about why you're employing them. Hopefully they've not been in post long - get rid of them.
If they've been in post for a while then ask yourself: "How the heck did this happen?!" you'll find the reason in the mirror!
If I select the person then I'm making the judgement call about them and their capabilities - so I could get this completely, but the mistake is mine. If I outsource this, well I don't get any input into this. Would I allow someone else to select employees for inside the company?! (No, I flippin' well wouldn't)
Also I have control over the treatment of this person, I can make sure they're not mistreated or abused. Can treat this person with respect and compassion (when they need it), this is no assurance they'll do the same for me, but it can't hurt can it?
Does it matter if it is within your own country? If the firm you outsource to gets taken over you have no idea what the new yahoos are like, your relationship can sour overnight. I'd agree going to another country can add more problems, but it can still go royally wrong within your own country.
If it's core to the business, you'll still be accountable (ultimately) so is it really worth the risk?
This is all fine and dandy, except:
Trust isn't just about: "Is this {insert expletive here} going to {insert expletive here} me?". It's also is this person up to the job? Are the backups they take any use? (Do they even take them?) How quickly could they get us up and running again? Then there is the basic lack of security inherent in modern IT (which let's face it is laughable) Install a keylogger? Trust is a much more thorny subject than "are they out to get me?"
Seriously? You're saying: "I'm quite happy with whatever you decide" on something core to the business?! So whoever they hire (and let's not forget the idea is to get this as cheaply as possible) is perfectly "OK"?
I worry about this nonsense. I'd want to meet the person, get to know them, make sure they were treated fairly. Before anyone thinks this is a race issue, it isn't - I'm don't care about the colour of their skin, their gender or what what they believe in. I just want someone who seems trustworthy, and someone I know can talk to me if they have a problem. So yes, I want them to come into my office. I want them to be happy. No I don't want to stand behind them watching their every move - I want to trust them.
No I'm confused - what the hell has the iPhone got to do with it? Podcasting got it's "name" from the old "Click Wheel" iPod - right? And I thought using RSS with enclosures to deliver audio (and later video) actually came to the iPod later and existed before. Wasn't it invented by Dave Winer and Adam Curry?
How come I know this and the patent office doesn't?
Oh the number of times this has caught me out!
Me: "Hey, can you come over and type your password so I can sort it."
Dude with problem: "There shouldn't be a password!"
Me (after pushing at an empty password prompt): "Oh, yeah - never mind"
I think the argument has been made before - I'll let you figure out which side won...
I agree, there should be a "I live alone" option.