Try setting your system not to "always restart on power loss" (name is prolly different in your BIOS) in the Power Management or APM/ACPI section of your BIOS and see what happens.
There are also Linux apps that don't work on Windows.
So while you have a point, the majority of commonly used apps exist on both or have equivalents on both. And with a TCO argument undercutting Microsoft's biggest argument for using their systems...
I think he means that if the system fails in the middle of a transaction, then reboots, then fails while rolling back or forward ("repairing") that transaction, damage can occur.
I'm a little dubious, because it's not that hard to design a system that doesn't do that, and it would be stupid not to.
OTOH, I also didn't believe that MS would trust the a remote machine as to the length of a local machine's password when comparing the characters of a password in Windows 95 and 98, until I saw this in action.
Re:You're company is probably screwed regardless.
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 2
Fair enough. I do think there are places that are perfect for it. I don't think my company is (as technology stands today) but on the other hand we're not exactly leaping at XP either. 2k is just the right balance for us. It's hard to want to change when it's all working.
That's what a lot of places said about NT. Every time a new Windows release comes out, I hear people complaining about the problems and saying "I'm never upgrading from Windows version Foo". They always end up upgrading sooner or later. It just takes time.
Re:You're company is probably screwed regardless.
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 2
Incidentally, Slashdot is not a monolith. We have 15 year old young minds who think every piece of OSS software is GPLed and anyone who makes money with it is a thief as well as 15 year old Young Republicans who think OSS is communism.
Slashdot is not entirely composed of 15-year-olds. There are a number of 14-year-olds as well.
Not even the biggest Windows advocate I know has ever listed "makes you feel good" as one the best reasons to use Windows.
Some Windows admin a few posts up wrote that he liked Remote Desktop more than VNC or X11 because it felt less clunky. Sounds like one of those people that buy Car A (paying more) instead of Car B where essentially all the difference is a different molded shell plonked on the thing.
[shrug] Well, then Microsoft won this installation, unless there's some way to gradually migrate.
Other installations will start picking up Linux though. Yeah, MS will have a large installed base keeping them solvent, but it's gonna be a tougher battle for new clients.
While Linux has many of the same feature analogs that Windows 2000 does, the Linux ones are usually incomplete or far inferior to their Microsoft counterparts and require a significant amount of time to install (In order to install software X I have to recompile these libraries too?!? But software Y relies on them, oh? I have to recompile that also?), maintain, and upgrade.
What were you doing, using Slackware in a business environment?
A Distributed Directory Service. OpenLDAP with SSL? PLEASE! Active Directory works well, right out of the box.
I kind of wish both OLDAP and AD would die. LDAP is a travesty, and both OLDAP and AD have *awful* performance.
Client Policy Management. Uh, I can install Samba and hack away to get ntconfig.pol to work, which is a seriously out of date policy scheme from the NT/9x days, or Active Directory.
"When I use Microsoft administration methods, Microsoft's products are easier to use."
Wow. No shit. I'll bet it's hard to update Windows clients with RPMs, too.
Centralized Management Tools. There are a few crappy third party tools for Linux, but they suck, to be frank. With Windows 2000, you have the MMC tool. Heavily upgraded since the NT4 days, this tool allows you to generate custom toolsets to administer your entire organization from one window, if you choose. Just add a snap-in and go.
I was stunningly underwhelmed by mmc. It has a truly atrocious interface.
Also, if you're using MMC and you need to manage data that an existing snap-in doesn't manage, you're in for a lot more work than you were expecting.
Remote Administration. Linux? X11 or VNC. Windows? The excellet Remote Desktop/Terminal Services software. Much more stable, smoother (movies & sound via RDP anyone?), and not clunky.
You use a GUI to administer your systems? This might explain the limited number of systems an MS admin can handle.
- Kerberos, with no dicking around, nuff said.
Uh, huh. Try using it with or serving certificates to non-Windows clients.
- Enterprise monitoring utilities. With Linux, you have things like BB and syslog, yippee. With Windows 2000, you have BB, but also excellent tools like Microsoft Operations Manager, and the numerous other network monitoring tools (like the cool ones from Solar Winds).
From what I can see, MOM is nothing more than a network and node monitoring system. Big freaking deal. There's a *ton* of monitoring systems for Linux, if you can live with it not giving you a graphical network map. If you want that...Solar Winds' stuff is the closest analog I could find to the unparalleled Intermapper on the Mac, which is a truly incredible network monitoring tool. Scotty is ugly but very powerful.
Also, for each solution you're suggesting a new Microsoft product. I mean, how much of their stuff do you *buy*, anyway? It's starting to sound like Solaris admins and Sun.
- Automatic Updates & Patching. I think Red Hat still has that crappy update utility, sucks if you've gotta update 50 servers that way, though. Microsoft? Software Update Services and Automatic Updates right now. Not the perfect solution, but much better than what Linux has going for it.
You must have an unusually good history with these. On Windows at least, they tend to have a tendancy to leave nonworking systems in their wake. OTOH, I've never had a catastrophic automatic update to a Linux system.
Plus, with Automatic Updates configured to automatically download (but not install) your patches, you don't have to sit around in the middle of the night waiting for the downloads to finish for all 50 servers.
Umm...yes, and you can do this about eight million ways on every Linux distro I can think of. That's like saying "I have a web browser on *my* platform."
With an even moderately competent Win2k administrator a network can be almost completely managed from his desktop.
So Windows is almost as nice to manage as Linux? I don't buy it.:-)
One can even argue that, with a competent administrator for each, Windows 2000 can be made more secure (while still being perfectly usable).
Hmm. Let's see. Registry permissions. IIS running with crazy-stupid privileges. ActiveX. Software easily accidentally misused by users, like Outlook. A lack of ability to chroot. No, I've got to say that Win2k isn't going to be made "more secure" with a competent administrator on each.
I won't even get into the whole debate about the number of Linux exploits compared to the fewer Windows 2000 exploits on Bugtraq, because that really doesn't mean much overall.
And yet you did manage to mention it. And there's the minor little detail that Bugtraq is referring to an *entire distro*, not an operating system. RH provides an order of magnitude more servers and software with a release than MS does with Windows. If you take all the security exploits for all pieces of Windows server and application software (which would be an equivalent metric) and count those as well, Windows is much worse off. But I won't mention that.
When it comes to pure software price, sure Linux is cheaper. When it comes to the enterprise? Please! Linux can't compete, right now.
Probably not at your place, because you're not experienced with the damn thing. Wow. Maybe we should take a Solaris admin that hasn't seen a Mac before and ask him whether it's more cost-effective to use Solaris machines or Macs.
In my limited experience there isn't with the exception of proprietary software (as in this case). But there might be some other things that Windows is better at (there just must be, I'm sure of it, isn't there?)
Reread the original post -- he was asking if there was anything *Linux* could do that *Windows* cannot.
No they didn't. Read the article. They specified about 30, IIRC.
The 1000 was a quote from one guy trying to illustrate how number-of-servers is imporant.
Teach self, *then* get formal training
on
Linux Is Cheaper
·
· Score: 2
I dont think being self taught makes a better admin. Being self taught can leave a lot of holes in SysAdmining. Having a good training class help give a better understanding on all the different features on Linux.
I'd have to say that the best way to do it is to learn something yourself and *then* go get whatever formal training you need in the area. That way, you're never lost and understand things, but your holes are filled in nicely.
OTOH, a good comprehensive book can do the same thing.
BTW, did you see the average salaries found in the study?
$68k for a Windows admin, $71 for a Linux admin. Speak up if you aren't making enough...:-)
Read the comment under the graph -- they pointed out that "scheme" frequently turns up false hits.
Nothing too surprising. Lightweight stuff is done in Java, high load stuff in C++, stuff with a short turnaround time in perl. A large amount of stuff is inexplicably done in Visual Basic, but that's always been true.
I guess I'm a little surprised that Ada is so high, but maybe that's Office of Homeland Security-type stuff contracts. I can't think of another reason for the government to be suddenly doing development.
Come to think of it, the Open Source world has seriously missed the ball in general when it comes to PDF documents. Open Source PDF viewers suck. In every single Open Source PDF viewer I've used, I've run into documents where the renderer has the orientation wrong -- and not just the orientation, but the "orientation of the bounding box" being different different from the "orientation of the drawn data on the bounding box", so that the top and bottom of the drawn data is lopped off, and there's a ton of white space to the left and right.
The only Open Source PDF viewer I've used that can (gasp) search for text is gsview, and it's *really* flaky and doesn't highlight found text. Nothing like trying to read through a page of text to find the one word you're looking for.
I've never used an Open Source PDF viewer that can antialias embedded bitmap images, which makes things look awful and unreadable.
Finally, Acrobat Reader for Linux is completely awful, and leaks memory like a sieve. I have a friend with about a gig of RAM that Acrobat Reader sucked through in about six minutes of dragging and scrolling the document.
Since PDF-viewing is one of the major office activities (along with world processing, and email), this is an enormous impediment to the use of Linux (or any UNIX) in a desktop environment.
It's extremely embarrassing to say something nice about Linux, have a friend use it, and then realize how truly much Linux software sucks at handling PDFs. "You mean I have to read through this thing manually instead of searching?" "Why does this print turned sideways? It works fine on Windows!" "Why does this look so bad?"
I predict Linux will not take off on the office desktop until (a) OpenOffice doesn't look and work completely differently from every app out there, and is free of cosmetic bugs *and* handles MS Office documents almost flawlessly, and (b) PDF viewing doesn't suck.
And for home use, (c) until the Linux sound architecture doesn't completely suck. Right now, the only way to obtain software mixing is through a dropout-prone, non-real-time-scheduled sound server with lousy latency. They usually don't share the sound device very nicely, either. Many sound systems can't do hardware mixing. Linux doesn't have a single way to do software mixing fallback, where a user out of hardware channels will automatically do real-time-scheduled software mixing. Pretty lame. Oh, and at least esd has truly awful resampling. Usually, when new users come to Linux, I hear "why is my sound dropping out when it doesn't on Windows", "why is there lag between something happening and a sound playing", "why does my sound sound so bad (this when resampling is occurring", or "why can't I hear ICQ sounds when xmms is playing?"
Listen, I could sit here and list off many 20th century sources which indicate how precisely the entire system of mass forced schooling was designed from the beginning to instill obedience and submissive behavior, but I have already given you the best one which discusses many of the chief sources. All I can say is you are wrong.
"American public education differs from that of many other nations in that it is primarily the responsibility of the states and individual school districts. The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century."
It was designed by *Jefferson*, for chrissake, the guy libertarians get all Bambi-eyed over. This is the guy who said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Timothy McVeigh was carrying this quote around, BTW.) I mean, I cannot think of a *single person* that you can less reasonably accuse of designing a system to suppress the individual. That's nuts, and if someone at Indiana University thinks so, they're going to have a tough argument feeding it to me.
The command economy is not simply directing production and artificially creating demand and utilizing wealth redistribution, it begins with forced schools making people content to live their lives as pawns of the state.
*My* public school history textbook talked about United States exploitation of Panama, the fact that the Spanish-American war was almost certainly started by an accidental coal dust explosion and deliberately manipulated US mass media, and the fact that President Polk probably attempted to provoke the Mexican-American war by crossing Mexico's borders with troops. It covered illicit napalm use in Vietnam, the fact that the US's greater economic ties with the Allies were a factor in its decision to side against the Axis powers, and the fact that many Americans were unwilling to do much for Germany for the sole reason of helping Jews. Custer was covered. If there's a conspiracy to glorify the US's military actions and promote mindless adherence to US policy, it seems to have missed my textbook.
Read the first book I referenced in the last post.
Buy the thing and read it just for a single argument?:-(
Just as religion was the tool of control,
That I won't argue with -- Nietzsche was spot on in attacking Christian structure and dogma, IMHO. I just don't buy that you can simply reapply his conclusions to the modern world, substituting "public school" for "Christianity".
All I can say is freedom died once every citizen was raised by the state in the educational system.
What, so viewpoints engendered by uneducated and ignorant farmer parents colonizing the United States were somehow more valid? Were the Puritan views less manipulated? I can't accept that.
The revolution of tomorrow is not going to result from the obvious infringements on freedom, it is going to arise because the existence we have today does not fit with human nature.
Most people in the world were manual laborers for thousands of years. Does *this* fit more precisely with human nature than being a plumber or a lawyer?
Humans by nature are free.
Okay, *that* doesn't hold significant meaning. It sounds nice, but what are you trying to claim? That if you take a person out of a society and isolate him, put him in a wilderness by himself, he's not subject to social guidelines set by society? So what? If you drop a weight on my head, I go "squish". Is it my nature to go "squish"? You can't say "alter component foo of human nature, and you will see that they act in a bar manner, therefore bar is human nature". Heck, I could just as easily say that the fact that humans tended to glom together into communities instead of running around on their own on the plains means that it's human nature to be restricted by a society.
Part of the service economy is to SERVE, and servitude is something for slaves.
That's silly, a play on English words. What's the magical difference between someone *not* in the service industry (say, a factory worker producing bolts) and someone in the service industry (a consulatant or a burger-flipper or a lawyer)? The "service industry" happens to have a bunch of contracts that are slightly different -- instead of "I will grant you property rights to these bolts", it's "I will ensure that this building is modified in such a way by this date". You could manage to twist things to the point where painting companies buy structures, paint them, and sell them as a product with improved value. From the point of view of the individual worker, there's no difference.
When real meaningful work is obviously not something the average person can do, nihilistic tendencies will manifest.
When people are *poor*, nihilistic tendencies will manifest. WWII seems to be a situation that exposes the goverment military control and propoganda that you're afraid of so much...and yet, nationalism was *highest* then. People felt like they were doing something, improving the world. You didn't have discontent. You had scattered talk of revolution during Vietnam because were were *losing*.
So to summarize, revolution is not necessarily related to economic statistics.
See above.
However, the existential question will be the root of revolution.
Name one revolution that was founded on philosophical concepts, where the average person involved gave a shit (not associated with it like Hitler or taking an approach to revolution like Ghandi). All the "Islamic" revolutions and other religious fights (Ireland, the Crusades) that I can think of are fights grounded in ethnic issues that hold up ideals as a neat justification for their actions.
Art is very much a part of advanced civilization because only with technological advancement do people have time to do something as unnecessary for survival as art.
That justification applies to pop music as much as any other type.
I am not going to make this an aesthetic debate, but if you think the world is MORE artistic than it was 100 years ago, I implore you to seriously start studying some art history.
I don't buy it. There's less famous art and artists now than 100 years ago because it *takes* a while to become famous and be judged. I'm sitting in front of a web browser...a portal into a *huge* collection of art and expression that dwarfs any other library ever in existence on earth, the majority of which has been created in the last few years. Hell, I don't know you, where you are, and would almost certainly never have directly interacted with you had we not had the Internet...and yet here we are, having a philosophical argument, and adding to a huge book that anyone with Internet access can read.
I do. The popular discontent of which I speak is happening virtually everywhere outside of western europe and the United States, and I suppose Canada.
And I'd like to point out that it's *because they are poor*! Doesn't it seem a simpler explanation to you? You're claiming that a worldwide revolution is coming (hell, Marx already tried that one and struck out) because the world is pissed off at command economies, I'm saying that the rich are happy and the poor aren't. Sure, in some places they overlap, and it others they don't.
Furthermore, it's not like this is a new thing. People have been oppressed by various rulers for *ages*. We happen to live in a pretty pleasant environment -- you won't find many patches as bright in history.
Furthermore, I argue that the propensity to revolt is slowly diminishing worldwide, as the worldwide standard of living ever so slowly creeps up. I mean, we talk about how badly off Africans or Chinese might be...but you can get better medical care, you can get machine-woven fabric, you have broader and broader access to talk to your family through spreading global telecom networks...
The other was Aspirin. Its just morphine and vinager.
No, it is not.
Amphetamine is another story. This is still used extensively by the military, with little trouble. It is no longer used by the army, but naval and air force pilots still use it. The US airmen charged in that friendly fire bombing in Afghanistan just claimed their error was caused by them using amphetamine at the time. Just read about this a few days ago.
So? There are *tons* of things that are amphetamines. Ritalin is one. There's a world of difference between people taking heroin and Ritalin.
One of those most sad examples of the new opiate is the incredible usage of antidepressants today. If there is anything which indicates the masses are not happy with their existence its that.
Umm...how about the fact that Zoloft wasn't available during the Great Depression or the Black Plague? I say that people almost *always* are willing to grab antidepressants, given sufficient resources to purchase them. Why not? It makes them feel better.
In many ways, I wish heroin or opium were legal so we could simply see how many people are truly unhappy. If we said 25% of our population took opium daily instead of prozac the public might be a little more aware of the problem at hand.
If 25% of our depressed people blew out their brains, we'd have a similar effect. Anyway, he only way you could make test of this would be to make Prozac available (and affordable) to the masses hundreds of years ago.
So, the people at home are on drugs which artificially make them feel contented
So if the government is trying to keep everyone down through this, why wait until antidepressants were introduced? Why not let people just take the opiates that predated them, instead of designating them controlled substances?
Not unless AFS transfers data faster than the network can. I get about 90 Mbits per second through my 100 Mbit network with linux NFS. On to gigabit I guess.
Most things'll work well when you have them sitting near each other on an unsaturated network link, though.:-)
AFS works more nicely if you've got a heavily utilized or higher latency connection, because it doesn't have to hit the server as much.
The thing I was thinking of appeared, I believe, in a print copy of Reader's Digest that I was going through. I'm trying to remember the specifics...they were talking about how vacations intended to reduce stress weren't doing so because people frequently carry their cell phones and check email during the time. However, when they took away all contact, after an initially producing more tension ("I don't know what's going on back at the company!"), stress dropped. I don't remember the date on the thing though, and they weren't trying to identify what particular type of communication (phone/email) was the problem.
Here's the result of a quick Google search mentioning email. [shrug]
This , from the same search, show that email/phones are stressors, though not as harsh as the RD thing I was originally thinking of.
"I think its time for this witch hunt to stop. DeCSS is available all over the world. The only people benefiting from this are the trial lawyers being paid tremendous amounts of money by the entertainment companies"
The value here is in prescedent, not in the direct impact of this case.
but for the fact we operate in a command economy where demand is artificially created
If that's the core of your argument, the almost every country in the *world* would go long before the United States.
It was this system which then allowed for the mass direction of the people towards a military goal.
I'm dubious. At one point in time, perhaps to a small degree...nowhere near the order of, say, early 1900s Germany, which fell to external, not internal forces.
Today, if you combine the number of people employed by the military, the government bureauocracy supporting the military, and military supporting industries, and the educational system it is nearly half of all jobs in the country.
A bogus statistic. Sure, Dow Chemical has done military-related contracts, just as Boeing has. The bulk of their business, however, is non-military, and the bulk of our government employees cannot be considered to be directly pursuing military ends. Furthermore, the size of our armed forces have been shrinking since the end of the Cold War.
The system is going to collapse because the average young American is not a part of that system and his future is bleek
By what sort of twisted metric do you get that? The average American (actually, forget average...you probably mean typical, which is still easily enough to argue my point) has a *far* higher standard of living than almost anyone else on the *planet*. How do you justify a lack of internal revolution in, the other 99% of the world where futures are *far* more bleak?
Rather repeat myself, I believe the situation today is much as it was in France in 1800. Large numbers of well educated literate people have no real place in their society and hav no problems rebelling against it.
Doesn't begin to compare. Our rulers aren't dicking around, completely ignoring what's going on (granted, Bush could pay more attention to the economy, but this is on a totally different scale). Our tax system doesn't make the little guy pay a higher ratio of his income than the big guy, we haven't run out of money, and the wealthy do not have hereditary legal rights. Our country's wealthy are more like a string of merchants than titled lords. By French standards, they are wealthy Third Estate.
I can't see the financial unrest that you're claiming. Oh, there are some people on Slashdot complaining about the current recession hitting the tech market, but that's a joke. It isn't a sliver of the Great Depression, and it isn't anything like the French situation. The only reasons I can see people have for being upset that you've cited is poor music and an inability to indulge in illegal drugs, which I do *not* see starting a revolution (if it didn't in the '60s, when there were more substantial political reasons , it isn't going to happen now).
Music, well thats my personal opinion. I happen to hate "pop" music and blame the trivial nature of our society for allowing its popularity to rise.
God, to people in Cambodia or something we must come off as spoiled princes or something. Okay, look. No one is forcing you to listen to any music you don't like, pop or otherwise. I mean, hell, I don't really care much for football, but I just don't watch the thing.
The sort of feelings which come with wholescale war, dread, the thrill of victory...
You know, music in times that saw far more military conflict than our own (the Dark Ages, the fighting across Europe in the first half of the last century) totally failed to become nihilistic. It tended to be much more upbeat than rap or the things you've mentioned.
Look at Japan or any other self professed command economy. Stagnation is the rule, and so shall it be for us.
Look, if you're going to call the United States a command economy, you're going to have to call the rest of the *world* a command econonmy.
The reality is amphetamine and narcotics are quite useful in war time. Amphetamine keeps you awake and makes you aggressive. Narcotics make the pain of war, both physical and psychological, more tolerable.
The reality is that this is marvelously unsustainable, because you end up with a bunch of heroin addicts. Why do you think governments today didn't take a page from Hitler and dope up their troops (I'm talking about other than painkillers)?
Well, I *did* wonder whether it was what you mentioned or the puppet governments we were trying to set up in Iran and Vietnam, but it seems that you've cleared that up.
They could keep track of radiation without alerting any Iraqi authorities
"Hi, guys. Yup, today we left all our radiation-detecting gear at home, and we're just looking for anthrax! Yup, all these boxes just detect biological agents!"
and get a true feel of whether there are weapons of mass destruction (specifically nuclear weapons) around.
As opposed to the completely false feel that they're currently getting from their instruments?
Slashdot Mirror
Try setting your system not to "always restart on power loss" (name is prolly different in your BIOS) in the Power Management or APM/ACPI section of your BIOS and see what happens.
But you will soon
There are also Linux apps that don't work on Windows.
So while you have a point, the majority of commonly used apps exist on both or have equivalents on both. And with a TCO argument undercutting Microsoft's biggest argument for using their systems...
I think he means that if the system fails in the middle of a transaction, then reboots, then fails while rolling back or forward ("repairing") that transaction, damage can occur.
I'm a little dubious, because it's not that hard to design a system that doesn't do that, and it would be stupid not to.
OTOH, I also didn't believe that MS would trust the a remote machine as to the length of a local machine's password when comparing the characters of a password in Windows 95 and 98, until I saw this in action.
Fair enough. I do think there are places that are perfect for it. I don't think my company is (as technology stands today) but on the other hand we're not exactly leaping at XP either. 2k is just the right balance for us. It's hard to want to change when it's all working.
That's what a lot of places said about NT. Every time a new Windows release comes out, I hear people complaining about the problems and saying "I'm never upgrading from Windows version Foo". They always end up upgrading sooner or later. It just takes time.
Incidentally, Slashdot is not a monolith. We have 15 year old young minds who think every piece of OSS software is GPLed and anyone who makes money with it is a thief as well as 15 year old Young Republicans who think OSS is communism.
Slashdot is not entirely composed of 15-year-olds. There are a number of 14-year-olds as well.
Not even the biggest Windows advocate I know has ever listed "makes you feel good" as one the best reasons to use Windows.
Some Windows admin a few posts up wrote that he liked Remote Desktop more than VNC or X11 because it felt less clunky. Sounds like one of those people that buy Car A (paying more) instead of Car B where essentially all the difference is a different molded shell plonked on the thing.
[shrug] Well, then Microsoft won this installation, unless there's some way to gradually migrate.
Other installations will start picking up Linux though. Yeah, MS will have a large installed base keeping them solvent, but it's gonna be a tougher battle for new clients.
Disclaimer: I'm a developer, not a sysadmin.
:-)
While Linux has many of the same feature analogs that Windows 2000 does, the Linux ones are usually incomplete or far inferior to their Microsoft counterparts and require a significant amount of time to install (In order to install software X I have to recompile these libraries too?!? But software Y relies on them, oh? I have to recompile that also?), maintain, and upgrade.
What were you doing, using Slackware in a business environment?
A Distributed Directory Service. OpenLDAP with SSL? PLEASE! Active Directory works well, right out of the box.
I kind of wish both OLDAP and AD would die. LDAP is a travesty, and both OLDAP and AD have *awful* performance.
Client Policy Management. Uh, I can install Samba and hack away to get ntconfig.pol to work, which is a seriously out of date policy scheme from the NT/9x days, or Active Directory.
"When I use Microsoft administration methods, Microsoft's products are easier to use."
Wow. No shit. I'll bet it's hard to update Windows clients with RPMs, too.
Centralized Management Tools. There are a few crappy third party tools for Linux, but they suck, to be frank. With Windows 2000, you have the MMC tool. Heavily upgraded since the NT4 days, this tool allows you to generate custom toolsets to administer your entire organization from one window, if you choose. Just add a snap-in and go.
I was stunningly underwhelmed by mmc. It has a truly atrocious interface.
Also, if you're using MMC and you need to manage data that an existing snap-in doesn't manage, you're in for a lot more work than you were expecting.
Remote Administration. Linux? X11 or VNC. Windows? The excellet Remote Desktop/Terminal Services software. Much more stable, smoother (movies & sound via RDP anyone?), and not clunky.
You use a GUI to administer your systems? This might explain the limited number of systems an MS admin can handle.
- Kerberos, with no dicking around, nuff said.
Uh, huh. Try using it with or serving certificates to non-Windows clients.
- Enterprise monitoring utilities. With Linux, you have things like BB and syslog, yippee. With Windows 2000, you have BB, but also excellent tools like Microsoft Operations Manager, and the numerous other network monitoring tools (like the cool ones from Solar Winds).
From what I can see, MOM is nothing more than a network and node monitoring system. Big freaking deal. There's a *ton* of monitoring systems for Linux, if you can live with it not giving you a graphical network map. If you want that...Solar Winds' stuff is the closest analog I could find to the unparalleled Intermapper on the Mac, which is a truly incredible network monitoring tool. Scotty is ugly but very powerful.
Also, for each solution you're suggesting a new Microsoft product. I mean, how much of their stuff do you *buy*, anyway? It's starting to sound like Solaris admins and Sun.
- Automatic Updates & Patching. I think Red Hat still has that crappy update utility, sucks if you've gotta update 50 servers that way, though. Microsoft? Software Update Services and Automatic Updates right now. Not the perfect solution, but much better than what Linux has going for it.
You must have an unusually good history with these. On Windows at least, they tend to have a tendancy to leave nonworking systems in their wake. OTOH, I've never had a catastrophic automatic update to a Linux system.
Plus, with Automatic Updates configured to automatically download (but not install) your patches, you don't have to sit around in the middle of the night waiting for the downloads to finish for all 50 servers.
Umm...yes, and you can do this about eight million ways on every Linux distro I can think of. That's like saying "I have a web browser on *my* platform."
With an even moderately competent Win2k administrator a network can be almost completely managed from his desktop.
So Windows is almost as nice to manage as Linux? I don't buy it.
One can even argue that, with a competent administrator for each, Windows 2000 can be made more secure (while still being perfectly usable).
Hmm. Let's see. Registry permissions. IIS running with crazy-stupid privileges. ActiveX. Software easily accidentally misused by users, like Outlook. A lack of ability to chroot. No, I've got to say that Win2k isn't going to be made "more secure" with a competent administrator on each.
I won't even get into the whole debate about the number of Linux exploits compared to the fewer Windows 2000 exploits on Bugtraq, because that really doesn't mean much overall.
And yet you did manage to mention it. And there's the minor little detail that Bugtraq is referring to an *entire distro*, not an operating system. RH provides an order of magnitude more servers and software with a release than MS does with Windows. If you take all the security exploits for all pieces of Windows server and application software (which would be an equivalent metric) and count those as well, Windows is much worse off. But I won't mention that.
When it comes to pure software price, sure Linux is cheaper. When it comes to the enterprise? Please! Linux can't compete, right now.
Probably not at your place, because you're not experienced with the damn thing. Wow. Maybe we should take a Solaris admin that hasn't seen a Mac before and ask him whether it's more cost-effective to use Solaris machines or Macs.
In my limited experience there isn't with the exception of proprietary software (as in this case). But there might be some other things that Windows is better at (there just must be, I'm sure of it, isn't there?)
Reread the original post -- he was asking if there was anything *Linux* could do that *Windows* cannot.
Ask 'em for a 25x raise, which is in line with their numbers.
No they didn't. Read the article. They specified about 30, IIRC.
The 1000 was a quote from one guy trying to illustrate how number-of-servers is imporant.
I dont think being self taught makes a better admin. Being self taught can leave a lot of holes in SysAdmining. Having a good training class help give a better understanding on all the different features on Linux.
:-)
I'd have to say that the best way to do it is to learn something yourself and *then* go get whatever formal training you need in the area. That way, you're never lost and understand things, but your holes are filled in nicely.
OTOH, a good comprehensive book can do the same thing.
BTW, did you see the average salaries found in the study?
$68k for a Windows admin, $71 for a Linux admin. Speak up if you aren't making enough...
Read the comment under the graph -- they pointed out that "scheme" frequently turns up false hits.
Nothing too surprising. Lightweight stuff is done in Java, high load stuff in C++, stuff with a short turnaround time in perl. A large amount of stuff is inexplicably done in Visual Basic, but that's always been true.
I guess I'm a little surprised that Ada is so high, but maybe that's Office of Homeland Security-type stuff contracts. I can't think of another reason for the government to be suddenly doing development.
Acrobat Reader can.
gv, ggv, and gsview cannot.
Come to think of it, the Open Source world has seriously missed the ball in general when it comes to PDF documents. Open Source PDF viewers suck. In every single Open Source PDF viewer I've used, I've run into documents where the renderer has the orientation wrong -- and not just the orientation, but the "orientation of the bounding box" being different different from the "orientation of the drawn data on the bounding box", so that the top and bottom of the drawn data is lopped off, and there's a ton of white space to the left and right.
The only Open Source PDF viewer I've used that can (gasp) search for text is gsview, and it's *really* flaky and doesn't highlight found text. Nothing like trying to read through a page of text to find the one word you're looking for.
I've never used an Open Source PDF viewer that can antialias embedded bitmap images, which makes things look awful and unreadable.
Finally, Acrobat Reader for Linux is completely awful, and leaks memory like a sieve. I have a friend with about a gig of RAM that Acrobat Reader sucked through in about six minutes of dragging and scrolling the document.
Since PDF-viewing is one of the major office activities (along with world processing, and email), this is an enormous impediment to the use of Linux (or any UNIX) in a desktop environment.
It's extremely embarrassing to say something nice about Linux, have a friend use it, and then realize how truly much Linux software sucks at handling PDFs. "You mean I have to read through this thing manually instead of searching?" "Why does this print turned sideways? It works fine on Windows!" "Why does this look so bad?"
I predict Linux will not take off on the office desktop until (a) OpenOffice doesn't look and work completely differently from every app out there, and is free of cosmetic bugs *and* handles MS Office documents almost flawlessly, and (b) PDF viewing doesn't suck.
And for home use, (c) until the Linux sound architecture doesn't completely suck. Right now, the only way to obtain software mixing is through a dropout-prone, non-real-time-scheduled sound server with lousy latency. They usually don't share the sound device very nicely, either. Many sound systems can't do hardware mixing. Linux doesn't have a single way to do software mixing fallback, where a user out of hardware channels will automatically do real-time-scheduled software mixing. Pretty lame. Oh, and at least esd has truly awful resampling. Usually, when new users come to Linux, I hear "why is my sound dropping out when it doesn't on Windows", "why is there lag between something happening and a sound playing", "why does my sound sound so bad (this when resampling is occurring", or "why can't I hear ICQ sounds when xmms is playing?"
Listen, I could sit here and list off many 20th century sources which indicate how precisely the entire system of mass forced schooling was designed from the beginning to instill obedience and submissive behavior, but I have already given you the best one which discusses many of the chief sources. All I can say is you are wrong.
:-(
Let me give a quote.
"American public education differs from that of many other nations in that it is primarily the responsibility of the states and individual school districts. The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century."
It was designed by *Jefferson*, for chrissake, the guy libertarians get all Bambi-eyed over. This is the guy who said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Timothy McVeigh was carrying this quote around, BTW.) I mean, I cannot think of a *single person* that you can less reasonably accuse of designing a system to suppress the individual. That's nuts, and if someone at Indiana University thinks so, they're going to have a tough argument feeding it to me.
The command economy is not simply directing production and artificially creating demand and utilizing wealth redistribution, it begins with forced schools making people content to live their lives as pawns of the state.
*My* public school history textbook talked about United States exploitation of Panama, the fact that the Spanish-American war was almost certainly started by an accidental coal dust explosion and deliberately manipulated US mass media, and the fact that President Polk probably attempted to provoke the Mexican-American war by crossing Mexico's borders with troops. It covered illicit napalm use in Vietnam, the fact that the US's greater economic ties with the Allies were a factor in its decision to side against the Axis powers, and the fact that many Americans were unwilling to do much for Germany for the sole reason of helping Jews. Custer was covered. If there's a conspiracy to glorify the US's military actions and promote mindless adherence to US policy, it seems to have missed my textbook.
Read the first book I referenced in the last post.
Buy the thing and read it just for a single argument?
Just as religion was the tool of control,
That I won't argue with -- Nietzsche was spot on in attacking Christian structure and dogma, IMHO. I just don't buy that you can simply reapply his conclusions to the modern world, substituting "public school" for "Christianity".
All I can say is freedom died once every citizen was raised by the state in the educational system.
What, so viewpoints engendered by uneducated and ignorant farmer parents colonizing the United States were somehow more valid? Were the Puritan views less manipulated? I can't accept that.
The revolution of tomorrow is not going to result from the obvious infringements on freedom, it is going to arise because the existence we have today does not fit with human nature.
Most people in the world were manual laborers for thousands of years. Does *this* fit more precisely with human nature than being a plumber or a lawyer?
Humans by nature are free.
Okay, *that* doesn't hold significant meaning. It sounds nice, but what are you trying to claim? That if you take a person out of a society and isolate him, put him in a wilderness by himself, he's not subject to social guidelines set by society? So what? If you drop a weight on my head, I go "squish". Is it my nature to go "squish"? You can't say "alter component foo of human nature, and you will see that they act in a bar manner, therefore bar is human nature". Heck, I could just as easily say that the fact that humans tended to glom together into communities instead of running around on their own on the plains means that it's human nature to be restricted by a society.
Part of the service economy is to SERVE, and servitude is something for slaves.
That's silly, a play on English words. What's the magical difference between someone *not* in the service industry (say, a factory worker producing bolts) and someone in the service industry (a consulatant or a burger-flipper or a lawyer)? The "service industry" happens to have a bunch of contracts that are slightly different -- instead of "I will grant you property rights to these bolts", it's "I will ensure that this building is modified in such a way by this date". You could manage to twist things to the point where painting companies buy structures, paint them, and sell them as a product with improved value. From the point of view of the individual worker, there's no difference.
When real meaningful work is obviously not something the average person can do, nihilistic tendencies will manifest.
When people are *poor*, nihilistic tendencies will manifest. WWII seems to be a situation that exposes the goverment military control and propoganda that you're afraid of so much...and yet, nationalism was *highest* then. People felt like they were doing something, improving the world. You didn't have discontent. You had scattered talk of revolution during Vietnam because were were *losing*.
So to summarize, revolution is not necessarily related to economic statistics.
See above.
However, the existential question will be the root of revolution.
Name one revolution that was founded on philosophical concepts, where the average person involved gave a shit (not associated with it like Hitler or taking an approach to revolution like Ghandi). All the "Islamic" revolutions and other religious fights (Ireland, the Crusades) that I can think of are fights grounded in ethnic issues that hold up ideals as a neat justification for their actions.
Art is very much a part of advanced civilization because only with technological advancement do people have time to do something as unnecessary for survival as art.
That justification applies to pop music as much as any other type.
I am not going to make this an aesthetic debate, but if you think the world is MORE artistic than it was 100 years ago, I implore you to seriously start studying some art history.
I don't buy it. There's less famous art and artists now than 100 years ago because it *takes* a while to become famous and be judged. I'm sitting in front of a web browser...a portal into a *huge* collection of art and expression that dwarfs any other library ever in existence on earth, the majority of which has been created in the last few years. Hell, I don't know you, where you are, and would almost certainly never have directly interacted with you had we not had the Internet...and yet here we are, having a philosophical argument, and adding to a huge book that anyone with Internet access can read.
I do. The popular discontent of which I speak is happening virtually everywhere outside of western europe and the United States, and I suppose Canada.
And I'd like to point out that it's *because they are poor*! Doesn't it seem a simpler explanation to you? You're claiming that a worldwide revolution is coming (hell, Marx already tried that one and struck out) because the world is pissed off at command economies, I'm saying that the rich are happy and the poor aren't. Sure, in some places they overlap, and it others they don't.
Furthermore, it's not like this is a new thing. People have been oppressed by various rulers for *ages*. We happen to live in a pretty pleasant environment -- you won't find many patches as bright in history.
Furthermore, I argue that the propensity to revolt is slowly diminishing worldwide, as the worldwide standard of living ever so slowly creeps up. I mean, we talk about how badly off Africans or Chinese might be...but you can get better medical care, you can get machine-woven fabric, you have broader and broader access to talk to your family through spreading global telecom networks...
The other was Aspirin. Its just morphine and vinager.
No, it is not.
Amphetamine is another story. This is still used extensively by the military, with little trouble. It is no longer used by the army, but naval and air force pilots still use it. The US airmen charged in that friendly fire bombing in Afghanistan just claimed their error was caused by them using amphetamine at the time. Just read about this a few days ago.
So? There are *tons* of things that are amphetamines. Ritalin is one. There's a world of difference between people taking heroin and Ritalin.
One of those most sad examples of the new opiate is the incredible usage of antidepressants today. If there is anything which indicates the masses are not happy with their existence its that.
Umm...how about the fact that Zoloft wasn't available during the Great Depression or the Black Plague? I say that people almost *always* are willing to grab antidepressants, given sufficient resources to purchase them. Why not? It makes them feel better.
In many ways, I wish heroin or opium were legal so we could simply see how many people are truly unhappy. If we said 25% of our population took opium daily instead of prozac the public might be a little more aware of the problem at hand.
If 25% of our depressed people blew out their brains, we'd have a similar effect. Anyway, he only way you could make test of this would be to make Prozac available (and affordable) to the masses hundreds of years ago.
So, the people at home are on drugs which artificially make them feel contented
So if the government is trying to keep everyone down through this, why wait until antidepressants were introduced? Why not let people just take the opiates that predated them, instead of designating them controlled substances?
Not unless AFS transfers data faster than the network can. I get about 90 Mbits per second through my 100 Mbit network with linux NFS. On to gigabit I guess.
:-)
Most things'll work well when you have them sitting near each other on an unsaturated network link, though.
AFS works more nicely if you've got a heavily utilized or higher latency connection, because it doesn't have to hit the server as much.
The thing I was thinking of appeared, I believe, in a print copy of Reader's Digest that I was going through. I'm trying to remember the specifics...they were talking about how vacations intended to reduce stress weren't doing so because people frequently carry their cell phones and check email during the time. However, when they took away all contact, after an initially producing more tension ("I don't know what's going on back at the company!"), stress dropped. I don't remember the date on the thing though, and they weren't trying to identify what particular type of communication (phone/email) was the problem.
Here's the result of a quick Google search mentioning email. [shrug]
This , from the same search, show that email/phones are stressors, though not as harsh as the RD thing I was originally thinking of.
"I think its time for this witch hunt to stop. DeCSS is available all over the world. The only people benefiting from this are the trial lawyers being paid tremendous amounts of money by the entertainment companies"
The value here is in prescedent, not in the direct impact of this case.
but for the fact we operate in a command economy where demand is artificially created
If that's the core of your argument, the almost every country in the *world* would go long before the United States.
It was this system which then allowed for the mass direction of the people towards a military goal.
I'm dubious. At one point in time, perhaps to a small degree...nowhere near the order of, say, early 1900s Germany, which fell to external, not internal forces.
Today, if you combine the number of people employed by the military, the government bureauocracy supporting the military, and military supporting industries, and the educational system it is nearly half of all jobs in the country.
A bogus statistic. Sure, Dow Chemical has done military-related contracts, just as Boeing has. The bulk of their business, however, is non-military, and the bulk of our government employees cannot be considered to be directly pursuing military ends. Furthermore, the size of our armed forces have been shrinking since the end of the Cold War.
The system is going to collapse because the average young American is not a part of that system and his future is bleek
By what sort of twisted metric do you get that? The average American (actually, forget average...you probably mean typical, which is still easily enough to argue my point) has a *far* higher standard of living than almost anyone else on the *planet*. How do you justify a lack of internal revolution in, the other 99% of the world where futures are *far* more bleak?
Rather repeat myself, I believe the situation today is much as it was in France in 1800. Large numbers of well educated literate people have no real place in their society and hav no problems rebelling against it.
Doesn't begin to compare. Our rulers aren't dicking around, completely ignoring what's going on (granted, Bush could pay more attention to the economy, but this is on a totally different scale). Our tax system doesn't make the little guy pay a higher ratio of his income than the big guy, we haven't run out of money, and the wealthy do not have hereditary legal rights. Our country's wealthy are more like a string of merchants than titled lords. By French standards, they are wealthy Third Estate.
I can't see the financial unrest that you're claiming. Oh, there are some people on Slashdot complaining about the current recession hitting the tech market, but that's a joke. It isn't a sliver of the Great Depression, and it isn't anything like the French situation. The only reasons I can see people have for being upset that you've cited is poor music and an inability to indulge in illegal drugs, which I do *not* see starting a revolution (if it didn't in the '60s, when there were more substantial political reasons , it isn't going to happen now).
Music, well thats my personal opinion. I happen to hate "pop" music and blame the trivial nature of our society for allowing its popularity to rise.
God, to people in Cambodia or something we must come off as spoiled princes or something. Okay, look. No one is forcing you to listen to any music you don't like, pop or otherwise. I mean, hell, I don't really care much for football, but I just don't watch the thing.
The sort of feelings which come with wholescale war, dread, the thrill of victory...
You know, music in times that saw far more military conflict than our own (the Dark Ages, the fighting across Europe in the first half of the last century) totally failed to become nihilistic. It tended to be much more upbeat than rap or the things you've mentioned.
Look at Japan or any other self professed command economy. Stagnation is the rule, and so shall it be for us.
Look, if you're going to call the United States a command economy, you're going to have to call the rest of the *world* a command econonmy.
The reality is amphetamine and narcotics are quite useful in war time. Amphetamine keeps you awake and makes you aggressive. Narcotics make the pain of war, both physical and psychological, more tolerable.
The reality is that this is marvelously unsustainable, because you end up with a bunch of heroin addicts. Why do you think governments today didn't take a page from Hitler and dope up their troops (I'm talking about other than painkillers)?
Sorta. The volume's easier, but I was thinking of what happens if you're trying to figure out how two fields are interacting...
Ya know, your username has the wrong byte order.
:-)
Uh...okay, it's a profoundly ironic statement about the lack of standards in the world -- three EOL sequences, two byte orderings.
Good call.
They had enough fun with plain ol' obloidish magnetic field calculations. Can you imagine the math once we start throwing in fractals?
ever wonder why the world hates you guys?
Well, I *did* wonder whether it was what you mentioned or the puppet governments we were trying to set up in Iran and Vietnam, but it seems that you've cleared that up.
They could keep track of radiation without alerting any Iraqi authorities
"Hi, guys. Yup, today we left all our radiation-detecting gear at home, and we're just looking for anthrax! Yup, all these boxes just detect biological agents!"
and get a true feel of whether there are weapons of mass destruction (specifically nuclear weapons) around.
As opposed to the completely false feel that they're currently getting from their instruments?
One of the most important parts of a nuclear fallout shelter is the entrance room where you take off ALL clothing and shower.
Leading to the popular Cold War pickup line "Hey, baby, want to see my fallout shelter?"