Yes... for all twenty or thirty minutes of a week that I might use it. I'm in Linux the other 39 hours and forty minutes a week. Usually with a few ssh sessions into my Unix boxes doing (GASP) work.
Regarding your comment about the wireless cards. I've repeatedly said that if the WiFi companies and BIOS makers REALLY cared, they could have the WiFi settings in the BIOS and present the OS with a virtual standard NIC like a PCI ne2000. Then ANY OS could use the WiFi. The WiFi settings would also be able to be changed via a userspace app, so storing the initial settings in the BIOS shouldn't be a problem. But there's no good reason the OS needs to deal with the WiFi card as a device that is different from a wired NIC at the networking level if you abstract it as a standard NIC.
I haven't used Windows here at work since 2001. Linux does everything I need on the desktop (I work as a manager in an environment that supports a wide variety of hardware and platforms and I touch everything. Windows, HP-UX, Solaris, OpenVMS, IIS, Apache, MS SQL, MySQL, Cisco, you name it, I do admin on it). If I need to access Windows stuff, I use RDP to do all my admin work from our Windows servers. I avoid all software that must run locally as this tend to indicate poor design. If it's not centralized, I don't need it.
Now, I understand that not all IT people have the power and control that I have and they are saddled with what their company offers them. But that's no reflection on Linux. If there is an application that you MUST have on your desktop to get work done and it only runs on Windows, then by all means use Windows. But again, don't blame Linux for restrictions that come from your software vendor or market segment. Hell, if there were a professional job that required you to play the latest and greatest PC games, you'd be an idiot to say "I'd use Linux here at work if it didn't suck so much". You can't fault companies who don't develop for Linux because they are concerned about their bottom line. But you also can't fault Linux because those companies chose their financial destiny vs. a potential darkhorse.
From TFA: I purchased third-party provided connectors into Exchange, and ran Office-type applications as well.
I would say that's his first mistake. I suspect he's talking about Ximian Gnome's Evolution and OpenOffice.org. Evolution is a nice application, but it's not the best way to go if you live in an Exchange shop. You'd be better off using RDP or Citrix to publish the app from a server and having a thin client app on your Linux desktop. Or, you could at the very least access Outlook Web Agent using IE in Wine, a virtual machine or again via RDP or Citrix. OpenOffice.org? Hard for me to say as I have little use for Office software. When I use OpenOffice.org 2.0, it "just works" for me in terms of opening documents. I don't really have much need to edit them, so I don't know of the woes of conversion. But... again, I'd suggest, CrossOver Office, virtualization of a Windows machine or RDP/Citrix. These work for me as the need arises.
One thing I question in all of this is why people seem so averse to virtualization? It's the perfect solution especially with the new hardware assistance in new CPUs (AMD's Pacifica and Intel's Vanderpool). I used virtualization since VMWare came out in 97/98, moved to QEMU circa 2004 and then Xen in 2005. Outside of gaming, virtualization is perfect. It allows you access to all applications you would need for most businesses. If you are truly in an enterprise situation then it's likely that you have VLK for Windows XP anyway... so installing Windows in a VM shouldn't be a licensing issue either. And in terms of performance, with hardware assistance and Xen, you can get close to 99% of the bare metal speed. Not to mention that unlike older virtualization technologies, your virtualized OS IS running on the metal for the most part. It's NOT running within another OS at all. Reread that last line so it sinks in. I repeat, with virtualization software like Xen and hardware assisted virtualization, your "guest" OS is running NEXT TO and NOT on top of the managing OS instance.
Since the performance is there, and true enterprises use VLK for Windows desktop, why not use virtualization for that small handful of apps you really need? Or remote desktop/Citrix? Unless you're trying to run some really niche market visualization software that requires 3D acceleration, or you're in multimedia content production, Linux has been ready for the desktop for close to a decade.
Actually, I don't know what the CRI was because when I wrote the post yesterday I didn't know what CRI was. Now I do, and although I don't know what the lamps I bought claim to have as I threw the packaging out, I would suspect somewhere in the 80s. I found some of the BlueMax lamp info and am intrigued. The main thing I need to find is a place to buy them.
Hah! Microsoft is "innovating" again. They applied for a patent to strip down their kernel and make it light, then to build support for extra hardware in the form of loadable kernel modules. (Putting all the arguments about monolithic vs. modular vs mach kernels aside) This would improve performance and efficiency. But they add an extra wrinkle: The modules will use Digital Rights Management which would allow for a model to charge money for access to drivers.
I suppose they are really innovating this time in that they took two existing concepts (kernel modules and DRM) and put them together for a new purpose (although not a technical one, but a business purpose). So maybe the quotes weren't warranted in the last paragraph. The real question is... will Windows users eventually really have to pay for drivers? Much like the CPU ID problems when the Pentium IV first came out, people were worried about being tracked via CPU ID. So the manufacturers backpedaled. At least for now.
My personal suspicion is that when these sorts of measures are implemented and a company responds to public outcry by saying, "OK, we won't use it", that what they really mean is "OK, we won't use it... for now". They will wait to quietly enable the functionality THEY want on YOUR computer when they've got you locked into some associated feature. Take DRM on the iPod for example. Let's say it's 1984 and CDs are just beginning to pick up steam with the buying public. But let's say that the RIAA was even more brazen back then than they actually were and they said the following:
"We thank you for your continued support of the recording industry and your understanding of the need to move from cassettes and their more out of date relative, the vinyl record. However, it has come to our attention that the quality of the digital audio discs that our members have been selling is enabling mass piracy by copying to chromium oxide and metal film audio cassettes. Although the cassettes do not provide the pure listening enjoyment of a genuine RIAA member digital audio disc, they do impact sales. One measure we've taken is the formal request to the blank audio cassette manufactures and the government to intervene by adding a small surcharge to the purchase of cassettes to compensate for the revenues lost to piracy. However, another measure we would like to take is the creation of an End User License Agreement. This agreement stipulates that you (the consumer) agree that you will not use any methods of copying your digital audio disc. It also stipulates that you agree to play said disc on no more than five digital audio disc reproduction mechanisms whether CD players or any possible future method of reproduction. Once you have played the disc on a fifth unit, you agree to purchase a new disc with the associated license to allow you playback on five more systems".
I don't think most consumers would have gone along with that back then. But, using today's DRM technology, Apple has managed to convince users that these limitations with iTunes and the iPod are OK because the benefits outweigh the negative aspects of the system. The music is cheaper. You get a more complete experience if you are using Apple products all the way through the chain. You have the instant gratification factor that you don't get by buying CDs on Amazon. And sure, you have the less-than-optimal option of burning your tracks to a CD, then ripping them into the format of your choosing. But in reality, iPod users have agreed to something they are cornered into agreeing to. So why do they do this? It's all in the approach. If MS tried to do this first, they would have gone a little overboard with the restrictions and just because they are MS, many consumers would have revolted. But the key here is that the best way to get people to agree to artificial and fairly negative restrictions, is to tie them in some benefits that would be enough to hook the user.
I can see that manufacturers would have a new area of revenue if they had a way to c
The way I see it, a volcano is basically a zit on Gaia. That mud is pus. Dropping those concrete balls in would be the euqivalent of trying to push poppy seeds into your clogged pore cum zit. Don't lie. You've all been there as geeks. In front of the mirror in our teens with a zit larger than an erection and that yellowish-white head... Do you honestly think that it could have occurred to you as a good idea to fill your infected pore with tic-tacs to keep the pus from oozing out? Didn't think so. Volcano? Same thing.
If they do this, all that's going to happen is that the unstoppable force of the mud is going to ooze out from somewhere else. Probably near where the volcano is. Just like when you used to squeeze pimples that weren't quite ready to pop and instead of popping them, you damaged the wall between the infected pore and neighboring pores and wound up making that zit into a gash. Nope. I don't suggest the insane course of dropping those concrete balls in. Not one bit. Who came up with that plan anyway? George W. Bush?
I recently made the switch to compact fluorescents in my basement (MY BASEMENT, not my parent's) and I have to say that it's been a disappointment from an aesthetic point of view. I actually ran through all three types from Home Dept (Daylight, Bright White and Soft). Daylight really blows since it's got a very strong bluish cast that makes everything look really depressing. Bright White makes everything look gray. Soft was the one I went with because it's the only one that came sort of close to regular light bulbs. But it's still too pink and has a tendency to make skin look yellowish. But it's the best compromise possible. The wattage change is great though. I bought the equivalent of 100W bulbs but they only use 27 watts each. That's four bulbs so I'm using only slightly more power than one regular bulb to power four bulbs. I sure hope they improve the technology.
But just to put people in their place, I want to point out that fluorescent light technology isn't that much newer than incandescents: read this Wikipedia entry on fluorescent lights. They are anywhere from 110+ to at youngest 80 some years old. Frankly, I am putting more stock in LEDs myself. For one thing, if the LED technology is improved, you'd be able to have bulbs that could be tuned to the correct color. Just imagine instead of having a dimmer, you have three RGB sliders that allow you to set the lights to ANY color you want. That's the way it SHOULD be. Aesthetics + efficiency. My personal interior design catch phrase is, "Lighting is EVERYTHING dahling".
Well... I saw a video on Youtube of a guy booting Fedora Core 6 on a PS3. When it booted, two big Tux penguins were displayed indicating dual CPUs. Then after a bit of booting six more smaller Tux penguins appeared beneath the first two. So I suspect all eight cores are in use.
Holy crap! An answer from someone with a brain finally! You actually "get it". Even the part about being pissed off that I get lumped in with the neighbor with three DVD drives. If I actually met you in person, I'd buy you the beverage of your choice. That was honestly the most refreshing post I've read on here in years.
I am married as a matter of fact. With one kid even... What do you mean how did I pull that off? My wife is a non-tech but she likes a lot of what I can enable with technology. Plus I'm very particular about where and how the machines get installed so that they are essentially hidden for the most part. The laptops are basically wireless thin clients, and she's very aware of the fact that her desktop is on a server in the basement. And considering that it's really inexpensive to have multiple machines when you're not having to pay through the nose for overpriced software... well it's an easy sell really.
The only problem I see with that is that the partner program requires that you sell your services or goods outside of your business. As I am someone doing this stuff at home and don't sell anything (although I do give away free access to my systems to my friends and family), and there isn't any legitimate way of making it seem that I do, it would appear that I don't qualify.
That's always been my main issue with MS: cost for doing the serious stuff at home. While many people might want to relegate people like me to the insulting category of "hobbiest", there are some of us who want enterprise functionality at home and use it in a serious way. Of that set, there are those of us who want to play by the rules and would therefore buy legitimate copies of an OS. If MS was really smart, they'd realize this and would provide multi system license packs for home users who want enterprise features. I'd happily pay $500 to have the right to legitimately install Windows Vista on five of my fifteen machines at home. I'd happily pay $750 to set up a full Windows AD domain at home with Win2K3 + five Vista clients. While my needs may not be mainstream, there are more people like me that you'd think.
But since MS only focuses on the largest markets, many very important sectors are ignored. That's where F/OSS and GNU/Linux come in. Thanks to FOSS and Linux I've been able to more than accommodate my need for 15 machines plus seven virtual systems without having to worry about licensing or cost. The money saved goes where it counts: large amounts of redundant storage, RAM and CPU.
Regarding the insulting moniker "hobbiest", my main problem is that it downplays the need that the average home has for enterprise class storage, user and resource management, print management and distributed computing. We don't call electricians who work on their wiring at home or plumbers who work on their plumbing at home, "hobbiests". In fact we tend to praise them as being self-sufficient and skilled. The same metric should be applied to the IT guy who sets up enterprise class centralized storage (Global Network Block Devices or iSCSI), hardware assisted virtualization or paravirtualization (Xen + AMD SVM or Intel VT) and centralized application serving (persistent remote desktops using VNC or NX protocols). These are serious solutions to real problems encountered in the home. The age of the standalone PC is long dead, but MS doesn't seem to get that.
VNC is lower in bandwidth utilization. But there's also the NX protocol which is a compressed X. The other benefit to VNC is that you can have persistent sessions. (Leave apps open for when you reconnect later). This is something that X can't do yet. Although from what I've seen it's being worked on if you look at the latest gdm config files and the options for an X proxy server. That proxy server would remain running and hold all applications so that on reconnection with your session, you'd have everything right where you left it.
In my case, at home, I've been running since 2002 with Xvnc as the X server for my desktop application server. it works very well on the Unix platform. If you've experienced VNC only on Windows, then you might not have a good impression of it. It's actually pretty good.:)
Where I work we used to have around 2000 dumb terminals deployed at the peak (early/mid 90s). The initial installation started in 1982 and grew quickly. Eventually, people who didn't know any better (myself included at the time) replaced the dumb terminals with PCs. At the time I wasn't aware of the admin friendly features of dumb terminals. I thought that by giving users PCs, they'd be able to do more and I'd come off looking great. There were things that the PC could do that the dumb terminals couldn't. But, what I lost in the long view was something that would preserve sanity if it were available for the PC world: centralization and the benefits that an admin gains. So really, it's all about balancing the needs of a user vs. the needs of an admin. If I could move everyone to some modern centralized system tomorrow, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But yes, to answer your original question, we had quite a huge deployment of dumb terminals, and I do miss them.
I'll tell you what's an irritating experience. I went to Best Buy Sunday afternoon to buy a new HP desktop similar to one I purchased in August. I walk in and what do I find? NO COMPUTERS IN THE STORE. The sales guy tells me that they have systems, but they can't sell them until the 30th when Vista debuts. Well what if I don't want Vista? I wanted an XP box because you can't yet virtualize Vista in Linux. No dice. They aren't selling XP boxes anymore. So much for MS not being a monopoly. I went to a few other stores and all with the same answer. I finally lucked out at CompUSA because they still had one floor model that I could buy as well as a copy of Windows XP Pro in order to accomplish what I wanted (A Linux box with Xen virtualization running Windows XP Pro). I suspect that things are going to get really sticky for people like me who want to do whatever we feel like with OUR PCs. MS + Vista + a PC = You don't own your machine.
Shock and Awe on Ottawa!!!! If those hosers are stealing our intellectual property then this means war!!! Let's go get 'em for the RIAA and MPAA boys! It won't be over til it's over over there!
This isn't about your typical copyright infringement. This is about an inside job since that's the only way those files would have made it to YouTube. I have a feeling that if found, the person responsible will first be fired, then sued out the whazoo and sent to debtor's prison.
The way I see it is that you have trade offs. You can make things "simple" like Microsoft does by having software that makes assumptions about what you want to do. If you have minimal and non-specific needs, then you won't have much of an issue. You'll also be able to get away with less skilled workers to accomplish your basic goals. But if you want to do something very specialized and the assumptions don't support it, then that approach will get in your way. And your less skilled workers will become a detriment if you need to move to something a bit more complex.
On the other side of the coin you have other OSes (*nix OpenVMS and others) that have a good deal more flexibility in terms of allowing you to do virtually anything. But this will require more skill in your workforce and natually more complexity. There is not currently a way to have less complexity and a high degree of flexibility and power. There just isn't. Even Microsoft is learning that lesson as they add PowerShell (previously Monad) to Exchange 2007. They've finally seen the light that what you really want is a set of powerful and small tools that do one job well (the CLI) and then you layer your "ease of use" on top of that. So I expect that future MS products will probably earn the gripe of being "complicated" by less skilled people who entered the IT industry in the 90s as paper MCSEs.
There's no way around it. Computers ARE complex machines and they become even more complex when you want to do something really unique and innovative. This is why there is no equivalent of Exchange on the Mac OS Server platform. Zimbra is about the closest thing and it's not exactly friendly. But if you're a real IT guy, that's not a problem.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Well, that and thank god for Rio Karma's and Ogg Vorbis support. I don't care if I can't ejaculate a song from my music penis to another friend's music penis. All I want is to be able to plug it in my ear and hear tunes that are uncontrolled by anyone other than me.
If you're a right leaning libertarian, then you just want to be a right winger who can smoke pot and get away with it. Personally I think it's better if your a lefty who smokes pot and doesn't care what people think. (NOTE: I don't smoke pot or crack, but I have tried pot and I did inhale) Stop lying to yourself and thinking that calling yourself a libertarian differentiates you from a Republican all that much. It doesn't in my eyes. Also note that I despise Libertarians because they don't grasp reality in any reasonable way. People need to be protected from themselves and each other (hence the need for government and law), and until you realize that, you won't get any slack from people like me.
Well maybe "off grid" is the wrong term. I mean "modern, sane off-grid living". In other words an unchanged lifestyle other than no longer having to pay the electric company. This means, stereos, wide screen televisions, HDTV, satellite, cell phones, multiple computers(15-20 machines), a wired LAN, etc... I COULD just ditch all my computers and get a few laptops and run them off a solar cell/battery combo maybe with the Hydrogen fuel cell idea thrown in as I live in the north where it's only sunny between June and August. But that would be nuts...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes... for all twenty or thirty minutes of a week that I might use it. I'm in Linux the other 39 hours and forty minutes a week. Usually with a few ssh sessions into my Unix boxes doing (GASP) work.
Regarding your comment about the wireless cards. I've repeatedly said that if the WiFi companies and BIOS makers REALLY cared, they could have the WiFi settings in the BIOS and present the OS with a virtual standard NIC like a PCI ne2000. Then ANY OS could use the WiFi. The WiFi settings would also be able to be changed via a userspace app, so storing the initial settings in the BIOS shouldn't be a problem. But there's no good reason the OS needs to deal with the WiFi card as a device that is different from a wired NIC at the networking level if you abstract it as a standard NIC.
Now, I understand that not all IT people have the power and control that I have and they are saddled with what their company offers them. But that's no reflection on Linux. If there is an application that you MUST have on your desktop to get work done and it only runs on Windows, then by all means use Windows. But again, don't blame Linux for restrictions that come from your software vendor or market segment. Hell, if there were a professional job that required you to play the latest and greatest PC games, you'd be an idiot to say "I'd use Linux here at work if it didn't suck so much". You can't fault companies who don't develop for Linux because they are concerned about their bottom line. But you also can't fault Linux because those companies chose their financial destiny vs. a potential darkhorse.
From TFA: I purchased third-party provided connectors into Exchange, and ran Office-type applications as well.
I would say that's his first mistake. I suspect he's talking about Ximian Gnome's Evolution and OpenOffice.org. Evolution is a nice application, but it's not the best way to go if you live in an Exchange shop. You'd be better off using RDP or Citrix to publish the app from a server and having a thin client app on your Linux desktop. Or, you could at the very least access Outlook Web Agent using IE in Wine, a virtual machine or again via RDP or Citrix. OpenOffice.org? Hard for me to say as I have little use for Office software. When I use OpenOffice.org 2.0, it "just works" for me in terms of opening documents. I don't really have much need to edit them, so I don't know of the woes of conversion. But... again, I'd suggest, CrossOver Office, virtualization of a Windows machine or RDP/Citrix. These work for me as the need arises.
One thing I question in all of this is why people seem so averse to virtualization? It's the perfect solution especially with the new hardware assistance in new CPUs (AMD's Pacifica and Intel's Vanderpool). I used virtualization since VMWare came out in 97/98, moved to QEMU circa 2004 and then Xen in 2005. Outside of gaming, virtualization is perfect. It allows you access to all applications you would need for most businesses. If you are truly in an enterprise situation then it's likely that you have VLK for Windows XP anyway... so installing Windows in a VM shouldn't be a licensing issue either. And in terms of performance, with hardware assistance and Xen, you can get close to 99% of the bare metal speed. Not to mention that unlike older virtualization technologies, your virtualized OS IS running on the metal for the most part. It's NOT running within another OS at all. Reread that last line so it sinks in. I repeat, with virtualization software like Xen and hardware assisted virtualization, your "guest" OS is running NEXT TO and NOT on top of the managing OS instance.
Since the performance is there, and true enterprises use VLK for Windows desktop, why not use virtualization for that small handful of apps you really need? Or remote desktop/Citrix? Unless you're trying to run some really niche market visualization software that requires 3D acceleration, or you're in multimedia content production, Linux has been ready for the desktop for close to a decade.
I expect someone to come up with a site that says:
"Start Internet Explorer"
"Go aytch tee tee pee colon slash slash gee oh ay tee ess ee dot see ex"
Brrr...
Actually, I don't know what the CRI was because when I wrote the post yesterday I didn't know what CRI was. Now I do, and although I don't know what the lamps I bought claim to have as I threw the packaging out, I would suspect somewhere in the 80s. I found some of the BlueMax lamp info and am intrigued. The main thing I need to find is a place to buy them.
Hah! Microsoft is "innovating" again. They applied for a patent to strip down their kernel and make it light, then to build support for extra hardware in the form of loadable kernel modules. (Putting all the arguments about monolithic vs. modular vs mach kernels aside) This would improve performance and efficiency. But they add an extra wrinkle: The modules will use Digital Rights Management which would allow for a model to charge money for access to drivers.
I suppose they are really innovating this time in that they took two existing concepts (kernel modules and DRM) and put them together for a new purpose (although not a technical one, but a business purpose). So maybe the quotes weren't warranted in the last paragraph. The real question is... will Windows users eventually really have to pay for drivers? Much like the CPU ID problems when the Pentium IV first came out, people were worried about being tracked via CPU ID. So the manufacturers backpedaled. At least for now.
My personal suspicion is that when these sorts of measures are implemented and a company responds to public outcry by saying, "OK, we won't use it", that what they really mean is "OK, we won't use it... for now". They will wait to quietly enable the functionality THEY want on YOUR computer when they've got you locked into some associated feature. Take DRM on the iPod for example. Let's say it's 1984 and CDs are just beginning to pick up steam with the buying public. But let's say that the RIAA was even more brazen back then than they actually were and they said the following:
"We thank you for your continued support of the recording industry and your understanding of the need to move from cassettes and their more out of date relative, the vinyl record. However, it has come to our attention that the quality of the digital audio discs that our members have been selling is enabling mass piracy by copying to chromium oxide and metal film audio cassettes. Although the cassettes do not provide the pure listening enjoyment of a genuine RIAA member digital audio disc, they do impact sales. One measure we've taken is the formal request to the blank audio cassette manufactures and the government to intervene by adding a small surcharge to the purchase of cassettes to compensate for the revenues lost to piracy. However, another measure we would like to take is the creation of an End User License Agreement. This agreement stipulates that you (the consumer) agree that you will not use any methods of copying your digital audio disc. It also stipulates that you agree to play said disc on no more than five digital audio disc reproduction mechanisms whether CD players or any possible future method of reproduction. Once you have played the disc on a fifth unit, you agree to purchase a new disc with the associated license to allow you playback on five more systems".
I don't think most consumers would have gone along with that back then. But, using today's DRM technology, Apple has managed to convince users that these limitations with iTunes and the iPod are OK because the benefits outweigh the negative aspects of the system. The music is cheaper. You get a more complete experience if you are using Apple products all the way through the chain. You have the instant gratification factor that you don't get by buying CDs on Amazon. And sure, you have the less-than-optimal option of burning your tracks to a CD, then ripping them into the format of your choosing. But in reality, iPod users have agreed to something they are cornered into agreeing to. So why do they do this? It's all in the approach. If MS tried to do this first, they would have gone a little overboard with the restrictions and just because they are MS, many consumers would have revolted. But the key here is that the best way to get people to agree to artificial and fairly negative restrictions, is to tie them in some benefits that would be enough to hook the user.
I can see that manufacturers would have a new area of revenue if they had a way to c
The way I see it, a volcano is basically a zit on Gaia. That mud is pus. Dropping those concrete balls in would be the euqivalent of trying to push poppy seeds into your clogged pore cum zit. Don't lie. You've all been there as geeks. In front of the mirror in our teens with a zit larger than an erection and that yellowish-white head... Do you honestly think that it could have occurred to you as a good idea to fill your infected pore with tic-tacs to keep the pus from oozing out? Didn't think so. Volcano? Same thing.
If they do this, all that's going to happen is that the unstoppable force of the mud is going to ooze out from somewhere else. Probably near where the volcano is. Just like when you used to squeeze pimples that weren't quite ready to pop and instead of popping them, you damaged the wall between the infected pore and neighboring pores and wound up making that zit into a gash. Nope. I don't suggest the insane course of dropping those concrete balls in. Not one bit. Who came up with that plan anyway? George W. Bush?
I recently made the switch to compact fluorescents in my basement (MY BASEMENT, not my parent's) and I have to say that it's been a disappointment from an aesthetic point of view. I actually ran through all three types from Home Dept (Daylight, Bright White and Soft). Daylight really blows since it's got a very strong bluish cast that makes everything look really depressing. Bright White makes everything look gray. Soft was the one I went with because it's the only one that came sort of close to regular light bulbs. But it's still too pink and has a tendency to make skin look yellowish. But it's the best compromise possible. The wattage change is great though. I bought the equivalent of 100W bulbs but they only use 27 watts each. That's four bulbs so I'm using only slightly more power than one regular bulb to power four bulbs. I sure hope they improve the technology.
But just to put people in their place, I want to point out that fluorescent light technology isn't that much newer than incandescents: read this Wikipedia entry on fluorescent lights. They are anywhere from 110+ to at youngest 80 some years old. Frankly, I am putting more stock in LEDs myself. For one thing, if the LED technology is improved, you'd be able to have bulbs that could be tuned to the correct color. Just imagine instead of having a dimmer, you have three RGB sliders that allow you to set the lights to ANY color you want. That's the way it SHOULD be. Aesthetics + efficiency. My personal interior design catch phrase is, "Lighting is EVERYTHING dahling".
Yes... if someone wants to take an overdose of bleach in the privacy and comfort of their own home, they should be allowed to dammit!!!
Here is the link to the video I mentioned above... Definitely not faked.
Well... I saw a video on Youtube of a guy booting Fedora Core 6 on a PS3. When it booted, two big Tux penguins were displayed indicating dual CPUs. Then after a bit of booting six more smaller Tux penguins appeared beneath the first two. So I suspect all eight cores are in use.
Holy crap! An answer from someone with a brain finally! You actually "get it". Even the part about being pissed off that I get lumped in with the neighbor with three DVD drives. If I actually met you in person, I'd buy you the beverage of your choice. That was honestly the most refreshing post I've read on here in years.
I am married as a matter of fact. With one kid even... What do you mean how did I pull that off? My wife is a non-tech but she likes a lot of what I can enable with technology. Plus I'm very particular about where and how the machines get installed so that they are essentially hidden for the most part. The laptops are basically wireless thin clients, and she's very aware of the fact that her desktop is on a server in the basement. And considering that it's really inexpensive to have multiple machines when you're not having to pay through the nose for overpriced software... well it's an easy sell really.
The only problem I see with that is that the partner program requires that you sell your services or goods outside of your business. As I am someone doing this stuff at home and don't sell anything (although I do give away free access to my systems to my friends and family), and there isn't any legitimate way of making it seem that I do, it would appear that I don't qualify.
That's always been my main issue with MS: cost for doing the serious stuff at home. While many people might want to relegate people like me to the insulting category of "hobbiest", there are some of us who want enterprise functionality at home and use it in a serious way. Of that set, there are those of us who want to play by the rules and would therefore buy legitimate copies of an OS. If MS was really smart, they'd realize this and would provide multi system license packs for home users who want enterprise features. I'd happily pay $500 to have the right to legitimately install Windows Vista on five of my fifteen machines at home. I'd happily pay $750 to set up a full Windows AD domain at home with Win2K3 + five Vista clients. While my needs may not be mainstream, there are more people like me that you'd think.
But since MS only focuses on the largest markets, many very important sectors are ignored. That's where F/OSS and GNU/Linux come in. Thanks to FOSS and Linux I've been able to more than accommodate my need for 15 machines plus seven virtual systems without having to worry about licensing or cost. The money saved goes where it counts: large amounts of redundant storage, RAM and CPU.
Regarding the insulting moniker "hobbiest", my main problem is that it downplays the need that the average home has for enterprise class storage, user and resource management, print management and distributed computing. We don't call electricians who work on their wiring at home or plumbers who work on their plumbing at home, "hobbiests". In fact we tend to praise them as being self-sufficient and skilled. The same metric should be applied to the IT guy who sets up enterprise class centralized storage (Global Network Block Devices or iSCSI), hardware assisted virtualization or paravirtualization (Xen + AMD SVM or Intel VT) and centralized application serving (persistent remote desktops using VNC or NX protocols). These are serious solutions to real problems encountered in the home. The age of the standalone PC is long dead, but MS doesn't seem to get that.
VNC is lower in bandwidth utilization. But there's also the NX protocol which is a compressed X. The other benefit to VNC is that you can have persistent sessions. (Leave apps open for when you reconnect later). This is something that X can't do yet. Although from what I've seen it's being worked on if you look at the latest gdm config files and the options for an X proxy server. That proxy server would remain running and hold all applications so that on reconnection with your session, you'd have everything right where you left it.
:)
In my case, at home, I've been running since 2002 with Xvnc as the X server for my desktop application server. it works very well on the Unix platform. If you've experienced VNC only on Windows, then you might not have a good impression of it. It's actually pretty good.
Where I work we used to have around 2000 dumb terminals deployed at the peak (early/mid 90s). The initial installation started in 1982 and grew quickly. Eventually, people who didn't know any better (myself included at the time) replaced the dumb terminals with PCs. At the time I wasn't aware of the admin friendly features of dumb terminals. I thought that by giving users PCs, they'd be able to do more and I'd come off looking great. There were things that the PC could do that the dumb terminals couldn't. But, what I lost in the long view was something that would preserve sanity if it were available for the PC world: centralization and the benefits that an admin gains. So really, it's all about balancing the needs of a user vs. the needs of an admin. If I could move everyone to some modern centralized system tomorrow, I'd do it in a heartbeat. But yes, to answer your original question, we had quite a huge deployment of dumb terminals, and I do miss them.
I'll tell you what's an irritating experience. I went to Best Buy Sunday afternoon to buy a new HP desktop similar to one I purchased in August. I walk in and what do I find? NO COMPUTERS IN THE STORE. The sales guy tells me that they have systems, but they can't sell them until the 30th when Vista debuts. Well what if I don't want Vista? I wanted an XP box because you can't yet virtualize Vista in Linux. No dice. They aren't selling XP boxes anymore. So much for MS not being a monopoly. I went to a few other stores and all with the same answer. I finally lucked out at CompUSA because they still had one floor model that I could buy as well as a copy of Windows XP Pro in order to accomplish what I wanted (A Linux box with Xen virtualization running Windows XP Pro). I suspect that things are going to get really sticky for people like me who want to do whatever we feel like with OUR PCs. MS + Vista + a PC = You don't own your machine.
Shock and Awe on Ottawa!!!! If those hosers are stealing our intellectual property then this means war!!! Let's go get 'em for the RIAA and MPAA boys! It won't be over til it's over over there!
This isn't about your typical copyright infringement. This is about an inside job since that's the only way those files would have made it to YouTube. I have a feeling that if found, the person responsible will first be fired, then sued out the whazoo and sent to debtor's prison.
The way I see it is that you have trade offs. You can make things "simple" like Microsoft does by having software that makes assumptions about what you want to do. If you have minimal and non-specific needs, then you won't have much of an issue. You'll also be able to get away with less skilled workers to accomplish your basic goals. But if you want to do something very specialized and the assumptions don't support it, then that approach will get in your way. And your less skilled workers will become a detriment if you need to move to something a bit more complex.
On the other side of the coin you have other OSes (*nix OpenVMS and others) that have a good deal more flexibility in terms of allowing you to do virtually anything. But this will require more skill in your workforce and natually more complexity. There is not currently a way to have less complexity and a high degree of flexibility and power. There just isn't. Even Microsoft is learning that lesson as they add PowerShell (previously Monad) to Exchange 2007. They've finally seen the light that what you really want is a set of powerful and small tools that do one job well (the CLI) and then you layer your "ease of use" on top of that. So I expect that future MS products will probably earn the gripe of being "complicated" by less skilled people who entered the IT industry in the 90s as paper MCSEs.
There's no way around it. Computers ARE complex machines and they become even more complex when you want to do something really unique and innovative. This is why there is no equivalent of Exchange on the Mac OS Server platform. Zimbra is about the closest thing and it's not exactly friendly. But if you're a real IT guy, that's not a problem.
That wasn't funny. No really. That was so not funny. It wasn't funny in any way at all. Period. Get a real sense of humour.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Well, that and thank god for Rio Karma's and Ogg Vorbis support. I don't care if I can't ejaculate a song from my music penis to another friend's music penis. All I want is to be able to plug it in my ear and hear tunes that are uncontrolled by anyone other than me.
If you're a right leaning libertarian, then you just want to be a right winger who can smoke pot and get away with it. Personally I think it's better if your a lefty who smokes pot and doesn't care what people think. (NOTE: I don't smoke pot or crack, but I have tried pot and I did inhale) Stop lying to yourself and thinking that calling yourself a libertarian differentiates you from a Republican all that much. It doesn't in my eyes. Also note that I despise Libertarians because they don't grasp reality in any reasonable way. People need to be protected from themselves and each other (hence the need for government and law), and until you realize that, you won't get any slack from people like me.
Well maybe "off grid" is the wrong term. I mean "modern, sane off-grid living". In other words an unchanged lifestyle other than no longer having to pay the electric company. This means, stereos, wide screen televisions, HDTV, satellite, cell phones, multiple computers(15-20 machines), a wired LAN, etc... I COULD just ditch all my computers and get a few laptops and run them off a solar cell/battery combo maybe with the Hydrogen fuel cell idea thrown in as I live in the north where it's only sunny between June and August. But that would be nuts...