But what if the AOL software uses the same buttons in the same location on the browser, but just switches to Mozilla for the back-end software that just renders web pages? If you look at the AOL interface now, you can't tell it's using IE to render the pages. If you switched to Mozilla, the end user may never know, so long as you kept the look the same.
And don't forget we're talking about AOL people here. Do you think that the majority of them are going to be able to uninstall a newer version of AOL and then reinstall an older version on their own? That is what "switching back" would involve, really. There are some of them that I know that would not be able to do that much on their own.
Well, what happens when you start to lose customers because they aren't using IE as their browser? Most AOL people I have seen just use the browser that comes built into AOL's software, they don't know that they could just minimize it and surf the web with IE or Mozilla or one of the other browsers out there. If you switched the AOL software to use Mozilla, AOLers wouldn't know the difference and just use whatever came with AOL.
So, with that being said let's look at some figures. As a disclaimer, I'm just making these up out of my head but I hope they prove my point.
Let's say you have a business that does $100,000 a year in sales. And let's also say that between people using AOL and Mozilla and other non-IE browsers make up 10% of the people who would buy things from your web site. I don't think that's too far-fetched of a number... one out of 10 visitors isn't using IE. Now what happens if they can't visit your site?
Well, given the nature of the web and how they can go to other stores online by a few mouse clicks and keystrokes, you could very easily lose them as potential sales. (I for one will not go through a lot of effort to shop online. If a site is not easy to use, I start to look elsewhere) So if you just eliminated 10% of your potential sales base, that's $10,000 you just took out of your yearly revenue.
Now should those 10% of people tell their friends to not go to your site because they can't go to your site (or not because they couldn't, they were just recommended something better) then you might lose 15 to 20% of your sales. Would you want to justify to your boss why you can't fix a web page to get that extra $20,000 in sales per year?
And what about a company who deals with millions of dollars per year? Could they afford to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in revenue? I don't think it's worth it personally.
So with that being said, even the shift of just AOL people over to Mozilla could be a BIG impact to your company if they can't get to your site. There's nothing that says that they won't just think that your site is broke and go somewhere else. And once you start to hit companies in the wallet, they will take notice.
I am curious as to what the job of the server that the raid card was in was. After all, if he truly meant Raid 0, then that is striping without fault tolerance. If you had one drive fail, then the whole raid array would fail and he'd be in the same situation. Now there is an advantage in speed when it comes to drive access, but still, a single disk failure would take out the whole array. That is not unlike what happened here in that the raid array failed when the controller bombed.
That being the case, he should have backups somewhere to restore the data from. I wouldn't trust anything mission critical to a raid 0 array. Besides, when the controller went down, who's to say that it didn't basically shred the data on the disk apart? If the data is being spread across 2 disks, and now the computer sees them as two separate disks instead of one larger disk, then the data on the two disks is probably toast to begin with. (with the exception of going to those companies that do sector by sector data recovery from a hard drive for ungodly sums of money)
I guess the only thing I could suggest is to redo the server with Raid 1 minimum, and hope that your backups are good. There's no telling what that raid card did to your system when it failed.
I can't see it as being one, really. After all, the reason that Netscape isn't doing so well is because that people became too lazy to install it and used IE as default. (the same can be said for mozilla, opera, and the other browsers too) I know I've converted technical people to mozilla when I simply showed them how well it works when it comes to blocking javascript popup ads after you set it up to do so.
So Red Hat will probably go the same way that it always has been... those that want to install it, will.
I have my home computer on a Road Runner connection to the internet. I use it to host my domains, and I have it configured to both accept and send email to the internet without any problems.
I was going to post the original url for the acceptable use policy which was like a page long and it didn't say that we couldn't run mail servers on RR, but they seem to have moved it to here which seems to be a much longer and more specific TOS. But on the bright side, it still doesn't really mention that you can't use your own server to send and receive email (hopefully I didn't overlook anything).
Linux has its place. We use Linux at the college I work at for things like DNS, Web servers, system monitoring tools, and proxy servers. Heck, one of my desktop systems even uses it. Seriously, when it's hard to come by budget money, things like Linux come in handy. After all, it's a lot easier to tell your boss that you setup a server for nothing, than having to tell him you spent like $25,000 on your typical Unix solution. (we've got a Digital/Tru64 UNIX box on campus that cost almost $100,000 new)
Now to keep this on topic, I'm surprised that people flame/. so much for posting this. It's not like they're forcing you to upgrade, it's just a notice that 2.5.x is out. (not like I'm ready to upgrade yet anyways, I've just upgraded to 2.2.20 on my slackware box)
If the GameCube can't compete, then why is it sold out now every place you turn?
Seriously, if Nintendo was a pushover, they would not still be around after all these years. Microsoft is the new guy in this industry. Now Nintendo can't sit back on their heels they are going against Microsoft after all. But you have to remember that they're a multi-billion dollar worldwide company for a reason, and they're not going to give up the fight just because a newcomer came strolling into the market.
This is the way I do backups for one of my servers at work as well.
I've got a server with 4 hard drives in it. 2 9 gig SCSI's an 18 gig SCSI, and a 10 gig IDE drive. The 2 9 gig drives are mirrored by software raid and contain the OS. The 18 gig drive holds the/home partition. The 10 gig drive is used only for backups. Every night I tar different parts of the OS and put them on the spare IDE drive. If one of the main drives fails, then I can just replace the data on it from the spare drive. I'm not too worried about having removeable storage, because the data is wiped off of the system at the end of each semester anyways. This server holds student work for only one class at the college I work at. If the box ever died, I'd have a harder time finding a replacement server, than working around the lost data on it, so the one spare drive is enough to get the backups done for my purposes.
Now I don't do this with all my servers, but for this one it works. Yes I know it won't protect against fire/earthquakes and things like that, but if that happens the box is toast anyways and I've got other, bigger problems to worry about. Sometimes a "better than nothing" solution is the best you can do.
And actually, I do this at home too. I back up a 30 gig drive to a 5 gig one. Not the best solution, but it's enough to save your butt from the "average" mistake/failure.
Personally, I seem to recall being in a store once just after the SNES had come out and seeing that there were only 4 games released for it at the time that you could buy. And look at how many games had been released for that system by the time the N64 came into play.
Personally I believe that even though there may not be a great number of games for the Gamecube at this moment in time, Nintendo obiously knows what they are doing or else they would not still be around today. I'm interested in how things will pan out in the future for all three companies.
Slashdot Mirror
But what if the AOL software uses the same buttons in the same location on the browser, but just switches to Mozilla for the back-end software that just renders web pages? If you look at the AOL interface now, you can't tell it's using IE to render the pages. If you switched to Mozilla, the end user may never know, so long as you kept the look the same.
And don't forget we're talking about AOL people here. Do you think that the majority of them are going to be able to uninstall a newer version of AOL and then reinstall an older version on their own? That is what "switching back" would involve, really. There are some of them that I know that would not be able to do that much on their own.
Well, what happens when you start to lose customers because they aren't using IE as their browser? Most AOL people I have seen just use the browser that comes built into AOL's software, they don't know that they could just minimize it and surf the web with IE or Mozilla or one of the other browsers out there. If you switched the AOL software to use Mozilla, AOLers wouldn't know the difference and just use whatever came with AOL.
So, with that being said let's look at some figures. As a disclaimer, I'm just making these up out of my head but I hope they prove my point.
Let's say you have a business that does $100,000 a year in sales. And let's also say that between people using AOL and Mozilla and other non-IE browsers make up 10% of the people who would buy things from your web site. I don't think that's too far-fetched of a number... one out of 10 visitors isn't using IE. Now what happens if they can't visit your site?
Well, given the nature of the web and how they can go to other stores online by a few mouse clicks and keystrokes, you could very easily lose them as potential sales. (I for one will not go through a lot of effort to shop online. If a site is not easy to use, I start to look elsewhere) So if you just eliminated 10% of your potential sales base, that's $10,000 you just took out of your yearly revenue.
Now should those 10% of people tell their friends to not go to your site because they can't go to your site (or not because they couldn't, they were just recommended something better) then you might lose 15 to 20% of your sales. Would you want to justify to your boss why you can't fix a web page to get that extra $20,000 in sales per year?
And what about a company who deals with millions of dollars per year? Could they afford to lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars per year in revenue? I don't think it's worth it personally.
So with that being said, even the shift of just AOL people over to Mozilla could be a BIG impact to your company if they can't get to your site. There's nothing that says that they won't just think that your site is broke and go somewhere else. And once you start to hit companies in the wallet, they will take notice.
I am curious as to what the job of the server that the raid card was in was. After all, if he truly meant Raid 0, then that is striping without fault tolerance. If you had one drive fail, then the whole raid array would fail and he'd be in the same situation. Now there is an advantage in speed when it comes to drive access, but still, a single disk failure would take out the whole array. That is not unlike what happened here in that the raid array failed when the controller bombed.
That being the case, he should have backups somewhere to restore the data from. I wouldn't trust anything mission critical to a raid 0 array. Besides, when the controller went down, who's to say that it didn't basically shred the data on the disk apart? If the data is being spread across 2 disks, and now the computer sees them as two separate disks instead of one larger disk, then the data on the two disks is probably toast to begin with. (with the exception of going to those companies that do sector by sector data recovery from a hard drive for ungodly sums of money)
I guess the only thing I could suggest is to redo the server with Raid 1 minimum, and hope that your backups are good. There's no telling what that raid card did to your system when it failed.
I can't see it as being one, really. After all, the reason that Netscape isn't doing so well is because that people became too lazy to install it and used IE as default. (the same can be said for mozilla, opera, and the other browsers too) I know I've converted technical people to mozilla when I simply showed them how well it works when it comes to blocking javascript popup ads after you set it up to do so.
So Red Hat will probably go the same way that it always has been... those that want to install it, will.
I have my home computer on a Road Runner connection to the internet. I use it to host my domains, and I have it configured to both accept and send email to the internet without any problems.
I was going to post the original url for the acceptable use policy which was like a page long and it didn't say that we couldn't run mail servers on RR, but they seem to have moved it to here which seems to be a much longer and more specific TOS. But on the bright side, it still doesn't really mention that you can't use your own server to send and receive email (hopefully I didn't overlook anything).
Linux has its place. We use Linux at the college I work at for things like DNS, Web servers, system monitoring tools, and proxy servers. Heck, one of my desktop systems even uses it. Seriously, when it's hard to come by budget money, things like Linux come in handy. After all, it's a lot easier to tell your boss that you setup a server for nothing, than having to tell him you spent like $25,000 on your typical Unix solution. (we've got a Digital/Tru64 UNIX box on campus that cost almost $100,000 new)
/. so much for posting this. It's not like they're forcing you to upgrade, it's just a notice that 2.5.x is out. (not like I'm ready to upgrade yet anyways, I've just upgraded to 2.2.20 on my slackware box)
Now to keep this on topic, I'm surprised that people flame
If the GameCube can't compete, then why is it sold out now every place you turn?
Seriously, if Nintendo was a pushover, they would not still be around after all these years. Microsoft is the new guy in this industry. Now Nintendo can't sit back on their heels they are going against Microsoft after all. But you have to remember that they're a multi-billion dollar worldwide company for a reason, and they're not going to give up the fight just because a newcomer came strolling into the market.
This is the way I do backups for one of my servers at work as well.
/home partition. The 10 gig drive is used only for backups. Every night I tar different parts of the OS and put them on the spare IDE drive. If one of the main drives fails, then I can just replace the data on it from the spare drive. I'm not too worried about having removeable storage, because the data is wiped off of the system at the end of each semester anyways. This server holds student work for only one class at the college I work at. If the box ever died, I'd have a harder time finding a replacement server, than working around the lost data on it, so the one spare drive is enough to get the backups done for my purposes.
I've got a server with 4 hard drives in it. 2 9 gig SCSI's an 18 gig SCSI, and a 10 gig IDE drive. The 2 9 gig drives are mirrored by software raid and contain the OS. The 18 gig drive holds the
Now I don't do this with all my servers, but for this one it works. Yes I know it won't protect against fire/earthquakes and things like that, but if that happens the box is toast anyways and I've got other, bigger problems to worry about. Sometimes a "better than nothing" solution is the best you can do.
And actually, I do this at home too. I back up a 30 gig drive to a 5 gig one. Not the best solution, but it's enough to save your butt from the "average" mistake/failure.
Personally, I seem to recall being in a store once just after the SNES had come out and seeing that there were only 4 games released for it at the time that you could buy. And look at how many games had been released for that system by the time the N64 came into play.
Personally I believe that even though there may not be a great number of games for the Gamecube at this moment in time, Nintendo obiously knows what they are doing or else they would not still be around today. I'm interested in how things will pan out in the future for all three companies.