Then make it a choice for them: "We can either fine you a bazillion dollars, which, based on your actions, you absolutely deserve, or you can help the country as a whole by doing these things, which will probably end up costing you less in the long run and maybe, just maybe, helping you regain the trust of the people you screwed." Then, they get to make the choice.
That's not even remotely close to what I said and you know it. It doesn't matter who he nominates - they're going to block it. THAT is not doing their job; that is obstructionism.
What is going to happen next is this: Obama will nominate someone and the Senate Republicans will do everything in their power to block it. Already, Cruz and Rubio have said as much -- that the next President should be the person to make the nomination, not Obama. Obama could nominate Rush Limbaugh and Senate Republicans would object. The only hope that there is for a reasonably speedy confirmation is for moderate -- or reasonable -- Republicans to, you know, do their jobs.
I'm not generally antigovernment, but where drones (and the TSA) are concerned, I'm appalled that people are simply sitting back and allowing constant government aerial surveillance to simply go unchecked. Frankly, I hope that people start shooting them down. They have no place outside a war zone.
Scott
Unfortunately, unless EVERY college agreed to do this, few or none are likely to do so. From a recruiting perspective,it would be a disaster, even if there was the "get their own" alternative. It would be viewed as "this college doesn't even offer a basic service like access to the Internet" and it would drive students away. Next, ubiquitous wireless - a heavy student demand - would be impossible to offer in any cohesive way. Again, that would create a recruiting challenge. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of colleges, recruiting students is a HUGE effort that takes a ton of time and a lot of people. They're extremely tuition-driven - very, very few have Harvard-level endowments - and their bread and butter is recruitment.
I live in a small town, but well remember the days when Radio Shack used to sell useful stuff. I'm still forced to go there sometimes when I need a mouse or something, but hate going in now. I went in a few weeks ago and the district manager was there and was way too aggressive. I was looking for a USB cable, so she naturally told me I needed an iPhone. I told her that I already had an iPhone so she told me that I should switch it to Radio Shack. I told her that my college (where I work and happen to handle the cell phone contracts) owns the phone and the plan. This was where she sat there and badgered me trying to get me to move all of the college's phones to Radio Shack, called the store manager over and ordered him to grill me further. Now, every time I walk in the store, the sales droid asks when he can expect that cell phone contract to be changed. I keep telling them that it isn't going to happen - right now, we get a 20% discount, can order through AT&T premier at any time and the sales people I work with are actually good... sure, I'll switch to Radio Shack where I have to drive to the store hoping that they are open).
So, this is a long rant... "The Shack" name change just reinforces how far the company has fallen.
Good luck with that question... if you decide to go with someone else, you'll be at the wrong end of a nasty lawsuit and, based on the wording of that question, your company will be out a lot of cash.
First of all, Vista is DESIGNED to use more RAM. It tries to anticipate your needs and load things into RAM ahead of time. And yes, Vista does have a lot more overhead, but 4GB is plenty sufficient!
On the slow boot up - not good, but the RAM thing - by design.
UAC isn't that bad anymore. Annoying at the beginning, but you get used to it and it's not really all that intrusive.
Vista was handily panned in its initial reviews. The average computer user is afraid of it based on what they've heard from friends and the media. This campaign is intended to change the perception of the product, not to *show* anything.
I will give you "makes older hardware painfully slow" but that's it. Most people will get it with a new computer and, for that purpose, it's just fine now, especially with SP1.
Where do I begin? Modded "interesting" because the poster has no clue what he's talking about or because there are so many lemmings on Slashdot?
What else would they do? Do a test where it was going to fail??
The upcoming SP1? If you're going to bash something, at least have a clue first.
Install the OS themselves? How many normal people are really going to do that? More than likely, they're buying a new computer and it will come with Vista. Which, by the way, will probably be well tested so that there are no driver issues. Is selling a computer with working Windows also considered stacking the deck in your world?
I hate going on the offensive, but some of the Vista talk is just... stupid. Do you people really expect MS to just roll over on this? If you do, you're more than just a little naive.
When did you work in IT? I am a CIO (in the "C" level sense in that I do not report to the CFO and am a full member of the executive team) and your view of the purpose of an IT department is... interesting and a bit outdated.
I, too, have 8GB of RAM in my home desktop, but only 2GB in my home laptop. Both run Vista quite well. Why 8GB? Tons and tons of VMware virtual machines running all the time for testing. I doubt that the original poster was implying that Vista requires 8GB of RAM!
You mentioned that Microsoft "broke" CIFS in Vista/Server 2008. It should be noted that Vista/Server 2008 automatically downgrade to support older systems and only use the new features between compatible clients.
I guess it depends on how you personally think of spyware. Me - if I opt in and tell Microsoft that it's ok for them to do this and I'm getting something in return - yep, that's probably not spyware in the malware sense.
And, if they're checking your hardware, they can probably tell very easily if it's running in a VM.
Interesting how you define "everything". I doubt they really care what I have in my Word files, what I have in my Excel spreadsheets, etc. They're looking for general usage patterns to identify how people are really using their software. In my opinion, this is a GOOD THING. Instead of making, for example, the assumption that everyone just loves the new Control Panel layout, they're actually "polling" users via this method.
Orrin Hatch long ago forgot who he serves and has been in the pocket of corporate America for a very long time. I'm surprised he even bothered to respond with something other than "stop bothering me."
Ok - since this is Slashdot, I expect to be thrashed for looking at this from the business perspective (I'm a CIO with 13 years of IT experience). The first question to ask yourself is this: "Why?"
Ok, I'll be the first to admit that there is a tremedous lure to FOSS software and have rolled it out myself in a number of situations, but not to desktops. I've replaced web servers, database servers and Windows file servers with servers running Apache, PostgreSQL and Samba. However, before I considered something like this in my current environment, I'd need to do a serious cost analysis that went way beyond licensing costs. For example, what will this mean to the user that has been using Windows and MS Office for 10 years? And, you mentioned that some of your core applications are Windows-only affairs. Sure, you can use RDP/Citrix to run these apps, but then you're throwing the Windows licensing costs into the mix. Not to mention the possibility that your apps won't like running in this way.
So, how much is your infrastructure *really* costing you?
How much would retraining cost?
How much would it cost to possibly have to give up your core vendor support due to running in an potentially unsupported configuration?
This may sound like I'm anti-FOSS. Actually, I'm not - I love FOSS in the right situation. WHat I AM against is FOSS for the sake of FOSS. While I "grew up" on the IT side of the house, I'm a big believer in the business needs dictating IT's role and responsiblity rather than the other way around.
My advice: Think this through before you put a lot of time into it. You may end up saving a whole lot more (not just money) by sticking with what works.
I've got a pretty wide background in IT. Thirteen years of overall experience with the last five plus a few months in senior management. The first five years in management were at the Director of IT level where I reported to the CFO and last couple of months as a CIO on the executive team. My background includes programming, DBA, networking, systems, help desk, training, etc. I stay very, very current on my technical skills by writing technical articles. This serves me in three ways: (1) it helps me stay out of the way of my staff at the office for their regular work. I get to play on my own time and not bug them (as much); (2) I can continue to contribute when there is a problem or when we're working on a new project. Like it or not, my guys and gals aren't the ones sticking their necks out every time a project gets started; and (3) It keeps me marketable. I'm on the side that the IT leader needs to have a pretty good understanding about what's going on. Systems continue to get more complicated and you really have to have the ability, in your mind, to envision solutions to problems, and have at least some idea about how to get to that solution.
All that said, I'm far from being the "techie" that I once was. Yes, in some technical topics, I could run circles around my people (not bragging here... just a fact), but in many others, they've got me beat--as they should. I'm not there to be the expert on every single technology we have, but to be the glue that brings it all together and serves it up to the rest of the company. This means I needs to "get it." I don't think it hurts that there are some areas in which my technical skill outweights theirs, though. Over time, their skills will come up as well.
I've read a lot of comments to this article from people basically saying that the IT Manager should basically stay completely away and let the IT staff make all the calls. Sorry... that's not the way it works. The line staff person isn't the one calling the big picture shots, no matter how much he or she knows. I've made decisions that, at first, seemed less than rational to my staff but, after some chat and a Q & A, they realized why I made a particular decision. If you have an IT Manager that's always making bad calls in your book, then you either really do have a bad manager, but the more likely explanation is that one or both of you lacks communications skills. If you're feeling frustrated, you need to be able to talk about it to get the "why" behind the decision. If the manager refuses to talk about decisions, he's not comunicating with his staff.
From what I've read, being canned is much, much worse than caning. Whereas a caning, while painful, does not generally result in death, there are two ways to be canned and both are fatal:
(1) Method one is very similar to stoning in which the subject her buried up to a certain point, but their head remains exposed. An angry mob then lobs cans of food--usually Campbell's Creamy Tomato (TM)--at the subject. Often times, members of said angry mob mutilate the can in such as way as to preserve the contents, but sharpen the edges.
(2) The subject is sliced and diced alive and the results fed into cans on an assembly line. The cans them come off the assembly line and a label is attached--usually "Campbell's Creamy Tomato (TM)" and the "product" then sent to a supermarket in a box with the words "Brought to you by {subject's name}. He/she put her heart and soul (and liver) into bringing you the best possible soup."
I've been running the beta side-by-side with Office 2003 since it was released and I have to say that, while the first time I look for something is a little hard, I am really liking the new user interface. it's definitely a whole lot more intuitive that the older one and things... make sense. Now, I am an IT guy and I write about this stuff, so I'm probably more open minded when it comes to this stuff than some end users. Office 2007 will require some training, but things are easy to find.
I manage a fairly small (40 server, all Windows) shop and, while I technically like VMware better, I can't do a cost justification for it (I've tried). Another factor to consider in the cost equation: If you use VS 2005 R2 and opt to use Server 2003 R2 Enterprise as the host, MS allows you to run four virtual instances of Windows Server R2 on that hardware for no additional charge.
Yeah, ESX is better in some ways, and VMware's tools are better than MS's. But, VS 2005 R2 is actually a really good product. We're planning our entire virtualization strategy around it and have been very pleased with it thus far. And the licensing changes have made it very attractive.
Slashdot Mirror
Then make it a choice for them: "We can either fine you a bazillion dollars, which, based on your actions, you absolutely deserve, or you can help the country as a whole by doing these things, which will probably end up costing you less in the long run and maybe, just maybe, helping you regain the trust of the people you screwed." Then, they get to make the choice.
This is how every justice should be nominated.
That's not even remotely close to what I said and you know it. It doesn't matter who he nominates - they're going to block it. THAT is not doing their job; that is obstructionism.
What is going to happen next is this: Obama will nominate someone and the Senate Republicans will do everything in their power to block it. Already, Cruz and Rubio have said as much -- that the next President should be the person to make the nomination, not Obama. Obama could nominate Rush Limbaugh and Senate Republicans would object. The only hope that there is for a reasonably speedy confirmation is for moderate -- or reasonable -- Republicans to, you know, do their jobs.
I'm not generally antigovernment, but where drones (and the TSA) are concerned, I'm appalled that people are simply sitting back and allowing constant government aerial surveillance to simply go unchecked. Frankly, I hope that people start shooting them down. They have no place outside a war zone. Scott
Jesus... what the hell did a box of hammer ever do to you?
Unfortunately, unless EVERY college agreed to do this, few or none are likely to do so. From a recruiting perspective,it would be a disaster, even if there was the "get their own" alternative. It would be viewed as "this college doesn't even offer a basic service like access to the Internet" and it would drive students away. Next, ubiquitous wireless - a heavy student demand - would be impossible to offer in any cohesive way. Again, that would create a recruiting challenge. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of colleges, recruiting students is a HUGE effort that takes a ton of time and a lot of people. They're extremely tuition-driven - very, very few have Harvard-level endowments - and their bread and butter is recruitment.
I live in a small town, but well remember the days when Radio Shack used to sell useful stuff. I'm still forced to go there sometimes when I need a mouse or something, but hate going in now. I went in a few weeks ago and the district manager was there and was way too aggressive. I was looking for a USB cable, so she naturally told me I needed an iPhone. I told her that I already had an iPhone so she told me that I should switch it to Radio Shack. I told her that my college (where I work and happen to handle the cell phone contracts) owns the phone and the plan. This was where she sat there and badgered me trying to get me to move all of the college's phones to Radio Shack, called the store manager over and ordered him to grill me further. Now, every time I walk in the store, the sales droid asks when he can expect that cell phone contract to be changed. I keep telling them that it isn't going to happen - right now, we get a 20% discount, can order through AT&T premier at any time and the sales people I work with are actually good... sure, I'll switch to Radio Shack where I have to drive to the store hoping that they are open). So, this is a long rant... "The Shack" name change just reinforces how far the company has fallen.
Good luck with that question... if you decide to go with someone else, you'll be at the wrong end of a nasty lawsuit and, based on the wording of that question, your company will be out a lot of cash.
On the slow boot up - not good, but the RAM thing - by design.
UAC isn't that bad anymore. Annoying at the beginning, but you get used to it and it's not really all that intrusive.
Vista was handily panned in its initial reviews. The average computer user is afraid of it based on what they've heard from friends and the media. This campaign is intended to change the perception of the product, not to *show* anything.
I will give you "makes older hardware painfully slow" but that's it. Most people will get it with a new computer and, for that purpose, it's just fine now, especially with SP1.
Where do I begin? Modded "interesting" because the poster has no clue what he's talking about or because there are so many lemmings on Slashdot? What else would they do? Do a test where it was going to fail?? The upcoming SP1? If you're going to bash something, at least have a clue first. Install the OS themselves? How many normal people are really going to do that? More than likely, they're buying a new computer and it will come with Vista. Which, by the way, will probably be well tested so that there are no driver issues. Is selling a computer with working Windows also considered stacking the deck in your world? I hate going on the offensive, but some of the Vista talk is just... stupid. Do you people really expect MS to just roll over on this? If you do, you're more than just a little naive.
THAT would be an interesting altercation. Smack! Punch! Jab! Cut! "Ok... now hold on while I round up a bunch of guys to help me finish this fight!"
When did you work in IT? I am a CIO (in the "C" level sense in that I do not report to the CFO and am a full member of the executive team) and your view of the purpose of an IT department is... interesting and a bit outdated.
I, too, have 8GB of RAM in my home desktop, but only 2GB in my home laptop. Both run Vista quite well. Why 8GB? Tons and tons of VMware virtual machines running all the time for testing. I doubt that the original poster was implying that Vista requires 8GB of RAM!
You mentioned that Microsoft "broke" CIFS in Vista/Server 2008. It should be noted that Vista/Server 2008 automatically downgrade to support older systems and only use the new features between compatible clients.
And, if they're checking your hardware, they can probably tell very easily if it's running in a VM.
Interesting how you define "everything". I doubt they really care what I have in my Word files, what I have in my Excel spreadsheets, etc. They're looking for general usage patterns to identify how people are really using their software. In my opinion, this is a GOOD THING. Instead of making, for example, the assumption that everyone just loves the new Control Panel layout, they're actually "polling" users via this method.
Chalk one up for MS on this one.
Orrin Hatch long ago forgot who he serves and has been in the pocket of corporate America for a very long time. I'm surprised he even bothered to respond with something other than "stop bothering me."
Ok, I'll be the first to admit that there is a tremedous lure to FOSS software and have rolled it out myself in a number of situations, but not to desktops. I've replaced web servers, database servers and Windows file servers with servers running Apache, PostgreSQL and Samba. However, before I considered something like this in my current environment, I'd need to do a serious cost analysis that went way beyond licensing costs. For example, what will this mean to the user that has been using Windows and MS Office for 10 years? And, you mentioned that some of your core applications are Windows-only affairs. Sure, you can use RDP/Citrix to run these apps, but then you're throwing the Windows licensing costs into the mix. Not to mention the possibility that your apps won't like running in this way.
So, how much is your infrastructure *really* costing you?
How much would retraining cost?
How much would it cost to possibly have to give up your core vendor support due to running in an potentially unsupported configuration?
This may sound like I'm anti-FOSS. Actually, I'm not - I love FOSS in the right situation. WHat I AM against is FOSS for the sake of FOSS. While I "grew up" on the IT side of the house, I'm a big believer in the business needs dictating IT's role and responsiblity rather than the other way around.
My advice: Think this through before you put a lot of time into it. You may end up saving a whole lot more (not just money) by sticking with what works.
All that said, I'm far from being the "techie" that I once was. Yes, in some technical topics, I could run circles around my people (not bragging here... just a fact), but in many others, they've got me beat--as they should. I'm not there to be the expert on every single technology we have, but to be the glue that brings it all together and serves it up to the rest of the company. This means I needs to "get it." I don't think it hurts that there are some areas in which my technical skill outweights theirs, though. Over time, their skills will come up as well.
I've read a lot of comments to this article from people basically saying that the IT Manager should basically stay completely away and let the IT staff make all the calls. Sorry... that's not the way it works. The line staff person isn't the one calling the big picture shots, no matter how much he or she knows. I've made decisions that, at first, seemed less than rational to my staff but, after some chat and a Q & A, they realized why I made a particular decision. If you have an IT Manager that's always making bad calls in your book, then you either really do have a bad manager, but the more likely explanation is that one or both of you lacks communications skills. If you're feeling frustrated, you need to be able to talk about it to get the "why" behind the decision. If the manager refuses to talk about decisions, he's not comunicating with his staff.
Enough said.
Scott
From what I've read, being canned is much, much worse than caning. Whereas a caning, while painful, does not generally result in death, there are two ways to be canned and both are fatal: (1) Method one is very similar to stoning in which the subject her buried up to a certain point, but their head remains exposed. An angry mob then lobs cans of food--usually Campbell's Creamy Tomato (TM)--at the subject. Often times, members of said angry mob mutilate the can in such as way as to preserve the contents, but sharpen the edges. (2) The subject is sliced and diced alive and the results fed into cans on an assembly line. The cans them come off the assembly line and a label is attached--usually "Campbell's Creamy Tomato (TM)" and the "product" then sent to a supermarket in a box with the words "Brought to you by {subject's name}. He/she put her heart and soul (and liver) into bringing you the best possible soup."
Google Desktop will still index Outlook 2007 mail? Now if only Copernic did!
I've been running the beta side-by-side with Office 2003 since it was released and I have to say that, while the first time I look for something is a little hard, I am really liking the new user interface. it's definitely a whole lot more intuitive that the older one and things... make sense. Now, I am an IT guy and I write about this stuff, so I'm probably more open minded when it comes to this stuff than some end users. Office 2007 will require some training, but things are easy to find.
TECHNICALLY, you did type "XBoxen"... :-)
I manage a fairly small (40 server, all Windows) shop and, while I technically like VMware better, I can't do a cost justification for it (I've tried). Another factor to consider in the cost equation: If you use VS 2005 R2 and opt to use Server 2003 R2 Enterprise as the host, MS allows you to run four virtual instances of Windows Server R2 on that hardware for no additional charge.
Yeah, ESX is better in some ways, and VMware's tools are better than MS's. But, VS 2005 R2 is actually a really good product. We're planning our entire virtualization strategy around it and have been very pleased with it thus far. And the licensing changes have made it very attractive.