Round two was when IBM had a deal with MS with the OS/2 project, and Microsoft completely backstabbed them with Windows 95.
You almost got that right - just a few years off.
Microsoft had actually publicly committed to OS/2 and encouraged all the dominate application vendors at the time to write for that OS; meanwhile, they were continually improving Windows internally until 1989, when they released Windows 3.0 to much acclaim. Its success caught IBM and other software vendors completely off guard.
What people don't remember is that at the time is that OS/2 (version 1.3 and 2.x) was extremely resource intensive at the time - both require at least 2-4 megabytes of RAM and up to 10 megabytes (or more) of disk space and a 386 processor (for version 2.0). Windows 3.0, for all its flaws, can actually run and task switch DOS applications adequately on a 286 processor with 1 megabytes of RAM. Plus, it was cheaper than OS/2 (I remember buying a copy for about less than 100 dollars; OS/2, if I recall correctly). When you take that into consideration, it is easy to see why it did so well.
Microsoft follow up on the success of Windows 3.0 with generally well regarded versions of Microsoft Word and Excel. The rest of the software vendors that were committed to OS/2 (notably Lotus and Wordperfect) weren't able to release their first Windows versions until several years later - and when they were releases, they were fairly archaic and (in the case of Word Perfect), extremely buggy. Consequently, they never did recover from that mis-direction.
Equating "I took the initiative in creating the internet" with "I invented the internet" marks the one who is doing the equating as lacking in very basic reading comprehension.
To be fair, Gore likely would have received less flak if he had said "I took the initiative in helping to create the internet."
I agree "I invented the internet" joke is silly and may be partisan-drive, but I think that some of it was also motivated by a bit of resentment, since that out of context statement seems to diminishes the achievements that others made to building the Internet. That and it seems to strikes a nerve with geeks who toil for long hours in months on end to get projects done, only to see their managers take all the credit for their work.
I'm also puzzled how being a sysadmin has anything to do with Vista. Normally sysadmin implies server mgt. and the like.
IANAWSA*, but the parent post probably will have to deal with figuring out ow to integrate Vista into their existing Active Directory infrastructure, which I imagine will involve a significant level of desktop support.:/
*I A Not A Windows System Admin, in case you are wondering.
I don't know what company you work for that allows you to get away with this, but blaming other people is the last thing you do when you communicate to your users or customers. Even if it is Google's fault, blocking them is going to hurt your customers - and consequently yourself.
I wouldn't say that it is impossible, but I do agree that it is much more difficult to administer windows when you start to scale up. Ironically enough, open source makes it easier to administer windows (in particularly, Perl), especially when automating tasks.
Microsoft is learning, though, starting with Windows 2003 server. With 2008 Server (with features such as Monad shell, GUI-less installations, etc), I suspect that MS Server software is likely to start to achieve parity or even surpass Unix-like systems in some areas).
When it comes down to it, setting up a Linux server in a nice, secure fashion is a royal pain in the ass. You have to type MILES of command lines and edit scores of.conf files to accomplish the same best practices that takes a couple of clicks and 2 minutes on a Windows machine.
Furthermore, that lower learning curve to becoming a Windows admin has--you guessed it--created more Windows admins! If a Linux admin needs to worship at Torvalds' feet and perpetually keep an eye out for him on the street so he can give Torvalds the obligatory blowjob he deserves for creating such a wonderful kernel, that makes a good Linux admin harder to come by! Therefore, a competent Linux admin suddenly costs more money to hire because of his greater skill set and lower availability. If you can, however, hire a SINGLE Windows God in a medium to large business, who can delegate tasks to people who are lower on the food chain (like the ones who can click "Next..Next..Finish" but not use ADSI Edit), your maintenance costs go down...
You know, it may be bad form to call somebody out (but then this is slashdot.org, so what else is new). . but as a professional systems administrator for over 7-8 years now, it sounds like to me that you are not a very experienced sysadmin - or even one to begin with.
One of the key skills that any systems admin (IMO) should know is being able to automate repetitive tasks, which will involve some sort of scripting language. Of course, just writing out the initial script and debugging it will take some time, however, in the end, it'll save you and whatever company you work for time to be used for more important* stuff. For instance, if I were to write the script to add a site to apache, in the end, it'll look like this:
addsite -site domain.com -home/home/domain.com
The beauty of scripting (especially on Unix and Unix-like systems) is that you can write one-liner scripts on the fly; so in the above example, if I need to add a whole bunch of sites, I can either rewrite the above script or I can do:
for j in `cat listofsites`; do addsite -site $j -home/home/$j
Or if I have a list of servers to add the same site, I just copy the script over to those machines this:
for i in `cat listofservers`; do for j in `cat listofsites`; do ssh $i "addsite -site $j -home/home/$j; done; done
That part of the reason why Linux is kicking Microsoft's behind in the server space - it is so much easier and cheaper to scale up without adding additional person-power to your organization*. So in your example, the large MS shop will have to add more people for support, while a Unix shop would continue to hum along with 1-2 administrators. . and maybe consider adding person just so that they have somebody available in case the other people goes on vacation.
Just to make things clear, though. . . I am not saying that the above can't be done with MS systems. You can use existing MS scripting languages to automate tasks and scale. It *harder* to do, but it can be done. And even if the MS administrator may not good enough scripting background to do that, there are third-party tools that can allow to automate tasks from a single interface. So for you to view hiring lower-skilled admins to perform maintainance tasks tells me that either:
1) You don't understand the concept of ROI in business. 2) Don't want to take the time to learn and scale up.
I will say this, though, that yes, it may cost more money to hire a competent Unix/Linux administrator. That is true - the reason why is that there isn't that many to begin with (This is also true, to a certain extent, for Windows). I help interviewed many candidates for our Unix/Linux positions and we are surprised at the number of candidates that can't tell us how much memory is there on the machine, check the disk space, look u
Actually, I do that all the time at my datacenter - usually when I have to replace a drive. And yes, when you do pull a running drive, you will feel the disks spinning so hard that at time it feels like it is about to spin out of your hand.
Of course, make sure that server that you are pulling the drive from has reliable Hardware RAID.:D
"Hi, I need to use X piece of software (which is mainstream and well-known). I can't install it myself because I don't have admin rights, can you install it please?" "Why do you need it?" "Well [insert many technical reasons here]"
That's why you will always lose with IT.
Assuming that your IT department are not pricks, you may go farther if you can outline a business case for your need. If you frame it that way, it'll be easier to get managerial support for your request. At the very lease, it may be more difficult for IT to refuse your request, since their role is to *support* the business.
Slashdot Mirror
Round two was when IBM had a deal with MS with the OS/2 project, and Microsoft completely backstabbed them with Windows 95.
You almost got that right - just a few years off.
Microsoft had actually publicly committed to OS/2 and encouraged all the dominate application vendors at the time to write for that OS; meanwhile, they were continually improving Windows internally until 1989, when they released Windows 3.0 to much acclaim. Its success caught IBM and other software vendors completely off guard.
What people don't remember is that at the time is that OS/2 (version 1.3 and 2.x) was extremely resource intensive at the time - both require at least 2-4 megabytes of RAM and up to 10 megabytes (or more) of disk space and a 386 processor (for version 2.0). Windows 3.0, for all its flaws, can actually run and task switch DOS applications adequately on a 286 processor with 1 megabytes of RAM. Plus, it was cheaper than OS/2 (I remember buying a copy for about less than 100 dollars; OS/2, if I recall correctly). When you take that into consideration, it is easy to see why it did so well.
Microsoft follow up on the success of Windows 3.0 with generally well regarded versions of Microsoft Word and Excel. The rest of the software vendors that were committed to OS/2 (notably Lotus and Wordperfect) weren't able to release their first Windows versions until several years later - and when they were releases, they were fairly archaic and (in the case of Word Perfect), extremely buggy. Consequently, they never did recover from that mis-direction.
Windows: You run the software MS tells you to, according to MSs business interests.
Care to expand on this statement?
Alright, fair enough. Can I run Firefox 3.0 on Linux 2.0? :D
Even if accurate, that's assuming everyone who sees the error message will go somewhere else to buy their books.
Dude, books are not the only thing that Amazon sells now.
What year are you posting from? 1999?
Equating "I took the initiative in creating the internet" with "I invented the internet" marks the one who is doing the equating as lacking in very basic reading comprehension.
To be fair, Gore likely would have received less flak if he had said "I took the initiative in helping to create the internet."
I agree "I invented the internet" joke is silly and may be partisan-drive, but I think that some of it was also motivated by a bit of resentment, since that out of context statement seems to diminishes the achievements that others made to building the Internet. That and it seems to strikes a nerve with geeks who toil for long hours in months on end to get projects done, only to see their managers take all the credit for their work.
It's human nature, after all.
I'm also puzzled how being a sysadmin has anything to do with Vista. Normally sysadmin implies server mgt. and the like.
:/
IANAWSA*, but the parent post probably will have to deal with figuring out ow to integrate Vista into their existing Active Directory infrastructure, which I imagine will involve a significant level of desktop support.
*I A Not A Windows System Admin, in case you are wondering.
It means that my communications are being scanned by a third party, and that I should self-censor accordingly.
:)
Most email are sent plain-text, so it doesn't take much effort to scan the contents. That is why you use PGP.
Hooray for competition.
I don't know what company you work for that allows you to get away with this, but blaming other people is the last thing you do when you communicate to your users or customers. Even if it is Google's fault, blocking them is going to hurt your customers - and consequently yourself.
Sigh. . .
Note to Slashdot editors: please add option to mod parent post to "WHOOSH!"
Google's Zürich offices also have a fireman's pole.
.riiiiiiiight.
. . . . . .
You do realize that being a fanatic is worse than being a fundamentalist, right?
Not zombies - VAMPIRES!
I wouldn't say that it is impossible, but I do agree that it is much more difficult to administer windows when you start to scale up. Ironically enough, open source makes it easier to administer windows (in particularly, Perl), especially when automating tasks.
Microsoft is learning, though, starting with Windows 2003 server. With 2008 Server (with features such as Monad shell, GUI-less installations, etc), I suspect that MS Server software is likely to start to achieve parity or even surpass Unix-like systems in some areas).
When it comes down to it, setting up a Linux server in a nice, secure fashion is a royal pain in the ass. You have to type MILES of command lines and edit scores of .conf files to accomplish the same best practices that takes a couple of clicks and 2 minutes on a Windows machine.
/home/domain.com
/home/$j
/home/$j; done; done
Furthermore, that lower learning curve to becoming a Windows admin has--you guessed it--created more Windows admins! If a Linux admin needs to worship at Torvalds' feet and perpetually keep an eye out for him on the street so he can give Torvalds the obligatory blowjob he deserves for creating such a wonderful kernel, that makes a good Linux admin harder to come by! Therefore, a competent Linux admin suddenly costs more money to hire because of his greater skill set and lower availability. If you can, however, hire a SINGLE Windows God in a medium to large business, who can delegate tasks to people who are lower on the food chain (like the ones who can click "Next..Next..Finish" but not use ADSI Edit), your maintenance costs go down...
You know, it may be bad form to call somebody out (but then this is slashdot.org, so what else is new). . but as a professional systems administrator for over 7-8 years now, it sounds like to me that you are not a very experienced sysadmin - or even one to begin with.
One of the key skills that any systems admin (IMO) should know is being able to automate repetitive tasks, which will involve some sort of scripting language. Of course, just writing out the initial script and debugging it will take some time, however, in the end, it'll save you and whatever company you work for time to be used for more important* stuff. For instance, if I were to write the script to add a site to apache, in the end, it'll look like this:
addsite -site domain.com -home
The beauty of scripting (especially on Unix and Unix-like systems) is that you can write one-liner scripts on the fly; so in the above example, if I need to add a whole bunch of sites, I can either rewrite the above script or I can do:
for j in `cat listofsites`; do addsite -site $j -home
Or if I have a list of servers to add the same site, I just copy the script over to those machines this:
for i in `cat listofservers`; do for j in `cat listofsites`; do ssh $i "addsite -site $j -home
That part of the reason why Linux is kicking Microsoft's behind in the server space - it is so much easier and cheaper to scale up without adding additional person-power to your organization*. So in your example, the large MS shop will have to add more people for support, while a Unix shop would continue to hum along with 1-2 administrators. . and maybe consider adding person just so that they have somebody available in case the other people goes on vacation.
Just to make things clear, though. . . I am not saying that the above can't be done with MS systems. You can use existing MS scripting languages to automate tasks and scale. It *harder* to do, but it can be done. And even if the MS administrator may not good enough scripting background to do that, there are third-party tools that can allow to automate tasks from a single interface. So for you to view hiring lower-skilled admins to perform maintainance tasks tells me that either:
1) You don't understand the concept of ROI in business.
2) Don't want to take the time to learn and scale up.
I will say this, though, that yes, it may cost more money to hire a competent Unix/Linux administrator. That is true - the reason why is that there isn't that many to begin with (This is also true, to a certain extent, for Windows). I help interviewed many candidates for our Unix/Linux positions and we are surprised at the number of candidates that can't tell us how much memory is there on the machine, check the disk space, look u
Actually, I do that all the time at my datacenter - usually when I have to replace a drive. And yes, when you do pull a running drive, you will feel the disks spinning so hard that at time it feels like it is about to spin out of your hand.
:D
Of course, make sure that server that you are pulling the drive from has reliable Hardware RAID.
For those who may not get the joke:
http://xkcd.com/208/
"Hi, I need to use X piece of software (which is mainstream and well-known). I can't install it myself because I don't have admin rights, can you install it please?"
"Why do you need it?"
"Well [insert many technical reasons here]"
That's why you will always lose with IT.
Assuming that your IT department are not pricks, you may go farther if you can outline a business case for your need. If you frame it that way, it'll be easier to get managerial support for your request. At the very lease, it may be more difficult for IT to refuse your request, since their role is to *support* the business.
It could have been EMACs. :D
It will be the beginning of the end as soon as there is a platform-neutral, drop-in replacement for Office + Outlook + Exchange + Sharepoint
:)
15 years ago, it was Windows you have to compete with.
11 years ago, it was Windows + Office.
9 years ago, it was Windows + Office + Outlook.
5 years ago, it was Windows + Office + Outlook + Exchange.
Now this?
How about a drop-in replacement for the above + something that would put Microsoft behind.
They sued Diamond Multimedia over their Rio player and lost. What makes you think that they are going to win here?
Remember this?
, 2303066,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/filters/bursts/0,3422
Check out http://www.jabber.org