Maybe I've missed out on latest MS developments, but until recently Exchange was using an underlying Jet database engine, which is limited to 16 Gig. If your users are getting any attachments at all, forget it.
More, once (not if) it crashes, Jet is almost impossible to recover, even if you've had recent backups.
If I read it all correctly, manned missions and ISS are not cut, so that gimmicky space shots will continue. The purely scientific ones are, so no more nice pictures of Mars or comets or whatever.
I was hacking since 1983, and I could almost never agree with anything Wired said. It all was either underresearched, or plain utopian, or just regurgitating ideas which were forgotten for good some 20 years ago. Not mentioning that most of the stuff was plain unreadabe due to awful typography.
Still, I believe that among our fundamental rights there should be a right to be obviously wrong somewhere. Wired didn't prove anything, but most of the articles in their lame wrongness provoked a lot of people to come forward and set the record straight. Wrong stuff can lead to a lot of positive development too.
Above notwithstanding, there were some articles that ruled, interview with Freeman Dyson for one. It was a bit like/. in not focusing exclusively on computers and trying to present a wider picture. I will miss it.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe I've missed out on latest MS developments, but until recently Exchange was using an underlying Jet database engine, which is limited to 16 Gig. If your users are getting any attachments at all, forget it.
More, once (not if) it crashes, Jet is almost impossible to recover, even if you've had recent backups.
If I read it all correctly, manned missions and ISS are not cut, so that gimmicky space shots will continue. The purely scientific ones are, so no more nice pictures of Mars or comets or whatever.
I was hacking since 1983, and I could almost never agree with anything Wired said. It all was either underresearched, or plain utopian, or just regurgitating ideas which were forgotten for good some 20 years ago. Not mentioning that most of the stuff was plain unreadabe due to awful typography.
/. in not focusing exclusively on computers and trying to present a wider picture. I will miss it.
Still, I believe that among our fundamental rights there should be a right to be obviously wrong somewhere. Wired didn't prove anything, but most of the articles in their lame wrongness provoked a lot of people to come forward and set the record straight. Wrong stuff can lead to a lot of positive development too.
Above notwithstanding, there were some articles that ruled, interview with Freeman Dyson for one. It was a bit like