Well, nodoubt you can blame MS-DOS for forcing short nondescriptive filenames.. BIGJCYCK.PCX isnt immediately obvious unless you already know... back in those days i did porn viewing on the amiga tho, so no such problem:)
Firstly: "but they had to replace the first replacement due to a consultant that had no experience or knowledge in that type of system trying to put one in." This has more to do with the boss knowing what he wants rather than needs.. he wants the system the marketting boys sold to him, and he wants the cheapest possible staff to come and install it for him, which is often not compatible.
Secondly, You have comeback in the auto industry, if a mechanic does work on your car and consequently the affected parts of the car fail, then you can sue him and/or the garage he works for.. And in turn they can sue the supplier of the parts, if these were sub-standard and caused the failure. However in computing, while you may be able to sue a supplier of substandard hardware, there is no comeback for substandard software.. I can think of very few software products that fulfilled the marketting propoganda, especially before having numerous patches added, whereas those operating with vehicles have to get it right first time, and cars are thoroughly tested before theyre allowed to be sold, and are again regularly tested to ensure they remain roadworthy, A lot of old or damaged cars would still be on the road, cars which while they may still drive.. are often dangerous, noisy, and major causes of pollution, much in the same way that insecure software becomes infected with worms and/or viruses, and then pollutes the internet with furthur worm/virus infections and the associated network traffic, not to mention the danger that a worm might destroy someone`s important data, in much the same way an unsafe car might catch fire or crash.
Just how new versions of windows repair fundamental flaws in previous versions, and yet people still rave about them. Compare win9x to 2k/xp, the instability of 9x could surely be considered a fundamental flaw, 2k/xp are actually pretty good, not quite upto the standard of most unix systems but orders of magnitude better than their previous effort.
Re:Linux people are usually Do-It-Yourselfers...
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 2
But the ability to modify the os to suit your needs should be considered a high level of competence, this is possible with opensource and not with fully closed unless you work for the vendor.
And as part of a business you would often wish to modify apps or the os to suit your needs, i have encountered many such situations... and often the answer is "well theres nothing we can do about it, so we`l just have to live with it".. how many businesses are living with software that doesnt quite suit their needs and just putting up with it because they dont have a choice?
Then why is IE so much slower on NT4 or 3.1 where it`s not integrated into the shell?
Sure IE is made up of COM objects, but a lot of them are already loaded into memory, this is why the disk is barely accessed when you invoke iexplore.exe
But why rewrite an existing service, why not create HTTP over UDP, with a fallback mode to regular HTTP over TCP incase the client/server cant support the udp mode.
Not only that, but blind spoofing would be trivial... not that windows isnt already far easier to blind spoof on than any other modern os.
Re:Linux people are usually Do-It-Yourselfers...
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 2
Not many, but it`s nice to have that option available to you just incase... A company could always employ a coder to make the changes they required, or an end user could ask a friend etc...
You can remove the icon, but not the application itself.. its still sitting there consuming your diskspace, and IE is still running consuming your ram wether you like it or not. What`s more, so long as it`s bundled by default and prominently displayed.. most people wont bother looking for anything better... Think how many people are driving around with poor quality factory-fitted radios in their cars.. not realising they could get a much better one fairly cheaply, or simply not willing to spend the effort because what they have already is adequate if not spectacular.
Re:Linux people are usually Do-It-Yourselfers...
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 2
But a less skilled admin wouldnt try to do things beyond his capability, atleast not on important servers... All the admins i know have test servers where things are tried and thoroughly tested before being deployed to production servers. And the fact that someone COULD fuck things up, doesnt mean they will.. you could fuck windows up just as easily without the source, but making actually usefull improvements are much harder.
Also my experience doesnt show that solaris would outperform linux on the same hardware... If you were using high end sparc systems, sure you would need less servers.. but linux tends to run faster on the same x86 hardware. However, you may need less boxes to serve 100,000 hits a day.. But your not taking into consideration the hardware and what those hits entail. They may be serving a lot of complex dynamic content, you may be serving static content. Also since this study was done over 3 years, It`s safe to assume it was done on 3 year old hardware, or possibly even older... I would never buy cutting edge (read, not tried and tested) hardware for use in a critical environment, i would use something that had been available for a while and had proven itself suitable to my needs.
And as a legal taxpayer, i am disgusted that 911 dispatch centers are running their business in an inefficient way, and thus costing me money and possibly risking my life!
Microsoft have very rarely offered better products, frequently they have lied about the abilities of their products and those of their competitors, used one product to force users to buy their others, and actively trying to prevent anyone from learning of the existance of alternatives to their products.
Re:Linux people are usually Do-It-Yourselfers...
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 2
But a highly skilled linux administrator will always have an advantage over an equally skilled windows admin, why? because he has more control of the system, he can MAKE it do what you want.. instead of waiting for microsoft to come up with a version that does. Having the source will always give you more flexibility for tuning, and making it do things the original authors never intended atall.
But with linux, unlike windows in many cases, you can remove what you don`t want, and if its not there you dont need to patch it. Whereas with windows, you are stuck with IE and Outlook wether you like it or not... these 2 programs must be among the most mentioned programs on bugtraq. What`s more, under opensource software many patches are available to fix an existing version without modifying anything in the program other than the vulnerability, whereas many windows patches break things or introduce new bugs, or new memory consuming features you dont require.
OSX is relatively modern, and doesnt offer full compatibility with OS9 or NeXT, its immediate predecessors... just like newer versions of windows dont offer full compatibility with previous ones. But i dont know how difficult it is to obtain an older version of MacOS..
Re:United Nations -- Iraq -- Weapons Inspections
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 2
Books are only usefull to a point, there really is no substitute for real experience.. Also, by the time a book gets written, edited, published and distributed, the information isnt exactly up to date with the fast paced development in the computing industry.
Re:That's because Linux admins are self-taught
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Fixing a unix problem is usually made a LOT easier by the error messages. Typically if something goes wrong on a unix system, you will be given a usefull error message, that if all else fails you can paste into google and see what comes up. Contrast with windows, which often gives far less usefull error messages and frequently wont let you do anything else while the error requester is displayed on the screen. You are resorted to trial and error to fix the problem, a very time consuming process. People complain about the verboseness of unix/linux, but this is a GOOD THING.. even to newbies, if a newbie sees an error he could paste it to someone who knows how to deal with it.. instead of panicking and freaking out.
The windows mentality has resulted in a lot of new linux users who assume the error messages are useless, thus they dont even read them atall.. they paste them to someone (like me) and ask for an explanation, usually i paste the error right back and they go "ohh, now i see"
TCO ? Windows doesnt have one..
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Taking that TCO stands for "Total Cost of OWNERSHIP" then this cant be applicable to windows, since you dont actually own a copy of windows that you buy, you merely have a revokeable license to use it.
Yes, like how they once refused to translate windows into icelandic, even tho the icelandic government was offering to pay for the translation or do it themselves.
Yet another inferior, but cheaper and better marketted technology getting furthur hacked to try and give it features the better and more expensive options have had for years... Instead of creating new untested technologies, why not work on making what we already have more cost effective? All these so-called new feature of serial ata have long been supported by scsi devices, there are plenty of existing scsi cards on the market, plenty of drives, albeit costly. And you have full backwards compatibility with older devices. All we need are more motherboards with onboard scsi, and some drives more comparatively priced with ide ones, ok so they wont offer the high end performance of the 10,000 and 15,000 rpm drives.. but they will still beat ide drives using the same mechanism.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, nodoubt you can blame MS-DOS for forcing short nondescriptive filenames.. BIGJCYCK.PCX isnt immediately obvious unless you already know... :)
back in those days i did porn viewing on the amiga tho, so no such problem
And i was comparing 2k/xp collectively as being better than 9x..
And to be pedantic, "orders of magnitude" is a phrase rather than a word.
Firstly:
"but they had to replace the first replacement due to a consultant that had no experience or knowledge in that type of system trying to put one in."
This has more to do with the boss knowing what he wants rather than needs.. he wants the system the marketting boys sold to him, and he wants the cheapest possible staff to come and install it for him, which is often not compatible.
Secondly, You have comeback in the auto industry, if a mechanic does work on your car and consequently the affected parts of the car fail, then you can sue him and/or the garage he works for.. And in turn they can sue the supplier of the parts, if these were sub-standard and caused the failure.
However in computing, while you may be able to sue a supplier of substandard hardware, there is no comeback for substandard software.. I can think of very few software products that fulfilled the marketting propoganda, especially before having numerous patches added, whereas those operating with vehicles have to get it right first time, and cars are thoroughly tested before theyre allowed to be sold, and are again regularly tested to ensure they remain roadworthy, A lot of old or damaged cars would still be on the road, cars which while they may still drive.. are often dangerous, noisy, and major causes of pollution, much in the same way that insecure software becomes infected with worms and/or viruses, and then pollutes the internet with furthur worm/virus infections and the associated network traffic, not to mention the danger that a worm might destroy someone`s important data, in much the same way an unsafe car might catch fire or crash.
Just how new versions of windows repair fundamental flaws in previous versions, and yet people still rave about them. Compare win9x to 2k/xp, the instability of 9x could surely be considered a fundamental flaw, 2k/xp are actually pretty good, not quite upto the standard of most unix systems but orders of magnitude better than their previous effort.
But the ability to modify the os to suit your needs should be considered a high level of competence, this is possible with opensource and not with fully closed unless you work for the vendor.
And as part of a business you would often wish to modify apps or the os to suit your needs, i have encountered many such situations... and often the answer is "well theres nothing we can do about it, so we`l just have to live with it".. how many businesses are living with software that doesnt quite suit their needs and just putting up with it because they dont have a choice?
Then why is IE so much slower on NT4 or 3.1 where it`s not integrated into the shell? Sure IE is made up of COM objects, but a lot of them are already loaded into memory, this is why the disk is barely accessed when you invoke iexplore.exe
But why rewrite an existing service, why not create HTTP over UDP, with a fallback mode to regular HTTP over TCP incase the client/server cant support the udp mode.
Not only that, but blind spoofing would be trivial...
not that windows isnt already far easier to blind spoof on than any other modern os.
Not many, but it`s nice to have that option available to you just incase... A company could always employ a coder to make the changes they required, or an end user could ask a friend etc...
You can remove the icon, but not the application itself.. its still sitting there consuming your diskspace, and IE is still running consuming your ram wether you like it or not.
What`s more, so long as it`s bundled by default and prominently displayed.. most people wont bother looking for anything better...
Think how many people are driving around with poor quality factory-fitted radios in their cars.. not realising they could get a much better one fairly cheaply, or simply not willing to spend the effort because what they have already is adequate if not spectacular.
But a less skilled admin wouldnt try to do things beyond his capability, atleast not on important servers...
All the admins i know have test servers where things are tried and thoroughly tested before being deployed to production servers.
And the fact that someone COULD fuck things up, doesnt mean they will.. you could fuck windows up just as easily without the source, but making actually usefull improvements are much harder.
Also my experience doesnt show that solaris would outperform linux on the same hardware... If you were using high end sparc systems, sure you would need less servers.. but linux tends to run faster on the same x86 hardware.
However, you may need less boxes to serve 100,000 hits a day.. But your not taking into consideration the hardware and what those hits entail.
They may be serving a lot of complex dynamic content, you may be serving static content.
Also since this study was done over 3 years, It`s safe to assume it was done on 3 year old hardware, or possibly even older... I would never buy cutting edge (read, not tried and tested) hardware for use in a critical environment, i would use something that had been available for a while and had proven itself suitable to my needs.
And as a legal taxpayer, i am disgusted that 911 dispatch centers are running their business in an inefficient way, and thus costing me money and possibly risking my life!
What about the downtime and retraining cost when the windows machines were first installed?
A __SINGLE__ server? what about when you need to install patches? that means DOWNTIME.. i assume this site is an unimportant one
Microsoft have very rarely offered better products, frequently they have lied about the abilities of their products and those of their competitors, used one product to force users to buy their others, and actively trying to prevent anyone from learning of the existance of alternatives to their products.
But a highly skilled linux administrator will always have an advantage over an equally skilled windows admin, why? because he has more control of the system, he can MAKE it do what you want.. instead of waiting for microsoft to come up with a version that does. Having the source will always give you more flexibility for tuning, and making it do things the original authors never intended atall.
But with linux, unlike windows in many cases, you can remove what you don`t want, and if its not there you dont need to patch it. Whereas with windows, you are stuck with IE and Outlook wether you like it or not... these 2 programs must be among the most mentioned programs on bugtraq.
What`s more, under opensource software many patches are available to fix an existing version without modifying anything in the program other than the vulnerability, whereas many windows patches break things or introduce new bugs, or new memory consuming features you dont require.
OSX is relatively modern, and doesnt offer full compatibility with OS9 or NeXT, its immediate predecessors... just like newer versions of windows dont offer full compatibility with previous ones. But i dont know how difficult it is to obtain an older version of MacOS..
Books are only usefull to a point, there really is no substitute for real experience..
Also, by the time a book gets written, edited, published and distributed, the information isnt exactly up to date with the fast paced development in the computing industry.
Fixing a unix problem is usually made a LOT easier by the error messages.
Typically if something goes wrong on a unix system, you will be given a usefull error message, that if all else fails you can paste into google and see what comes up.
Contrast with windows, which often gives far less usefull error messages and frequently wont let you do anything else while the error requester is displayed on the screen. You are resorted to trial and error to fix the problem, a very time consuming process.
People complain about the verboseness of unix/linux, but this is a GOOD THING.. even to newbies, if a newbie sees an error he could paste it to someone who knows how to deal with it.. instead of panicking and freaking out.
The windows mentality has resulted in a lot of new linux users who assume the error messages are useless, thus they dont even read them atall.. they paste them to someone (like me) and ask for an explanation, usually i paste the error right back and they go "ohh, now i see"
Taking that TCO stands for "Total Cost of OWNERSHIP" then this cant be applicable to windows, since you dont actually own a copy of windows that you buy, you merely have a revokeable license to use it.
Yes, like how they once refused to translate windows into icelandic, even tho the icelandic government was offering to pay for the translation or do it themselves.
Yet another inferior, but cheaper and better marketted technology getting furthur hacked to try and give it features the better and more expensive options have had for years...
Instead of creating new untested technologies, why not work on making what we already have more cost effective?
All these so-called new feature of serial ata have long been supported by scsi devices, there are plenty of existing scsi cards on the market, plenty of drives, albeit costly. And you have full backwards compatibility with older devices.
All we need are more motherboards with onboard scsi, and some drives more comparatively priced with ide ones, ok so they wont offer the high end performance of the 10,000 and 15,000 rpm drives.. but they will still beat ide drives using the same mechanism.
Eugh, exceed.. the Xserver with "xhost +" by default and no obvious way to turn it off.. now how secure is that?