A person with a BS in CS or a similar subject (even a pure math major would be good) has twice as much chance of getting any position above "the IT tech that fixes our damn windows boxen" than someone with 5000 certs.
I would argue that a person with any degree and some experience is more valuable than someone with certs. I have an uncle who works very successfully in IT whose degree is in poli-sci.
Am I the only that found all that eye-candy and gee-whiz stuff in the PDF more than a little distracting? The government should concentrate more on publishing the information than on making a pretty wrapper for it.
Then they'll have to switch to OpenOffice or StarOffice, which is not a big deal.
Personally, I'd be happier switching to a Unix workstation than a Mac. Old SGI Indys, Sun Ultras, and IBM RS/6000s are going for cheap on eBay right now.
Why does it require filename extensions? If it is based on BSD, then why can't it use the file(1) utility, which can determine file type using algorithms rather than by something as malleable as three letters at the end of a name?
That's not an old machine at all, and in fact that machine can be quite useful in other roles. I run NetBSD on an old 133MHz 486DX with 32MB of RAM. This machine handles DNS and DHCP, and has had no crashes. I'd have to say that old hardware is at least just as reliable as new, and maybe even more so.
Can your OS handle two IPs on the same network segment? None of the ones I know of can. You see, you can only have one route to a given network. So you might have two interfaces on the same network, but all your traffic is going to go through just one of them. The other one sits there and does nothing at all.
I'm no expert, but Linux does support channel-bonding, which I think is what the poster was talking about.
Then why is it that Microsoft has the most bugs of any mainstream OS, and also takes the longest to fix them? AFAIK, there are no open vulnerabilities in any major software package (e.g. Apache, OpenSSH).
What advantage does this have over a blade server? I can see flat cost as an advantage, but a blade can be packed down even more tightly than this machine can be, so a blade would have lower cost per server.
Right and yet wrong. Any user can do that, but that user will only affect s/h/it's files. And any sysadmin that runs a program/script without seeing what the program does deserves to be fired.
One might say that that basically removes any closed source (i.e. M$) programs from the "known-good" list. It should, IMHO; that's the root of all these problems.
I don't think it's the geologists the judge is concerned about; it's the privacy of 30,000 Native Americans whose personal data happens to exist for all the world to see because of DoI's incompetence.
Slashdot Mirror
Which means you just leave your PC on all the time, of course. I haven't turned mine off for almost a month, which was when I moved into my dorm.
I would argue that a person with any degree and some experience is more valuable than someone with certs. I have an uncle who works very successfully in IT whose degree is in poli-sci.
Am I the only that found all that eye-candy and gee-whiz stuff in the PDF more than a little distracting? The government should concentrate more on publishing the information than on making a pretty wrapper for it.
Then they'll have to switch to OpenOffice or StarOffice, which is not a big deal.
Personally, I'd be happier switching to a Unix workstation than a Mac. Old SGI Indys, Sun Ultras, and IBM RS/6000s are going for cheap on eBay right now.
Why does it require filename extensions? If it is based on BSD, then why can't it use the file(1) utility, which can determine file type using algorithms rather than by something as malleable as three letters at the end of a name?
I also have an essay on that, albeit much shorter. It was written for a scholarship, which I didn't get, but I do feel I learned a lot.
It is available here: Mirror #1 and here Mirror #2 Both copies are the same, but the latter site has more bandwidth.
But it would control what applications could be run, and what Internet function (i.e. on-line banking) the machine could perform.
That's not an old machine at all, and in fact that machine can be quite useful in other roles. I run NetBSD on an old 133MHz 486DX with 32MB of RAM. This machine handles DNS and DHCP, and has had no crashes. I'd have to say that old hardware is at least just as reliable as new, and maybe even more so.
Can your OS handle two IPs on the same network segment? None of the ones I know of can. You see, you can only have one route to a given network. So you might have two interfaces on the same network, but all your traffic is going to go through just one of them. The other one sits there and does nothing at all.
I'm no expert, but Linux does support channel-bonding, which I think is what the poster was talking about.
Then why is it that Microsoft has the most bugs of any mainstream OS, and also takes the longest to fix them? AFAIK, there are no open vulnerabilities in any major software package (e.g. Apache, OpenSSH).
What advantage does this have over a blade server? I can see flat cost as an advantage, but a blade can be packed down even more tightly than this machine can be, so a blade would have lower cost per server.
Unless Palladium goes through, that is....
Why use X-forwarding when you don't have to? Mutt and Pine do everything that Netscrape does, but at a fraction of the resource consumption.
Right and yet wrong. Any user can do that, but that user will only affect s/h/it's files. And any sysadmin that runs a program/script without seeing what the program does deserves to be fired.
One might say that that basically removes any closed source (i.e. M$) programs from the "known-good" list. It should, IMHO; that's the root of all these problems.
I don't think it's the geologists the judge is concerned about; it's the privacy of 30,000 Native Americans whose personal data happens to exist for all the world to see because of DoI's incompetence.