Faster download usually = faster upload. Exactly what I need. Hosting photos from my house while I am overseas is actually a big thing for me, a number of my friends host their personal stuff from my place as well as I can get better net access at my house than theirs.
I also run a CRM system and email for myself out of my house too, plus mobile phone sync.
All in all, although downloading ISOs isn't exactly a huge priority for me, gettting TV episodes which I missed on TV down (Which I want to watch that night) and getting DVD images down and burnt before I go running to a client's site is time sensitive for me, so it's still a concern.
I think the poster really did ask the wrong people here. You had to "Ask Slashdot", out of any net based community, who else is going to have 1,000,001 uses for a netlink?...
It's been said before, so I will repeat it just for all of you to get reminded.
The reason why this won't fly is that all of your keyboards are cheaply manufactured in places like Korea, Taiwan and China. The places that produce the keyboards don't want to pay for the patents. The QWERTY design doesn't have any patents on it.
Until someone comes out with a design and says "Here is a great design for a new keyboard, take it and do with it what you will"; nobody is going to take the ball and run.
Screw over the local EB or whatever by getting in people and advertising that you will have these people at your store. Talk to your distributor and see what you can do about getting "The team of experts from xyz in" "Ask your hardest questions, they know the answers" or otherwise seeing if you can get your local game developers in and get them talking to people.
Make it look like your the best thing since sliced bread.
Ma and Pa stores still exist in the music industry because they can market their way out of any situation. One good sale and good customer service can mean a lifelong customer, you I am sure know this already.
The figures you are providing are just a term of endearment when it comes to business (My parents own a jewellery store in a country where we don't refer to people as ma and pa) and what you are describing just sounds like cold feet.
Yes, business can suck at times, when the whole industry is down 25% that can mean having another mortgage or losing your house, and I don't want to discount that point.
At the same time, take a look at what other people are doing, a friend of mine in another country referred me to Barry Bull
Might be worth looking at. He does have some good points.
Your kidding right? 40,000 workstations? At what cost?
They had better have a GREAT reason to do so, something that's going to make the company HUGE amounts of cash.
The cost of re-training, re-writing software, training admins... Developing new procedures and designing new standards... The list goes on. Green sites, new businesses of this size, take longer than a year to develop and deploy, let alone having to deal with legacy...
You would be taking the business by the balls and giving it a great twist and pull doing that. If you didn't have a good reason, you might as well be doing the twist and pull to a hamster with back hoe. IF any "higher up" advocated this, there would be a huge rush for a week, then he would be getting the boot from the CEO or otherwise. People get fired for a lot less than this.
Internally developed applications can take a year or more to write and months again just to get through change control in some organisations.
Either, you meant to add on "But they might not be correct in doing so" or otherwise you have no idea what you are talking about. Could you imagine a company like Citibank, Merrill Lynch, Coca-Cola or similar who can react "quickly" changing their whole environment in two months? How about someone like Astrazeneca, Pfizer or another drug company where compliance is such an issue? Let's not even touch the discussion of things like poker machines (IGT, Aristocrat) where it can take your time frame just to get a single minor release of software out the door, let along changing and re-certifying the development environment.
As much as I would *love* to be able to do this, it's just not yet feasible from what I have seen.
Replacing so much of your environment without going over to Citrix or something else, just isn't worth the management overhead that you will have.
Having to manage the different platforms for a start will be a hassle, the fact that the two platforms will look different will confuse the users, and possibly if it's in a public place, marketing as well.
When the time is right, you will be able to get a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc and put it into a computer and run it up, Exchange Server, Active Directory Domain Controller, whatever, and it will convert it and everything on it into a Linux box. TLC - Total Linux Conversion.
The management overhead of an environment that size is huge as it stands, unless you can see that you are going to save the business BIG BIG dollars by maintaining another two or three environments (Don't forget, there will be different versions out there) nobody is going to accept it just yet.
Wait a couple of years, start bringing in Open Source software to replace other items, and make the future migration simpler, but a conversion now? I just don't think it's going to happen simply and straight forward just yet.
Baby steps, eating an elephant in one hit is quite a difficult task that essentially no man can do, just take one bite (Application) at a time, and then it will be easier.
For customers that run Linux but still need access to Windows apps. Citrix can be a good option too. Yes it means that you have to keep a Windows box around, but then unfortunately there is some stuff that CrossOver can't do. It does also help with having support from the vendor that wrote the software too. A number of software vendors don't like the idea of their app running on Crossover, they don't have the experience with it and don't know what it will do.
I quite liked LCS 2005 when I was using it, I did have the gateway functionality working well, and I used to connect in straight over the internet (Using a TLS session) without any problems.
The Office Communicator client was quite good, and the integration was great, I left before figuring out the address lists, which I think would have been of good benefit.
There is a licensing cost, but it comes later.... If you had Exchange 2000 under software subscription, you were entitled to LCS 2000. If you had Enterprise Edition of Exchange, you got LCS enterprise edition. For all the exchange clients you had you got a CAL of LCS. Once you got the CALs though then you have to pay for support on it, and you also have to pay for upgrades etc.
Federation costs money to outside parties, and more servers cost money too. Unfortunately it's still definately a cost.
The integration is very nice though, and GAIM with Jabber don't hold a candle to the integration that MS did on that, but the price of free vs what you pay for all the other stuff? Given that all the logging and everything else is also a part of Jabber, I would prefer to run Jabber.
SIP is just a protocol that a lot of people implement. SIP is implemented by Polycom for phones and by a number of other companies. It handles voice quite well apparently.
Office Communicator / Messenger / Microsoft Live Communications Server is only one implementation.
As far as I am concerned, having rolled it out to a thousand and a few people, although it scales quite well, the fact that you have to pay per user per month for federation out to the other networks (AOL/ICQ, Windows Messenger, Yahoo!) I think Jabber is a much better option. It's what they run internally at HP.
I have had stereos that have lasted a long long time, but at the same time, I spend a lot of money on good components.
If I had a screw up with anything that I purchased I would be taking it back, and I know I would have another one delivered to my doorstep the next day with someone wanting to come in and hook it up for me.
At the end of the day (And I am not saying it's the consumer's fault here) but people want things cheaper and cheaper, if the company that makes it can save 2c on a single component they will, as when they bring it out they can charge that little bit less for it and it's more marketable to the general public.
I personally don't like the Intel VM chips that you find on so many motherboards these days as they hand sooo much stuff off to the CPU for handling through the driver in comparison to a more expensive card. At the end of the day it's still a case of you get what you pay for. For the people that are more willing to put in the extra dollars, they will get something that is better quality, usually with more QC.
However, the companies that make the more expensive components are still trying to save the 2c, but not as badly on their higher end parts.
Why should the business model include income from online games?
I know it should be taken into consideration, all well and good, but at the same time, the people crunching the numbers in the first place should see how much money they can get (Best and worst case) and make their decision from there...
I don't think it's the publisher's fault to do this, pushing the studios in that direction is where MS is pushing, that's where they think they are going to get a lot of money from on the 360. On top of this, a lot of people are wanting to see multiplayer. Think about the target market here... Most of these people have a quite reasonable disposable income will have broadband....
If the studios don't make multiplayer games then so be it, for the amount of money, I am sure that someone along the lines has done the business models and figured it out.
I don't think this is one of those things that we really have to worry about. If someone is a moron and fails, then that's supply and demand really.
but you can't have unlimited free labor AND exploit the finished program for full profit.
Not quite true, a little more clarification is required. No you can't get FULL profit from the product, but you can get more than if you just programmed it yourself.
The additional features and testing you get from having an open source product are MUCH higher than what you could get from a proprietry environment. (Well you could get it, but it would cost you the earth)
Plus you get money income from development of customisations and other things that you wouldn't necessarily get as most companies have a budget to spend, if they can get the product and it customised they would normally jump at that. Well rather than just spending all their budget on the product that does everything it needs to, but not everything they want it to.
Essentially, one of the sides of the connection had to be digital, if you ran two analogue signals (Two modems) back to back, you got 36K, but they found out if that one of the sides of the connection was digital, and was essentially guaranteed to be error free, they could push the speed at which that side transmitted. Hence what the other side recieved at. Whether you actually got 56K was also extremely dependent on the quality of your line. I remember being about 200m away from the exchange on the copper run (I worked at an ISP, so we had a line run for testing) and still only getting 52K.
We used to tell customers it was just the theoretical maximum as nobody in the country at the time had a chance in hell of getting those speeds.
As much as I hate to agree with Geoff here. I think he is correct in what he is saying.
I think that as people change jobs, as people retire the idealism of IPv6 will change. A lot of newer networks will adopt IPv6 (I don't run IPv4 at my house any longer, but that's just me) a lot of people, including businesses will start adopting IPv6 internally, but proxy out to IPv4. This will expand out the lifespan of IPv4.
As I posted earlier, I don't know if I will see a full deployment of IPv4 in my lifetime. However, if my kids take up IT, I think they will see the complete roll out of IPv6.
I think this debate will go on for a long time, but 100 years into the future, we won't have an option. The IPv4 screw up we will leave for our children, Between now and then though, expect some change.
The every-device-in-your-house-on-the-web mentality has a few years to tak eoff.
I think this will come when we finally get rid of low speed serial connections.
Yet again, no demand for IPv6. It is a solution looking for a problem to solve
There is a problem to solve, and that's running out of IP addresses. The diversification (I don't know if that's actually a word, but I am sticking with it) of devices will eventually make the 255 IPs that people run out of their NAT based devices run out.
Whether I will see it in my lifetime or not is another matter. Major reconfiguration needed or migrate to the protocol they invented 100 years ago for just this occasion?
Actually it's probably the large corporations who would benefit the most from IPv6. Simply because they reduce their route tables, and they no longer have address conflicts with partners who they connect to.
A large bank that I know of runs public IP address space internally to get around this exact issue.
The problem is cost and that other people aren't running it.
100 years into the future on large networks, we run into the same problem we do today. I guess the people who were / are planning this protocol are hoping that there will be an average level of intelligence above what is around today.
OK admittedly that would make sense somewhat for now, but at the same time, 100 years in the future, if we keep going like we are today, we will have even more of an issue in that there will be millions times more machines connected to the network we today call the internet.
Security by obscurity is not the answer, and for that matter, at the moment, Linux or Windows isn't the answer.
We have a relatively densely populated environment now, and I think this will become more so. I think that people will start to become better organised in their IP address allocations, and that densities will become higher.
At the end of the day. IPV6 isn't the answer to a security question, it's an answer to a network question. A question that at the moment, a lot of people don't want to face because they don't have to.
Its nuts, everything from 16bit to 64bit CPUs, SMP and NUMA boxes, all the way to some of the most powerful computers in the world.
Solaris / Old School Unix (Lets face it, Solaris is still pretty true to it's system V roots) hasn't been ported, admittedly it's not the "hobbiest" OS that Linux is, and therefore hasn't been ported (I was tempted to put in a YET there). But at the same time, I think Linux has filled this void very very well, the hobbiest style people are now getting supplemented by the large corporations, a number of whom are taking on the people that have been kernel hacking for a while now.
By the very nature of the supplementation by these corporations, the supported utilities are slowly coming to Linux. People don't use an OS for the kernel (Unless you are a kernel hacker) they use it for the rest of the system, the applications and everything else that sits on top.
OpenSolaris, I think although will pick up some support, I don't think will ever reach the market share that Linux has today.
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded.
...
Faster download usually = faster upload. Exactly what I need. Hosting photos from my house while I am overseas is actually a big thing for me, a number of my friends host their personal stuff from my place as well as I can get better net access at my house than theirs.
I also run a CRM system and email for myself out of my house too, plus mobile phone sync.
All in all, although downloading ISOs isn't exactly a huge priority for me, gettting TV episodes which I missed on TV down (Which I want to watch that night) and getting DVD images down and burnt before I go running to a client's site is time sensitive for me, so it's still a concern.
I think the poster really did ask the wrong people here. You had to "Ask Slashdot", out of any net based community, who else is going to have 1,000,001 uses for a netlink?
*sigh*
It's been said before, so I will repeat it just for all of you to get reminded.
The reason why this won't fly is that all of your keyboards are cheaply manufactured in places like Korea, Taiwan and China. The places that produce the keyboards don't want to pay for the patents. The QWERTY design doesn't have any patents on it.
Until someone comes out with a design and says "Here is a great design for a new keyboard, take it and do with it what you will"; nobody is going to take the ball and run.
Well somewhat,
Screw over the local EB or whatever by getting in people and advertising that you will have these people at your store. Talk to your distributor and see what you can do about getting "The team of experts from xyz in" "Ask your hardest questions, they know the answers" or otherwise seeing if you can get your local game developers in and get them talking to people.
Make it look like your the best thing since sliced bread.
Ma and Pa stores still exist in the music industry because they can market their way out of any situation. One good sale and good customer service can mean a lifelong customer, you I am sure know this already.
The figures you are providing are just a term of endearment when it comes to business (My parents own a jewellery store in a country where we don't refer to people as ma and pa) and what you are describing just sounds like cold feet.
Yes, business can suck at times, when the whole industry is down 25% that can mean having another mortgage or losing your house, and I don't want to discount that point.
At the same time, take a look at what other people are doing, a friend of mine in another country referred me to Barry Bull
Might be worth looking at. He does have some good points.
Your kidding right? 40,000 workstations? At what cost?
They had better have a GREAT reason to do so, something that's going to make the company HUGE amounts of cash.
The cost of re-training, re-writing software, training admins... Developing new procedures and designing new standards... The list goes on. Green sites, new businesses of this size, take longer than a year to develop and deploy, let alone having to deal with legacy...
You would be taking the business by the balls and giving it a great twist and pull doing that. If you didn't have a good reason, you might as well be doing the twist and pull to a hamster with back hoe. IF any "higher up" advocated this, there would be a huge rush for a week, then he would be getting the boot from the CEO or otherwise. People get fired for a lot less than this.
Internally developed applications can take a year or more to write and months again just to get through change control in some organisations.
Either, you meant to add on "But they might not be correct in doing so" or otherwise you have no idea what you are talking about. Could you imagine a company like Citibank, Merrill Lynch, Coca-Cola or similar who can react "quickly" changing their whole environment in two months? How about someone like Astrazeneca, Pfizer or another drug company where compliance is such an issue? Let's not even touch the discussion of things like poker machines (IGT, Aristocrat) where it can take your time frame just to get a single minor release of software out the door, let along changing and re-certifying the development environment.
As much as I would *love* to be able to do this, it's just not yet feasible from what I have seen.
Replacing so much of your environment without going over to Citrix or something else, just isn't worth the management overhead that you will have.
Having to manage the different platforms for a start will be a hassle, the fact that the two platforms will look different will confuse the users, and possibly if it's in a public place, marketing as well.
When the time is right, you will be able to get a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc and put it into a computer and run it up, Exchange Server, Active Directory Domain Controller, whatever, and it will convert it and everything on it into a Linux box. TLC - Total Linux Conversion.
The management overhead of an environment that size is huge as it stands, unless you can see that you are going to save the business BIG BIG dollars by maintaining another two or three environments (Don't forget, there will be different versions out there) nobody is going to accept it just yet.
Wait a couple of years, start bringing in Open Source software to replace other items, and make the future migration simpler, but a conversion now? I just don't think it's going to happen simply and straight forward just yet.
Baby steps, eating an elephant in one hit is quite a difficult task that essentially no man can do, just take one bite (Application) at a time, and then it will be easier.
For customers that run Linux but still need access to Windows apps. Citrix can be a good option too. Yes it means that you have to keep a Windows box around, but then unfortunately there is some stuff that CrossOver can't do. It does also help with having support from the vendor that wrote the software too. A number of software vendors don't like the idea of their app running on Crossover, they don't have the experience with it and don't know what it will do.
I quite liked LCS 2005 when I was using it, I did have the gateway functionality working well, and I used to connect in straight over the internet (Using a TLS session) without any problems.
The Office Communicator client was quite good, and the integration was great, I left before figuring out the address lists, which I think would have been of good benefit.
There is a licensing cost, but it comes later.... If you had Exchange 2000 under software subscription, you were entitled to LCS 2000. If you had Enterprise Edition of Exchange, you got LCS enterprise edition. For all the exchange clients you had you got a CAL of LCS. Once you got the CALs though then you have to pay for support on it, and you also have to pay for upgrades etc.
Federation costs money to outside parties, and more servers cost money too. Unfortunately it's still definately a cost.
The integration is very nice though, and GAIM with Jabber don't hold a candle to the integration that MS did on that, but the price of free vs what you pay for all the other stuff? Given that all the logging and everything else is also a part of Jabber, I would prefer to run Jabber.
(though I'm not sure if that actually works with Asterisk - I doubt it ;)
Asterisk is missing SIP over TCP support and TLS encryption, there is a patch for it, but it's post 1.2.
SIP is just a protocol that a lot of people implement. SIP is implemented by Polycom for phones and by a number of other companies. It handles voice quite well apparently.
Office Communicator / Messenger / Microsoft Live Communications Server is only one implementation.
As far as I am concerned, having rolled it out to a thousand and a few people, although it scales quite well, the fact that you have to pay per user per month for federation out to the other networks (AOL/ICQ, Windows Messenger, Yahoo!) I think Jabber is a much better option. It's what they run internally at HP.
I have had stereos that have lasted a long long time, but at the same time, I spend a lot of money on good components.
If I had a screw up with anything that I purchased I would be taking it back, and I know I would have another one delivered to my doorstep the next day with someone wanting to come in and hook it up for me.
At the end of the day (And I am not saying it's the consumer's fault here) but people want things cheaper and cheaper, if the company that makes it can save 2c on a single component they will, as when they bring it out they can charge that little bit less for it and it's more marketable to the general public.
I personally don't like the Intel VM chips that you find on so many motherboards these days as they hand sooo much stuff off to the CPU for handling through the driver in comparison to a more expensive card. At the end of the day it's still a case of you get what you pay for. For the people that are more willing to put in the extra dollars, they will get something that is better quality, usually with more QC.
However, the companies that make the more expensive components are still trying to save the 2c, but not as badly on their higher end parts.
Very similar experiece actually, recently I saw a job advertisement that wanted 5+ years experience with Windows 2003...
No not yet, the state has been confirmed by scientists, not the rest of the world.
It's proven. Shroedinger's cat is dead.
Why should the business model include income from online games?
I know it should be taken into consideration, all well and good, but at the same time, the people crunching the numbers in the first place should see how much money they can get (Best and worst case) and make their decision from there...
I don't think it's the publisher's fault to do this, pushing the studios in that direction is where MS is pushing, that's where they think they are going to get a lot of money from on the 360. On top of this, a lot of people are wanting to see multiplayer. Think about the target market here... Most of these people have a quite reasonable disposable income will have broadband....
If the studios don't make multiplayer games then so be it, for the amount of money, I am sure that someone along the lines has done the business models and figured it out.
I don't think this is one of those things that we really have to worry about. If someone is a moron and fails, then that's supply and demand really.
Babies live in the stomach!
Is that what it is? I thought it was a beer gut!!
Damn! Am I about to give birth to twins?!?!?!?!
but you can't have unlimited free labor AND exploit the finished program for full profit.
Not quite true, a little more clarification is required. No you can't get FULL profit from the product, but you can get more than if you just programmed it yourself.
The additional features and testing you get from having an open source product are MUCH higher than what you could get from a proprietry environment. (Well you could get it, but it would cost you the earth)
Plus you get money income from development of customisations and other things that you wouldn't necessarily get as most companies have a budget to spend, if they can get the product and it customised they would normally jump at that. Well rather than just spending all their budget on the product that does everything it needs to, but not everything they want it to.
2) What is it?
1) It's the machine that goes Ping!
2) What?
1) We don't know what it does, it just goes "Ping" every now and again and we are scared to turn it off.
Lucent / Livingston PortMaster, Cisco 5200, 5300, 3600 and a T1 line or an E1 line, dependig on country. These days you can do it on a 260 as well.
Essentially, one of the sides of the connection had to be digital, if you ran two analogue signals (Two modems) back to back, you got 36K, but they found out if that one of the sides of the connection was digital, and was essentially guaranteed to be error free, they could push the speed at which that side transmitted. Hence what the other side recieved at. Whether you actually got 56K was also extremely dependent on the quality of your line. I remember being about 200m away from the exchange on the copper run (I worked at an ISP, so we had a line run for testing) and still only getting 52K.
We used to tell customers it was just the theoretical maximum as nobody in the country at the time had a chance in hell of getting those speeds.
a generational issue...
As much as I hate to agree with Geoff here. I think he is correct in what he is saying.
I think that as people change jobs, as people retire the idealism of IPv6 will change. A lot of newer networks will adopt IPv6 (I don't run IPv4 at my house any longer, but that's just me) a lot of people, including businesses will start adopting IPv6 internally, but proxy out to IPv4. This will expand out the lifespan of IPv4.
As I posted earlier, I don't know if I will see a full deployment of IPv4 in my lifetime. However, if my kids take up IT, I think they will see the complete roll out of IPv6.
I think this debate will go on for a long time, but 100 years into the future, we won't have an option. The IPv4 screw up we will leave for our children, Between now and then though, expect some change.
At a maximum of 65,535 (roughly) which although we aren't going to hit anytime soon.
Actually supply and demand dictates that the ISPs will have enough IP address space they won't care, like 10 years ago on the internet.
The every-device-in-your-house-on-the-web mentality has a few years to tak eoff.
I think this will come when we finally get rid of low speed serial connections.
Yet again, no demand for IPv6. It is a solution looking for a problem to solve
There is a problem to solve, and that's running out of IP addresses. The diversification (I don't know if that's actually a word, but I am sticking with it) of devices will eventually make the 255 IPs that people run out of their NAT based devices run out.
Whether I will see it in my lifetime or not is another matter. Major reconfiguration needed or migrate to the protocol they invented 100 years ago for just this occasion?
Actually it's probably the large corporations who would benefit the most from IPv6. Simply because they reduce their route tables, and they no longer have address conflicts with partners who they connect to.
A large bank that I know of runs public IP address space internally to get around this exact issue.
The problem is cost and that other people aren't running it.
100 years into the future on large networks, we run into the same problem we do today. I guess the people who were / are planning this protocol are hoping that there will be an average level of intelligence above what is around today.
Now imagine that we were using IPv6 instead.
OK admittedly that would make sense somewhat for now, but at the same time, 100 years in the future, if we keep going like we are today, we will have even more of an issue in that there will be millions times more machines connected to the network we today call the internet.
Security by obscurity is not the answer, and for that matter, at the moment, Linux or Windows isn't the answer.
We have a relatively densely populated environment now, and I think this will become more so. I think that people will start to become better organised in their IP address allocations, and that densities will become higher.
At the end of the day. IPV6 isn't the answer to a security question, it's an answer to a network question. A question that at the moment, a lot of people don't want to face because they don't have to.
Its nuts, everything from 16bit to 64bit CPUs, SMP and NUMA boxes, all the way to some of the most powerful computers in the world.
Solaris / Old School Unix (Lets face it, Solaris is still pretty true to it's system V roots) hasn't been ported, admittedly it's not the "hobbiest" OS that Linux is, and therefore hasn't been ported (I was tempted to put in a YET there). But at the same time, I think Linux has filled this void very very well, the hobbiest style people are now getting supplemented by the large corporations, a number of whom are taking on the people that have been kernel hacking for a while now.
By the very nature of the supplementation by these corporations, the supported utilities are slowly coming to Linux. People don't use an OS for the kernel (Unless you are a kernel hacker) they use it for the rest of the system, the applications and everything else that sits on top.
OpenSolaris, I think although will pick up some support, I don't think will ever reach the market share that Linux has today.