In the first corner we have... VMWare ESX + HA, dual power supplies, fibre channel (read: real) SAN, shared SCSI(FCP) storage, centralized management console
and the new challenger... Xen, single power supply, SATA, swappable USB storage for failover, command line
Those are from two totally different divisions... planets... galaxies, what have you. You cannot compare the two. You don't actually talk someone out of a SAN and into buying USB storage, or from ESX+HA to physically swapping external storage. It doesn't work like that. That's like talking someone out of buying a McLaren and into a Civic. I can't fathom recommending manually swapping external storage as failover to someone actually paying me money, so just where do you draw the line for that solution? How big an IT budget, number of employees, etc? I'm perpetually stunned by people on Slashdot who think that bottom rung technology is good enough for absolutely everyone, or anyone who doesn't use it is wasting money. I hope you can see that Xen solution, as you described it, doesn't fly very far in real world datacenters (where most server virtualization is going on)
After seeing the result, they should have started with a rackmount server and figured out a quieter cooling system. That box is just retarded, and over priced for what you get. Like others said, for that much money, it had better LOOK good, because there are plenty of ugly servers with as much and more power.
But if you buy a Ford, you have to by Exxon Gas only, and you can only carry people and things in your truck which have been approved by Ford, and you can only use Ford parts, and you can only use Ford windshield washer fluid, and the radio will only tune in the Ford Station.
If you put any item not approved by Ford and sold by Ford in the truckbed your warranty is void and you committed a DCMA violation.
Can you put Exxon Gas in a Chevy? Check. Retain the right to distribute your own app on other platforms? Check.
Install aftermarket parts without voiding warranty? Nope. Install Ford authorized (*gasp*) aftermarket parts without voiding warranty? If Ford installs them, check.
See the trend?
You joke about the bed of the truck, but you know they could just as easily offer a bed liner warranty and void the shit out of it pretty much at their discretion. That they control any part of it and COULD control about anything is my point. What's the excuse for them not supporting a custom turbo installation? DMCA changes things a little, but manufacturers attempting to control their products where it benefits them (and usually you in a roundabout way) is hardly new. Who knows, maybe things will change eventually. There will be a huge market for mobile antivirus I want in on.
You all keep bitching about open cellphones, computers, cars, or whatever. I want to know why someone can put a lien on my house for not mowing my lawn. Suck on that a minute.
- group policies - security and software install - single password store (with cached passwords for notebooks that go away from the network) - Patch update policy
This is very much like when (several years back) I was told Linux wasnt ready because there was no antivirus or defrag available. If all you know is Windows then you imagine these things are critical to the operation of a corporate network. They arent. With a real OS the actual underlying goals these things serve are served without the need for the specific windows-centric functions to patch windows-specific problems.
Please explain how the above requirements are in any way Windows specific. A real OS can be managed centrally, how about that? BTW, a "ssh for loop" and $1 will buy you a nice candy bar.
You are using the word "open" to describe a system that has a freely-accessible API. This does not mean that the system is an "open" device. Making this comparison is like saying Windows is "open" because you can write open-source applications for it.
That IS the definition of open to many, and Windows IS an open system! It might not be the MOST open way, but sheesh, setting the bar that high means taking a lot of openness for granted. "Open systems" predates your intended meaning by a few decades.
Computers aren't as young as they used to be. There is already a lot of valuable history being forgotten and "reinvented" the next week. I'm only 26 but I can see that plain as day. The new open. Ugh, rub the grime off those old buzzwords but it's still just about money, crazy idealists. The future will be interesting. Since the cost of "open" has raced to the bottom so fast, we'll get to find out what it's really worth and maybe temper all this idealism. Don't hate me, I'm only being pragmatic.
For example, the universal menu bar thing in OS(whatever), makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me, so apple is saying that a bar across the top of the screen, completely abstracted away from the app with focus, holds all that apps menus? and changes what is contained in it as focus changes? And that is supposed to be clear and intuitive?
I don't know what your definition of "makes sense" is, but understanding the reasoning behind usability design has nothing to do with usability aside from the study of it. You probably don't have a clue why the doors in your house open the direction they do either, and it doesn't matter to you, but it does to police and firemen.
How about this, how would you design a radon or carbon monoxide detector? Quick, what makes sense? Would it look and sound sort of like a smoke detector? Makes sense, right? We all know what they are, what a high pitch screeching means, etc. OK, now what if someone wakes up, checks for a fire and silences it? I hope you designed it ugly as fuck, with giant lettering: BLAH detector, WARNING, invisible gas. What about when the battery is low? Beep occasionally? What people expect from such a device right? Except, do most people know what a carbon monoxide detector alarm sounds like? OOPS. You have to treat false alarms ENTIRELY differently because you're dealing with something people can't detect themselves. Better have a description of the various alarm states printed right on that sucker!
I hope you get my point. Even though these devices are conceptually similar, detect FOO -> sound alarm, they have to be designed completely differently, and it's not just a matter of what was built first, although that is a factor. Overloading the meaning of something we are already familiar with might be bad in general, but it's not obvious to the average person who will expect something familiar.
Back to your example... It's a fixed, universal context menu and the application is the context. Yes, it IS just as evil as any context dependent menu is, and you hit on that. It is however, fixed, universal, and the context name is always the leftmost entry. You know all those context menus in Windows, KDE and Gnome? Are THOSE intuitive? Now, I have an universal application-context menu, why would I put a redundant one on each application? Why move it from it's fixed position? Do you need to see a menu bar for more than one application at a time? You can't manipulate more than one at a time, with keystrokes or mouse gestures, so what would the point be? Neither Windows, Gnome or KDE will even show the contents of more than one menu bar at a time AFAIK. Do you forget where it is when it doesn't move? Making menus m®ove doesn't make sense to me, what's the advantage of having it collocated with each window instance? What's the expected behavior when more than one document from the same app is opened? Can you point me to some multi-document standards from other systems? What's the advantage of having content in context menus that is unavailable in the main menu? To solve menu clutter, check the GIMP out. You can probably guess the UI design was inherited from a platform with *ahem* sane application menu standards. Who knows, maybe simply hiding least frequently used menu items is a better approach. MakesSense(tm)
Computers are complex and powerful tools, you can't hide this by dumbing down an interface.
A computer is just as complex as the interface you give it. I would love for you to prove a relationship between interface complexity and application capability. Complex UI == no idea/consideration how this device will be used. That would be a fine excuse for computers in general, a decade or two ago.
A car is complex and powerful tool... Shit, so is a human body, and here we are with only four limbs and crude interpersonal communication.
Look, it's just harder to make something simple and powerful. You have to think about how it's used. A complex interface doesn't solve anything besides letting the UI designer be lazy while pushing the mental burden onto the user.
No, I don't HAVE to watch what I just purchased in the full resolution available on the disc. It's not a matter of life or death (that's a straw-man argument.) But why shouldn't I be able to if my computer can handle it? I paid for the 1080p resolution. Why should I be restricted to 480p? I would have bought the DVD if I wanted that. Actually, I WOULDN'T have bought the DVD, because I enjoy HD movies and have a monitor capable of displaying them.
And maybe you and your grandma can't tell the difference, but on a 21" screen with 1680x1050 native resolution, I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p (and obviously 480p.)
Well, no, you didn't actually pay for 1080p resolution. 1080p is 1920x1080. Also, your 1680x1050 is a different width/height ratio, so your 1080 content will play at 1680x945, letter-boxed. You're really only about halfway between 720 and 1080. I understand that 1680x1050 will look a good deal better than upscaled 480, but if you'd just buy a real HD monitor, 720 or 1080, you'd get HDCP, proper ratio, multiple inputs, probably bigger overall size, an hey, it'd most likely have a tuner and speakers built in too;) You're not exactly getting screwed in that deal.
I want to agree with you, but we can't just assume that because X technically CAN do Y it MUST do Y freely. Cry 'artificial barrier' all you want. It doesn't matter because you are never, ever paying for just the physical barrier between you and your goods in the first place. Making money is sort of the point of selling stuff, and freedom sure as hell ain't free =P... beware of those who say it is.
Yeah, but that's exactly the surprising part. Why would you pay Apple $3000 for a xserve running Apache and MySQL, with a crappy service contract (no next-day service, no on-site service-- I've looked into it), when you could buy an equivalent Dell server for $2100, running the exact same Apache and MySQL, and get a next-day and on-site service contract?
God I hate it when idiots compare hardware & pricing without looking at details. Blah blah, I don't need this or that, whatever, I don't care, that's why they don't cost the same. These servers are entirely different, and it's obvious why the Xserve costs more, it uses an faster CPU and ECC FB-DIMM for starters. Could Dell match these specs and beat the price, God only knows, but NOT at $2100, idiot.
PowerEdge Energy Smart 1950 III: $2117 - $200 rebate + $249 rail kit = $2166 Quad Core Intel Xeon L5410, 12MB Cache, 2.33GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 50W 2GB 667MHz (2x1GB), DDR2, dual ranked, DIMM 73GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 2.5-in HotPlug Hard Drive 2 x8 PCI Express (single riser) OR PCI X Riser with 2 x 64-bit/133MHz slots 4 x 2.5" SAS/SATA drive bays 670 Watt power supply DVD-ROM, SATA Integrated Intel graphics 2-Post Rails for Non Dell Rack (not standard) 3Yr BASIC SUPPORT: 5x10 HW-Only, 5x10 NBD Onsite
Apple Xserve: $2999 + $100 SAS = $3099 Quad Core Intel Xeon E5462, 12MB Cache, 2.8GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 80W 2GB 800MHz (2x1GB), DDR2, ECC, FB-DIMM 73GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 2.5-in HotPlug Hard Drive (not standard) One half-length (x8 PCI Express 2.0 OR 133MHz PCI-X) and one 9.25-inch x16 PCI Express 2.0 slot, both risers 3 x 2.5"? SAS/SATA drive bays 750 Watt power supply 8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW) ATI Radeon X1300 PCI Express, 64MB GDDR3 Two FireWire 800 ports Mac OS X Server v10.5 Leopard Unlimited-client edition Rack mounting hardware
I think you really agree with my opinion, but not in a way you anticipate. The Mojave campaign was a knee-jerk reaction to abysmal Vista adoption because of Vista's very real problems and lack of value to consumers. The commercial was a stitch of people saying "wow", "that's neat", and "oh I like that" while sitting in front of a computer screen. What were they seeing? Benchmarks? A DVD? A dancing baby? We don't know. They don't show us so much as a screenshot. So in that spirit, the ZDNet video shows that this sort of ad doesn't say anything of value. If you watched the whole thing, the guys ask themselves at the end of the video, "what did we learn? nothing." Showing a pretty computer screen to people and recording them saying "oooh" and "aaah" says nothing about the product in question because the audience doesn't even identify what the product is. In the Mojave commercials, they hid Vista under the monicker of a "new" Windows to elicit that reaction. The ZDNet video showed you could do the same thing with a KDE desktop and people would still ooh and aaah because that is not a real measure of quality. You tell them it's new hotness and they'll agree with you and tell you it's awesome because they want to be cool too. For clarification, I think the ZDNet video is an appropriate response because it's equally trite and uninformative.
OK, a trite and uninformative response to a trite and uninformative marketing campaign. I'll have to agree, but stooping to the same level seems so pointless. If choosing an OS ever came down to which one is the neatest looking maybe they'd have something. Other players might be able to get away with this now, but comparing Linux to others in terms of looks can only be detrimental to it's adoption on the desktop. Have you ever read Mac OS X reviews by people who went into it with the old "Macs are pretty and expensive" attitude? They come out making fun of one button mice and claiming "it doesn't let you do anything" Maybe Linux stands a better chance of people looking past the interface (way, WAY past) and seeing what it's good at. Unfortunately, I don't believe they're going to find much other than "it's free and good enough given that" (is that really applaudable?) unless they are into SW development.
The ZDNet video showed you could do the same thing with a KDE desktop and people would still ooh and aaah because that is not a real measure of quality
Uh, I think you missed what I said in the first post. The mojave thing was not showing off the quality of the OS. The point was that people that had a bias didn't know what it looked like. As in, they had never actually used it. This is totally different from simply showing one interface someone has never seen and claiming it was a second. That shows nothing. This might be meaningful if they had asked people what they thought of Linux then showed them Linux (rebadged) and specifically the bad parts they talked about if any. That sounds like a good idea actually.. but.. ugh.. Linux crowd misses the whole point as usual. Why did everyone get all defensive over the Mojave experiment? I think that's all what this is about. It showed a version of Windows that people claimed some bias to, but under a different name. In what way does that offend Linux users?
All these years OSS is still a giant circle-jerk.
I'd love to hear an explanation of that one.
You got me, I was crabby. It's hard to express my feelings about OSS. It's like when all those people say "I hate BIG MEGACORP FOO". They really mean one branch or subsidiary, or one particular policy that doesn't affect the whole business, something like that. That's good enough apparently because very large corporations are living, breathing entities? I know OSS is very multifaceted. I use it every day. It means free, open (or both) software, Linux advocacy, geek empowerment, commercial software is bad, commercial software is
People should do this more often. People who actually understand the topic at hand should swoop in here and just burn off the ends of all these pointless threads with the same 'nothing to see here' pragmatic attitude, and simple incontrovertible fact. Then the readers who come here for the _content_ of the higher-quality submissions (that's a whole different rant) will have an easier time gleaming some useful information from this cesspool.
I think we can all read wikipedia ourselves. If we all circulate information we learned FROM the Internet that we may or may not fully understand... back ONTO the Internet, what are we accomplishing? Do we really need a system of continually re-describing information that is by itself, freely reproducible with full integrity? The weak moderation controls don't tame the wild feedback loop here, because guess what, the moderators are stuck in feedback loops. I can't imagine why on the Internet of all places one would settle for anything less than firsthand knowledge. That blows me away. Maybe I should just accept that nobody really comes here to learn anything and finally subscribe to Popular Science, where I can read most of/.'s best, weeks in advance:P
I really miss the days of quality PC centric titles like Subspace, and all the sim & RTS games from around that time. Wish it were cheaper to make a good PC game:\
Ok, I realize some of it is no doubt necessary (sound daemons, etc), but couldn't a lot of that stuff be loaded 'on-demand' as it were, and unloaded after a period of inactivity? For example - if I'm not sharing a printer on the netwrk, and I'm not currently printing any documents, does CUPS or any other printing system need to be loaded in memory? Why not load it when I actually try to send a print job from an application to the printer (this does, I realize, imply that there is a different background process extremely similar in concept to inetd which is monitoring for activity and loading the appropriate process on demand - but really, for services which aren't heavily used, what is wrong with the inetd model; I do realize that under heavy usage, the inetd approach becomes inefficient due to the overhead of starting and stopping processes, but I think that on a lot of 'personal' desktop/laptop/netbook situations, the usage would only be very occasional)?
Anyhow, you might be right that no real progress will be made on this front, but I still hold out hope - even on modern systems with lots of RAM, there is a benefit to keeping the memory usage low - it leaves more memory available for the actual applications you are using, whether that is a large database, a CAD system, 3D-or-2D graphics apps (Blender, Gimp, etc), video/audio editting, games, whatever. I believe that keeping a minimum 'background' memory profile is always a good idea for O/Ses, because people don't use O/Ses - they use applications.
I think you're really underestimating your OS's ability to manage memory efficiently on its own. How would aggressive use of inetd be any better than letting the OS swap out/in when needed? In both cases it will stay in memory after you're done using it, then it will either be swapped out, or freed, needing to be read from disk again. You need to understand how virtual memory systems to how similar these processes are. Also, your applications don't benefit from having extra unused memory. If they can load and run, that's pretty much it. The OS will use available memory to cache filesystem data, but that probably wont benefit your application much unless you're shutting them down and restarting them often.
You're trading the burden of managing memory yourself for charging the OS with swapping things out as necessary. In either case you can't USE too many applications at once, or you'll be swapping excessively. You're really not saving yourself much trouble by closing things often, unless you are very familiar with how much your system can take before being forced to swap, and you're at the limit.
What I'm basically saying here, is that unless you're an old timer running Windows 95 on a system of that time, you should have enough RAM to run many applications simultaneously. Manually stopping them is a waste of time unless they are significantly large, and you need to switch back and forth frequently. In that case, performance will still suck balls - you'd really need more RAM. Don't second guess your OS VM system, buy more RAM.
Also, since there's really not a lot of difference between BSD and Mac, hardcore linux users can easily partition and install BSD instead and run a modified version of the Mac program. What's one more distro to install?
ROFLMAO
Windows kind of has a POSIX API, and Linux kind of has a POSIX API, so why don't we just run a slightly modified version of the Windows client on Linux?
Linux is open source, so why don't modify the source code to run on it?
Leverage the POSIX layer in Windows to install the latest service pack on Linux, thereby fooling the Windows client into thinking it's really running on Windows?
Install Windows into Linux, forcing them to assimilate?
Z/OS is sort of similar to AIX, which is a UNIX, and Linux is "unix-like", so why don't we run Z/OS under Xen, then we can use mainframe-like power to evolve a native EVE client from random bit soup?
You have to read it in context with the first sentence. The sentence says that CCP is discontinuing support for the Linux client because it isn't doing as well as the Mac client. The sentence doesn't say they will be discontinuing the Mac client.
Wow...
Released last November along with the Mac OS X client, it has failed to share the expected continual growth as seen with Mac client.
Why is this so hard to understand.. Both released same time. One showing continual growth, the other doesn't and gets the axe. It doesn't say anywhere they held the performance of a platform with a larger install base as the baseline to judge Linux against (what an absurd concept). They just wanted to see _continual growth_. If they didn't want Linux client growth, they probably wouldn't being running these ads on Slashdot every other day. You can't say they didn't try.
So, what, future computers may come with a big sticker :
WARNING : Should not be used in life-critical calculations.
You mean something along the lines of this?
"The Software is for entertainment and general informational purposes only and is not designed, intended or licensed for use in hazardous or critical environments requiring fail-safe controls including, but not limited to, the design, construction, maintenance or operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control, life support or weapons systems. THE COMPANY SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES."
Those types of disclaimers are already more common than you probably realize. There are PLENTY of existing reasons consumer PCs & software shouldn't be used in such situations. This one was pulled from the license agreement for a Weather Widget. You'll probably find one in your computers manual, or the component vendors websites if you built it.
From a hardware waranty: "YYY does not warrant that the operation of the product will be uninterrupted or error-free."
I think the detailed ones are mostly in software license agreements . You can always write your own software though, and be amazed when it fails to do what they never guaranteed it would do.
Or it could be that we've been actual sysadmins long enough that we know the value of always having a working state to fall back on. Preferably one that doesn't erase all the work done in the past few years. Saying something as foolish as that can only mean you haven't had to repair a thoroughly hosed system in far too long.
Why do you think "Having a computer that never forgets what you've done is" means "Having a computer that always forgets what you had"? That's foolish to me.
Automatically persisting the current, effective state really is what we expect a computer to do. The only state we want to worry about is the current one it's in... just like, you know, reality. I also think people expect a computer to be able to go back to a prior state - but that's just bonus. People mostly expect a computer to not let us put it in a bad state it cannot go back from - the lowliest of creatures in The Real World do more to preserve their own life than most computer applications. These are not too much to ask. Also, there is no substitute for proper backups, or version control, or change control, etc. They are not incompatible with the above ideals.
Here's the sysadmin mentality the GP was talking about. You assume the computer is inherently incapable of preventing you from letting it enter a bad state, so you have to maintain sometimes multiple states, and control which are in effect. Locally backing up config files, starting/stopping things, etc. Here's something that will blow you away: INPUT VALIDATION. It's all over the intarwebs. It IS the intarweb. It even works on entirely local applications, but keep that to yourself alright? God, if developers knew they could keep users from screwing their applications up by inserting a layer of code between the user and raw configuration data, we'd be out of jobs. I mean, not only could it prevent disasters, but it would HELP the user to configure the application without us. DNS servers would have working reverse lookups, designers would be configuring web servers, our mail servers would be _delivering_ mail, and our directory servers would be overflowing with useful information... shameful!
"Folders" have always been named "directories". Calling them otherwise is fairly recent, since windows 3 time iirc. I do, however, fail to see your point in how the folder/file metaphor is antiquated, or perhaps inadequate, users seem well happy with it. Technically, of course. But intelectually, it's a metaphor that has worked really well for over 30 years.
Other OS's still do refer to them as directories, but 'folder's aren't a new concept by a longshot. You do realize that "Windows 3 time" means about 19 years ago right? I'm having a hard time calling that recent. Even Windows 95 has been around about half of those 30 years now, that's nothing to sneeze at. God only knows where Microsoft got the idea from too, we're probably greatly underestimating the age of both metaphors.
Neither really make a whole lot of sense. "Directory" implies a flat level of organization is really completely irrelevant to the computer, and mostly to us. A computer doesn't look up data based on its file's position in a directory, but it presents files to us organized in some manner so we can make a selection easier. What's a sub-directory? OK, the computer directory concept was probably around for a while before subdirectories. Back then, maybe it really did matter what order your files were stored in? We might as well call them moving boxes. Isn't that a better fit? I can put a box inside another box, and there is no implied order to things, they are just in the same box together. Like a phone book that was divided up into counties at a top level, then inside were towns, then streets after that, and finally the names and phone numbers, so only people living on the same street were listed in any order. That's really what a filesystem really does, it provides depth. I vote moving boxes for the next UI metaphor.
In every OS but one you do things the Unix way. Mac, BSD, Linux, Xenix, you name it, everything is Unix-like EXCEPT Microsoft. It would be nice if the clueless folks in Redmond got with the program.
Um.. Windows 95 just called, turns out some form of Windows has been the de facto standard PC desktop OS for something like 15 years now.
BTW, the "UNIX way" turns out to be quite different between each of the actual UNIX systems and UNIX-like systems too. Mac OS X certainly has it's 'own way', just as different as Windows. Really, the only thing UNIX and UNIX-like systems have in common are standards like POSIX, and open software. Well.. Windows has a POSIX layer last I heard, and open software was written to run anywhere, even on Windows in most cases.
I can tell you that 10/10 people will tell you if they prefer to eat rabbit or deer (regardless of if they can tell their shit appart).
We just live in a world where people prefer rabbit, and most people havent heard of deer appart from the hunters.
(Now I'll stop labouring this analogy before its tits fall off)
Or... we live in a world where most people prefer McDonalds to wild game, and could really care less about your deer movement and still think it tastes funny. Oh, and when we do give it a chance, stop telling us to pick the buckshot out ourselves or pick up a gun, I think I'd rather eat a Hot Pocket. The hunters still love it (for the sake of hunting if nothing else), so lets focus on their needs, right? Oh no, lets make DeerMaks, MakDeerGriddles, and Deer Pockets, and snicker at "ignorant" people who think they look alike. *sigh*
And I think this video is an appropriate response to the "Mojave Experiment" commercials.
Wasn't the "Mojave Experiment" done to show people's bias against "Vista" was due mostly to bad hype? Bad hype spread by "knowledgeable" computer geeks, that had mostly not used Vista themselves? They asked people what they felt/heard about "Vista" beforehand, then showed them Vista under a different name to demonstrate this.
Why was this begging for a response, was there something about Vista that you felt was uncovered? Something not shown, questions not asked? Oh, no, instead we show random people off the street a new computer interface and smugly lie about it being a different new computer interface!
What is this video's message? Microsoft should take out full page ads with vista desktop screenshots? Two minutes of TV commercial pointing and clicking on a desktop? Really, what is the point man? I know you didn't make this video, but I'm curious what makes you think this was a worthwhile experiment, or even related to the "Mojave Experiment" marketing.
I could pick random people off the street and dupe most of them into thinking a C-130 is a DC-10, or a KC-135, or probably any large aircraft for that matter. What would that prove? That people who had never seen one before can't infer from the name what it is? HAH!
Do you have a minimum of 3 years Linux experience, especially desktop linux experience in an AD/Exchange environment? Can you package debs and rpms?
I think you'd have a better time recruiting for this if you left out the desktop, AD, Exchange, and custom package management bits. You should probably not mention them during the interview, present it as a regular Linux[/UNIX] system administration gig, look for some Windows administration experience on the resume, and probably lie about your general willingness to purchase software.
Unless you're TRYING to hire a crazy person...
Re:I am afraid, there is lack of direction for Rub
on
Ruby 1.9.1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Server maintenance? Ah, I see, you're well behind the times.
Where the fuck do YOU work?
And your comment about "moving parts" is equally dated, if you're thinking in terms of likelihood for a CPU to fail. Once I've got two, if either fails, the other can notice and fire up a new instance, killing that one. Failing hardware then becomes Amazon's problem, not mine.
And seriously, day to day maintenance? Haven't touched the 3mix server in over a week. If you have to perform manual maintenance on a production server every day, you're Doing It Wrong.
"server"? "Server"? As in ONE server?? You know half the geeks reading this site work with hundreds of them right? Do you know what happens in a given day in environments with 100+ servers? All Hell breaks loose. There is ALWAYS something that needs to be fixed or monitored better.
if you're thinking in terms of likelihood for a CPU to fail. Once I've got two, if either fails, the other can notice and fire up a new instance, killing that one.
Damn dude, you know there are just a _few_ organizations out there that are running more than a couple web servers right?
Really, the only thing dated here is you. We've pretty much narrowed you down to an arrogant young student somewhere. Get a real IT job before running your mouth off like servers don't need maintenance, complex environments can be controlled from a little script, or things that claim to failover actually do.
Slashdot Mirror
In the first corner we have...
VMWare ESX + HA, dual power supplies, fibre channel (read: real) SAN, shared SCSI(FCP) storage, centralized management console
and the new challenger...
Xen, single power supply, SATA, swappable USB storage for failover, command line
Those are from two totally different divisions... planets... galaxies, what have you. You cannot compare the two.
You don't actually talk someone out of a SAN and into buying USB storage, or from ESX+HA to physically swapping external storage. It doesn't work like that.
That's like talking someone out of buying a McLaren and into a Civic.
I can't fathom recommending manually swapping external storage as failover to someone actually paying me money, so just where do you draw the line for that solution? How big an IT budget, number of employees, etc? I'm perpetually stunned by people on Slashdot who think that bottom rung technology is good enough for absolutely everyone, or anyone who doesn't use it is wasting money. I hope you can see that Xen solution, as you described it, doesn't fly very far in real world datacenters (where most server virtualization is going on)
After seeing the result, they should have started with a rackmount server and figured out a quieter cooling system.
That box is just retarded, and over priced for what you get. Like others said, for that much money, it had better LOOK good, because there are plenty of ugly servers with as much and more power.
You can buy any truck you want.
But if you buy a Ford, you have to by Exxon Gas only, and you can only carry people and things in your truck which have been approved by Ford, and you can only use Ford parts, and you can only use Ford windshield washer fluid, and the radio will only tune in the Ford Station.
If you put any item not approved by Ford and sold by Ford in the truckbed your warranty is void and you committed a DCMA violation.
Can you put Exxon Gas in a Chevy? Check.
Retain the right to distribute your own app on other platforms? Check.
Install aftermarket parts without voiding warranty? Nope.
Install Ford authorized (*gasp*) aftermarket parts without voiding warranty? If Ford installs them, check.
See the trend?
You joke about the bed of the truck, but you know they could just as easily offer a bed liner warranty and void the shit out of it pretty much at their discretion. That they control any part of it and COULD control about anything is my point. What's the excuse for them not supporting a custom turbo installation? DMCA changes things a little, but manufacturers attempting to control their products where it benefits them (and usually you in a roundabout way) is hardly new. Who knows, maybe things will change eventually. There will be a huge market for mobile antivirus I want in on.
You all keep bitching about open cellphones, computers, cars, or whatever. I want to know why someone can put a lien on my house for not mowing my lawn. Suck on that a minute.
Mainframe... group policy...
ROFLMAO!
Is he afraid of people with root access messing up stuff on the computers -- his answer should be found with SELinux policies.
Next question: How do you manage SELinux policy on 300+ computers? Oh right, set it and forget it + ssh for loop. Good luck with that.
- group policies - security and software install
- single password store (with cached passwords for notebooks that go away from the network)
- Patch update policy
This is very much like when (several years back) I was told Linux wasnt ready because there was no antivirus or defrag available.
If all you know is Windows then you imagine these things are critical to the operation of a corporate network. They arent.
With a real OS the actual underlying goals these things serve are served without the need for the specific windows-centric functions to patch windows-specific problems.
Please explain how the above requirements are in any way Windows specific. A real OS can be managed centrally, how about that?
BTW, a "ssh for loop" and $1 will buy you a nice candy bar.
You are using the word "open" to describe a system that has a freely-accessible API. This does not mean that the system is an "open" device. Making this comparison is like saying Windows is "open" because you can write open-source applications for it.
That IS the definition of open to many, and Windows IS an open system! It might not be the MOST open way, but sheesh, setting the bar that high means taking a lot of openness for granted. "Open systems" predates your intended meaning by a few decades.
Computers aren't as young as they used to be. There is already a lot of valuable history being forgotten and "reinvented" the next week. I'm only 26 but I can see that plain as day. The new open. Ugh, rub the grime off those old buzzwords but it's still just about money, crazy idealists.
The future will be interesting. Since the cost of "open" has raced to the bottom so fast, we'll get to find out what it's really worth and maybe temper all this idealism. Don't hate me, I'm only being pragmatic.
Right, because it's not cruft unless there's a menu item for it or it stares at you from your desktop.
For example, the universal menu bar thing in OS(whatever), makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me, so apple is saying that a bar across the top of the screen, completely abstracted away from the app with focus, holds all that apps menus? and changes what is contained in it as focus changes? And that is supposed to be clear and intuitive?
I don't know what your definition of "makes sense" is, but understanding the reasoning behind usability design has nothing to do with usability aside from the study of it. You probably don't have a clue why the doors in your house open the direction they do either, and it doesn't matter to you, but it does to police and firemen.
How about this, how would you design a radon or carbon monoxide detector? Quick, what makes sense? Would it look and sound sort of like a smoke detector? Makes sense, right? We all know what they are, what a high pitch screeching means, etc.
OK, now what if someone wakes up, checks for a fire and silences it? I hope you designed it ugly as fuck, with giant lettering: BLAH detector, WARNING, invisible gas.
What about when the battery is low? Beep occasionally? What people expect from such a device right? Except, do most people know what a carbon monoxide detector alarm sounds like? OOPS. You have to treat false alarms ENTIRELY differently because you're dealing with something people can't detect themselves. Better have a description of the various alarm states printed right on that sucker!
I hope you get my point. Even though these devices are conceptually similar, detect FOO -> sound alarm, they have to be designed completely differently, and it's not just a matter of what was built first, although that is a factor. Overloading the meaning of something we are already familiar with might be bad in general, but it's not obvious to the average person who will expect something familiar.
Back to your example...
It's a fixed, universal context menu and the application is the context. Yes, it IS just as evil as any context dependent menu is, and you hit on that. It is however, fixed, universal, and the context name is always the leftmost entry. You know all those context menus in Windows, KDE and Gnome? Are THOSE intuitive? Now, I have an universal application-context menu, why would I put a redundant one on each application? Why move it from it's fixed position? Do you need to see a menu bar for more than one application at a time? You can't manipulate more than one at a time, with keystrokes or mouse gestures, so what would the point be? Neither Windows, Gnome or KDE will even show the contents of more than one menu bar at a time AFAIK. Do you forget where it is when it doesn't move? Making menus m®ove doesn't make sense to me, what's the advantage of having it collocated with each window instance? What's the expected behavior when more than one document from the same app is opened? Can you point me to some multi-document standards from other systems? What's the advantage of having content in context menus that is unavailable in the main menu? To solve menu clutter, check the GIMP out. You can probably guess the UI design was inherited from a platform with *ahem* sane application menu standards. Who knows, maybe simply hiding least frequently used menu items is a better approach. MakesSense(tm)
Computers are complex and powerful tools, you can't hide this by dumbing down an interface.
A computer is just as complex as the interface you give it. I would love for you to prove a relationship between interface complexity and application capability. Complex UI == no idea/consideration how this device will be used. That would be a fine excuse for computers in general, a decade or two ago.
A car is complex and powerful tool...
Shit, so is a human body, and here we are with only four limbs and crude interpersonal communication.
Look, it's just harder to make something simple and powerful. You have to think about how it's used. A complex interface doesn't solve anything besides letting the UI designer be lazy while pushing the mental burden onto the user.
No, I don't HAVE to watch what I just purchased in the full resolution available on the disc. It's not a matter of life or death (that's a straw-man argument.) But why shouldn't I be able to if my computer can handle it? I paid for the 1080p resolution. Why should I be restricted to 480p? I would have bought the DVD if I wanted that. Actually, I WOULDN'T have bought the DVD, because I enjoy HD movies and have a monitor capable of displaying them.
And maybe you and your grandma can't tell the difference, but on a 21" screen with 1680x1050 native resolution, I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p (and obviously 480p.)
Well, no, you didn't actually pay for 1080p resolution. 1080p is 1920x1080. Also, your 1680x1050 is a different width/height ratio, so your 1080 content will play at 1680x945, letter-boxed. You're really only about halfway between 720 and 1080. I understand that 1680x1050 will look a good deal better than upscaled 480, but if you'd just buy a real HD monitor, 720 or 1080, you'd get HDCP, proper ratio, multiple inputs, probably bigger overall size, an hey, it'd most likely have a tuner and speakers built in too ;)
You're not exactly getting screwed in that deal.
I want to agree with you, but we can't just assume that because X technically CAN do Y it MUST do Y freely. Cry 'artificial barrier' all you want. It doesn't matter because you are never, ever paying for just the physical barrier between you and your goods in the first place. Making money is sort of the point of selling stuff, and freedom sure as hell ain't free =P ... beware of those who say it is.
If you don't want choice, pay for Apple.
Grow up.
Yeah, but that's exactly the surprising part. Why would you pay Apple $3000 for a xserve running Apache and MySQL, with a crappy service contract (no next-day service, no on-site service-- I've looked into it), when you could buy an equivalent Dell server for $2100, running the exact same Apache and MySQL, and get a next-day and on-site service contract?
God I hate it when idiots compare hardware & pricing without looking at details.
Blah blah, I don't need this or that, whatever, I don't care, that's why they don't cost the same.
These servers are entirely different, and it's obvious why the Xserve costs more, it uses an faster CPU and ECC FB-DIMM for starters.
Could Dell match these specs and beat the price, God only knows, but NOT at $2100, idiot.
PowerEdge Energy Smart 1950 III: $2117 - $200 rebate + $249 rail kit = $2166
Quad Core Intel Xeon L5410, 12MB Cache, 2.33GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 50W
2GB 667MHz (2x1GB), DDR2, dual ranked, DIMM
73GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 2.5-in HotPlug Hard Drive
2 x8 PCI Express (single riser) OR PCI X Riser with 2 x 64-bit/133MHz slots
4 x 2.5" SAS/SATA drive bays
670 Watt power supply
DVD-ROM, SATA
Integrated Intel graphics
2-Post Rails for Non Dell Rack (not standard)
3Yr BASIC SUPPORT: 5x10 HW-Only, 5x10 NBD Onsite
Apple Xserve: $2999 + $100 SAS = $3099
Quad Core Intel Xeon E5462, 12MB Cache, 2.8GHz, 1600MHz FSB, 80W
2GB 800MHz (2x1GB), DDR2, ECC, FB-DIMM
73GB 15K RPM Serial-Attach SCSI 3Gbps 2.5-in HotPlug Hard Drive (not standard)
One half-length (x8 PCI Express 2.0 OR 133MHz PCI-X) and one 9.25-inch x16 PCI Express 2.0 slot, both risers
3 x 2.5"? SAS/SATA drive bays
750 Watt power supply
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
ATI Radeon X1300 PCI Express, 64MB GDDR3
Two FireWire 800 ports
Mac OS X Server v10.5 Leopard Unlimited-client edition
Rack mounting hardware
I think you really agree with my opinion, but not in a way you anticipate. The Mojave campaign was a knee-jerk reaction to abysmal Vista adoption because of Vista's very real problems and lack of value to consumers. The commercial was a stitch of people saying "wow", "that's neat", and "oh I like that" while sitting in front of a computer screen. What were they seeing? Benchmarks? A DVD? A dancing baby? We don't know. They don't show us so much as a screenshot. So in that spirit, the ZDNet video shows that this sort of ad doesn't say anything of value. If you watched the whole thing, the guys ask themselves at the end of the video, "what did we learn? nothing." Showing a pretty computer screen to people and recording them saying "oooh" and "aaah" says nothing about the product in question because the audience doesn't even identify what the product is. In the Mojave commercials, they hid Vista under the monicker of a "new" Windows to elicit that reaction. The ZDNet video showed you could do the same thing with a KDE desktop and people would still ooh and aaah because that is not a real measure of quality. You tell them it's new hotness and they'll agree with you and tell you it's awesome because they want to be cool too. For clarification, I think the ZDNet video is an appropriate response because it's equally trite and uninformative.
OK, a trite and uninformative response to a trite and uninformative marketing campaign. I'll have to agree, but stooping to the same level seems so pointless. If choosing an OS ever came down to which one is the neatest looking maybe they'd have something. Other players might be able to get away with this now, but comparing Linux to others in terms of looks can only be detrimental to it's adoption on the desktop. Have you ever read Mac OS X reviews by people who went into it with the old "Macs are pretty and expensive" attitude? They come out making fun of one button mice and claiming "it doesn't let you do anything" Maybe Linux stands a better chance of people looking past the interface (way, WAY past) and seeing what it's good at. Unfortunately, I don't believe they're going to find much other than "it's free and good enough given that" (is that really applaudable?) unless they are into SW development.
The ZDNet video showed you could do the same thing with a KDE desktop and people would still ooh and aaah because that is not a real measure of quality
Uh, I think you missed what I said in the first post. The mojave thing was not showing off the quality of the OS. The point was that people that had a bias didn't know what it looked like. As in, they had never actually used it. This is totally different from simply showing one interface someone has never seen and claiming it was a second. That shows nothing. This might be meaningful if they had asked people what they thought of Linux then showed them Linux (rebadged) and specifically the bad parts they talked about if any. That sounds like a good idea actually.. but.. ugh.. Linux crowd misses the whole point as usual. Why did everyone get all defensive over the Mojave experiment? I think that's all what this is about. It showed a version of Windows that people claimed some bias to, but under a different name. In what way does that offend Linux users?
All these years OSS is still a giant circle-jerk.
I'd love to hear an explanation of that one.
You got me, I was crabby. It's hard to express my feelings about OSS. It's like when all those people say "I hate BIG MEGACORP FOO". They really mean one branch or subsidiary, or one particular policy that doesn't affect the whole business, something like that. That's good enough apparently because very large corporations are living, breathing entities? I know OSS is very multifaceted. I use it every day. It means free, open (or both) software, Linux advocacy, geek empowerment, commercial software is bad, commercial software is
People should do this more often. People who actually understand the topic at hand should swoop in here and just burn off the ends of all these pointless threads with the same 'nothing to see here' pragmatic attitude, and simple incontrovertible fact. Then the readers who come here for the _content_ of the higher-quality submissions (that's a whole different rant) will have an easier time gleaming some useful information from this cesspool.
I think we can all read wikipedia ourselves. If we all circulate information we learned FROM the Internet that we may or may not fully understand... back ONTO the Internet, what are we accomplishing? Do we really need a system of continually re-describing information that is by itself, freely reproducible with full integrity? The weak moderation controls don't tame the wild feedback loop here, because guess what, the moderators are stuck in feedback loops. I can't imagine why on the Internet of all places one would settle for anything less than firsthand knowledge. That blows me away. Maybe I should just accept that nobody really comes here to learn anything and finally subscribe to Popular Science, where I can read most of /.'s best, weeks in advance :P
The day the 'PC game' died
I really miss the days of quality PC centric titles like Subspace, and all the sim & RTS games from around that time. Wish it were cheaper to make a good PC game :\
Ok, I realize some of it is no doubt necessary (sound daemons, etc), but couldn't a lot of that stuff be loaded 'on-demand' as it were, and unloaded after a period of inactivity? For example - if I'm not sharing a printer on the netwrk, and I'm not currently printing any documents, does CUPS or any other printing system need to be loaded in memory? Why not load it when I actually try to send a print job from an application to the printer (this does, I realize, imply that there is a different background process extremely similar in concept to inetd which is monitoring for activity and loading the appropriate process on demand - but really, for services which aren't heavily used, what is wrong with the inetd model; I do realize that under heavy usage, the inetd approach becomes inefficient due to the overhead of starting and stopping processes, but I think that on a lot of 'personal' desktop/laptop/netbook situations, the usage would only be very occasional)?
Anyhow, you might be right that no real progress will be made on this front, but I still hold out hope - even on modern systems with lots of RAM, there is a benefit to keeping the memory usage low - it leaves more memory available for the actual applications you are using, whether that is a large database, a CAD system, 3D-or-2D graphics apps (Blender, Gimp, etc), video/audio editting, games, whatever. I believe that keeping a minimum 'background' memory profile is always a good idea for O/Ses, because people don't use O/Ses - they use applications.
I think you're really underestimating your OS's ability to manage memory efficiently on its own. How would aggressive use of inetd be any better than letting the OS swap out/in when needed? In both cases it will stay in memory after you're done using it, then it will either be swapped out, or freed, needing to be read from disk again. You need to understand how virtual memory systems to how similar these processes are.
Also, your applications don't benefit from having extra unused memory. If they can load and run, that's pretty much it.
The OS will use available memory to cache filesystem data, but that probably wont benefit your application much unless you're shutting them down and restarting them often.
You're trading the burden of managing memory yourself for charging the OS with swapping things out as necessary. In either case you can't USE too many applications at once, or you'll be swapping excessively. You're really not saving yourself much trouble by closing things often, unless you are very familiar with how much your system can take before being forced to swap, and you're at the limit.
What I'm basically saying here, is that unless you're an old timer running Windows 95 on a system of that time, you should have enough RAM to run many applications simultaneously. Manually stopping them is a waste of time unless they are significantly large, and you need to switch back and forth frequently. In that case, performance will still suck balls - you'd really need more RAM. Don't second guess your OS VM system, buy more RAM.
Also, since there's really not a lot of difference between BSD and Mac, hardcore linux users can easily partition and install BSD instead and run a modified version of the Mac program. What's one more distro to install?
ROFLMAO
Windows kind of has a POSIX API, and Linux kind of has a POSIX API, so why don't we just run a slightly modified version of the Windows client on Linux?
Linux is open source, so why don't modify the source code to run on it?
Leverage the POSIX layer in Windows to install the latest service pack on Linux, thereby fooling the Windows client into thinking it's really running on Windows?
Install Windows into Linux, forcing them to assimilate?
Z/OS is sort of similar to AIX, which is a UNIX, and Linux is "unix-like", so why don't we run Z/OS under Xen, then we can use mainframe-like power to evolve a native EVE client from random bit soup?
I still think yours wins.
You have to read it in context with the first sentence. The sentence says that CCP is discontinuing support for the Linux client because it isn't doing as well as the Mac client. The sentence doesn't say they will be discontinuing the Mac client.
Wow...
Released last November along with the Mac OS X client, it has failed to share the expected continual growth as seen with Mac client.
Why is this so hard to understand.. Both released same time. One showing continual growth, the other doesn't and gets the axe. It doesn't say anywhere they held the performance of a platform with a larger install base as the baseline to judge Linux against (what an absurd concept). They just wanted to see _continual growth_. If they didn't want Linux client growth, they probably wouldn't being running these ads on Slashdot every other day. You can't say they didn't try.
So, what, future computers may come with a big sticker :
WARNING : Should not be used in life-critical calculations.
You mean something along the lines of this?
"The Software is for entertainment and general informational purposes only and is not designed, intended or licensed for use in hazardous or critical environments requiring fail-safe controls including, but not limited to, the design, construction, maintenance or operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control, life support or weapons systems. THE COMPANY SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES."
Those types of disclaimers are already more common than you probably realize. There are PLENTY of existing reasons consumer PCs & software shouldn't be used in such situations. This one was pulled from the license agreement for a Weather Widget. You'll probably find one in your computers manual, or the component vendors websites if you built it.
http://us.shuttle.com/Scgsupport/Policy_Accessories.html
There's another one.
From a hardware waranty:
"YYY does not warrant that the operation of the product will be uninterrupted or error-free."
I think the detailed ones are mostly in software license agreements . You can always write your own software though, and be amazed when it fails to do what they never guaranteed it would do.
Or it could be that we've been actual sysadmins long enough that we know the value of always having a working state to fall back on. Preferably one that doesn't erase all the work done in the past few years. Saying something as foolish as that can only mean you haven't had to repair a thoroughly hosed system in far too long.
Why do you think "Having a computer that never forgets what you've done is" means "Having a computer that always forgets what you had"?
That's foolish to me.
Automatically persisting the current, effective state really is what we expect a computer to do. The only state we want to worry about is the current one it's in... just like, you know, reality. I also think people expect a computer to be able to go back to a prior state - but that's just bonus. People mostly expect a computer to not let us put it in a bad state it cannot go back from - the lowliest of creatures in The Real World do more to preserve their own life than most computer applications. These are not too much to ask. Also, there is no substitute for proper backups, or version control, or change control, etc. They are not incompatible with the above ideals.
Here's the sysadmin mentality the GP was talking about. You assume the computer is inherently incapable of preventing you from letting it enter a bad state, so you have to maintain sometimes multiple states, and control which are in effect. Locally backing up config files, starting/stopping things, etc. Here's something that will blow you away: INPUT VALIDATION. It's all over the intarwebs. It IS the intarweb. It even works on entirely local applications, but keep that to yourself alright? God, if developers knew they could keep users from screwing their applications up by inserting a layer of code between the user and raw configuration data, we'd be out of jobs. I mean, not only could it prevent disasters, but it would HELP the user to configure the application without us. DNS servers would have working reverse lookups, designers would be configuring web servers, our mail servers would be _delivering_ mail, and our directory servers would be overflowing with useful information... shameful!
"Folders" have always been named "directories". Calling them otherwise is fairly recent, since windows 3 time iirc. I do, however, fail to see your point in how the folder/file metaphor is antiquated, or perhaps inadequate, users seem well happy with it. Technically, of course. But intelectually, it's a metaphor that has worked really well for over 30 years.
Other OS's still do refer to them as directories, but 'folder's aren't a new concept by a longshot. You do realize that "Windows 3 time" means about 19 years ago right? I'm having a hard time calling that recent. Even Windows 95 has been around about half of those 30 years now, that's nothing to sneeze at. God only knows where Microsoft got the idea from too, we're probably greatly underestimating the age of both metaphors.
Neither really make a whole lot of sense. "Directory" implies a flat level of organization is really completely irrelevant to the computer, and mostly to us. A computer doesn't look up data based on its file's position in a directory, but it presents files to us organized in some manner so we can make a selection easier. What's a sub-directory? OK, the computer directory concept was probably around for a while before subdirectories. Back then, maybe it really did matter what order your files were stored in? We might as well call them moving boxes. Isn't that a better fit? I can put a box inside another box, and there is no implied order to things, they are just in the same box together. Like a phone book that was divided up into counties at a top level, then inside were towns, then streets after that, and finally the names and phone numbers, so only people living on the same street were listed in any order. That's really what a filesystem really does, it provides depth. I vote moving boxes for the next UI metaphor.
In every OS but one you do things the Unix way. Mac, BSD, Linux, Xenix, you name it, everything is Unix-like EXCEPT Microsoft. It would be nice if the clueless folks in Redmond got with the program.
Um.. Windows 95 just called, turns out some form of Windows has been the de facto standard PC desktop OS for something like 15 years now.
BTW, the "UNIX way" turns out to be quite different between each of the actual UNIX systems and UNIX-like systems too.
Mac OS X certainly has it's 'own way', just as different as Windows. Really, the only thing UNIX and UNIX-like systems have in common are standards like POSIX, and open software. Well.. Windows has a POSIX layer last I heard, and open software was written to run anywhere, even on Windows in most cases.
I can tell you that 10/10 people will tell you if they prefer to eat rabbit or deer (regardless of if they can tell their shit appart).
We just live in a world where people prefer rabbit, and most people havent heard of deer appart from the hunters.
(Now I'll stop labouring this analogy before its tits fall off)
Or... we live in a world where most people prefer McDonalds to wild game, and could really care less about your deer movement and still think it tastes funny. Oh, and when we do give it a chance, stop telling us to pick the buckshot out ourselves or pick up a gun, I think I'd rather eat a Hot Pocket.
The hunters still love it (for the sake of hunting if nothing else), so lets focus on their needs, right? Oh no, lets make DeerMaks, MakDeerGriddles, and Deer Pockets, and snicker at "ignorant" people who think they look alike. *sigh*
OK, OK.. I'll drop the analogy now :)
And I think this video is an appropriate response to the "Mojave Experiment" commercials.
Wasn't the "Mojave Experiment" done to show people's bias against "Vista" was due mostly to bad hype? Bad hype spread by "knowledgeable" computer geeks, that had mostly not used Vista themselves? They asked people what they felt/heard about "Vista" beforehand, then showed them Vista under a different name to demonstrate this.
Why was this begging for a response, was there something about Vista that you felt was uncovered? Something not shown, questions not asked? Oh, no, instead we show random people off the street a new computer interface and smugly lie about it being a different new computer interface!
What is this video's message? Microsoft should take out full page ads with vista desktop screenshots? Two minutes of TV commercial pointing and clicking on a desktop?
Really, what is the point man? I know you didn't make this video, but I'm curious what makes you think this was a worthwhile experiment, or even related to the "Mojave Experiment" marketing.
I could pick random people off the street and dupe most of them into thinking a C-130 is a DC-10, or a KC-135, or probably any large aircraft for that matter. What would that prove? That people who had never seen one before can't infer from the name what it is? HAH!
All these years OSS is still a giant circle-jerk.
Do you have a minimum of 3 years Linux experience, especially desktop linux experience in an AD/Exchange environment?
Can you package debs and rpms?
I think you'd have a better time recruiting for this if you left out the desktop, AD, Exchange, and custom package management bits. You should probably not mention them during the interview, present it as a regular Linux[/UNIX] system administration gig, look for some Windows administration experience on the resume, and probably lie about your general willingness to purchase software.
Unless you're TRYING to hire a crazy person...
Server maintenance? Ah, I see, you're well behind the times.
Where the fuck do YOU work?
And your comment about "moving parts" is equally dated, if you're thinking in terms of likelihood for a CPU to fail. Once I've got two, if either fails, the other can notice and fire up a new instance, killing that one. Failing hardware then becomes Amazon's problem, not mine.
And seriously, day to day maintenance? Haven't touched the 3mix server in over a week. If you have to perform manual maintenance on a production server every day, you're Doing It Wrong.
"server"? "Server"? As in ONE server?? You know half the geeks reading this site work with hundreds of them right? Do you know what happens in a given day in environments with 100+ servers? All Hell breaks loose. There is ALWAYS something that needs to be fixed or monitored better.
if you're thinking in terms of likelihood for a CPU to fail. Once I've got two, if either fails, the other can notice and fire up a new instance, killing that one.
Damn dude, you know there are just a _few_ organizations out there that are running more than a couple web servers right?
Really, the only thing dated here is you. We've pretty much narrowed you down to an arrogant young student somewhere. Get a real IT job before running your mouth off like servers don't need maintenance, complex environments can be controlled from a little script, or things that claim to failover actually do.