And not the eval? I can't stand having to burn and insert, take out, insert etc etc 4 or 5 CDs just to install an OS. Put the DVD in, set it up to install, go for coffee, come back, all done.
Re:You can get an image with the proprietary softw
on
SUSE 10.0 OSS Released
·
· Score: 1
Aside from your personal issues with Geoff Huston, don't you think he's right?
I would suggest he is correct, but I also suggest that he is stating the obvious. If it is more of a benefit to one side than the other, I would suggest that the Tier x of each side is not equal and that it's not a peer style link, and that it's transitive.
Peering points don't really address this since they generally provide a way for more regional people to interconnect and to connect to the backbone providers, but if you build an peering point and none of the big providers come, who carries stuff to the rest of the world?
Maybe it was just me, but I thought the whole point of setting up of the peering points was to get away from the transitive costs of going through a Tier 1 ISP, Level 3 or otherwise for local traffic. Then the smaller ISPs could connect to each other through a peering point (saving the cost of running 101 links all over the place) and doing small / local traffic through that. In my experience it hasn't been about redundancy, it's been about cost.
You then still have seperate (And most likely, a lot larger) internet links out to other Tier 1 ISPs who then act as a transitive for you to connect to the rest of the world.
GE have a class A if memory serves me correctly. 4.0.0.0/8
How about a few class A's?? Remember back in the early days of the internet, universities were given Class A's and I would suspect that a number of the universities still have them.
Ask anyone who has a good idea about BGP in Aus what they think about Geoff Huston and you might not want to quote him next time. I know a few people that do internet design and service provider design back in Aus, and his policies for Telstra on their BGP setup leave a lot to be desired.
I am not denying the fact that he is an intelligent man, but I would have to say that from my personal experience, meeting him at an event hosted by Optus (Funnily enough) a few years back and from what the other people I know in the area say I wouldn't be singing his praises or quoting him (Which is to his benefit really, that's why he puts out papers).
I highly doubt RR would have to change config and do a clear ip bgp * on "hundreds" of routers.
Their internal AS would handle updating a bulk of the work, I think in all honesty they would only have to change at most ~10 to get around this problem.
Anyone want to explain for those of us that don't get it?
What they are essentially saying is: "We haven't done anything. We haven't made any changes on our side" Level 3 have terminated their connection to Cogent "Without cause". Now, that's probably legal speak on Cogent's side for we haven't got the letter in triplicate yet telling us what the reason is. Or otherwise whoever put up the notification about it doesn't know.
What Cogent are trying to do is get business from Level 3 customers because Level 3 stopped the connection. Cogent is offering them connections to the Cogent network (And subsequently Cogent's customers) for a year with no fee on the amount of data they put through. That connection itself they will obviously have to pay for, but the customer can connect into (presumably) the closest of any of 1000 points across North America and Europe.
Now some people are already connected to both Cogent and Level 3. These people won't have any problems as they will be able to go direct into either ISP. These people would probably have never have used the interconnect between Cogent and Level 3 either, unless one of their connections into either Cogent or Level 3 went down.
I understand this is still rather technical, for a simpler version, take a look through the document that I linked to.
I wasn't under that impression, and I hope the readers of my comment weren't either. Thanks for the point though.
I was reading up on PostgreSQL.com site before my previous post, and the PostgreSQL organisation doesn't exactly seem that big. It was just that the grandparent poster referred to the purchase of PostgreSQL and I took his / her point to mean PostgreSQL Inc.
I understand and it was mentioned in another post that apparently (I haven't checked this one) PostgreSQL is under a BSD license. If this is correct, then it would be impossible for PostgreSQL Inc to own the project or the code.
It could be that Sun is eyeing off one of the other companies that writes for / supports PostgreSQL, only time will tell on that one, but it could be cheaper and easier to set up another dept and just hire developers. (That's what I would do anyway, but that's with no homework)
I do find it interesting that Telstra is a Sun software customer
Telstra are also a big Microsoft customer and also a big Linux user. They use IBM GSA extensively too. What's your point?
I know one guy who worked on an implementation of part of the Telstra Mobile billing system for IBM GSA as Telstra found out that they weren't cathing the milliseconds to seconds in cell switch time and therefore billing users for it.
This just like the comment in the article is just padding. It doesn't really add anything to the post.
IBM has DB2, Microsoft has Microsoft SQL Server, Sun has.... Oracle? No....
I doubt very highly that Sun would buy PostgreSQL Inc, they would partner with them and do some code development of PostgreSQL to get it to the level where it can definately compete head on with Oracle (Although Oracle do have a lot of other software that at present Sun doesn't have) and MS SQL and DB2. The thing they would be best off doing (And probably will do) would be to go out and hire key developers of PostgreSQL to try to prioritize more the requirements that they are after.
Microsoft Foundation Classes a way of getting events, drawing dialog boxes that sorta shit. Yes I know what it is, I have been a sysadmin for the past 10 years, you sorta pick up a couple of things along the way. Sorry that I put that badly. They included ways to use MFC and GDI directly from java if memory serves me correctly. Basically they were extending the JVM, which although was allowed, they were doing it in the java.* area which they weren't allowed to do.
They also used the Java trademark without permission (They used the steaming cup logo in IE 4 although it wasn't Java compliant)
so Sun won the lawsuit and got an injunction that prevented MS from distributing future versions
Microsoft also got told by the court that they had to fix the JVM that they stopped shipping and then start shipping it for two months till their agreement expired.
Sun prevented Java from gaining a significant foothold on Windows
I think Sun could have done better at trying to convince developers not to use MS extensions and to write once run anywhere code. The fact that Microsoft were including GDI and MFC code in their JDK and not other sections of code (Which were supposed to be in there such as JNI and RMI) didn't help the situation. Namely because developers could use the MS extentions thinking that they were part of the Java standard.
As far as I can see with the amount of apps that were around at the time that didn't work because of different versions of Java this seemed to work pretty well.
I want to throw a "Hear Hear!" in for RedHat, simply because they don't deny community contributions either.
I am working with Fedora Directory Service, and they are very interested in what I am doing. They bought this software for how much? (It was less than $25 mil, but still a good chunk of change) and they are releasing to the community. Microsoft of not, they aren't alienating their customers. They are going to release the certificate server shortly too.
Sorry, but I don't exactly think they could turn into another Microsoft. The GPL denies them that ability. All their money they are making comes from selling RedHat Enterprise Linux and from selling services. They are doing well at it too. They have done so much for the community for so long, how can this be a bad thing?
I know people who run Dual Xeon with 4GB of RAM for Exchange servers (Namely because they have 400+ users on them) and Exchange to this day can't use more than 4GB of RAM (Damned 32 bit apps with no PAE!)
If the Zimbra suite is designed to be run on the same scale hardware as Exchange, then maybe that's why it was running slow..
One of the biggest reasons that I can see for using Sendmail as your MTA and a *nix based system is programming using procmail. Yes Exchange does have the Exchange event system, but it's no where near as simple to program as using procmail.
I had a customer previously that we changed their business over to Linux, we gave them an "Exchange replacement" admittedly it wasn't as feature rich, but in a business of less than 100 employees, they weren't using a lot of the functionality anyway.
What they were getting though was a lot of orders that had to be processed manually. These orders were coming in via email in a standard format. We got the emails PGP / GPG signed before they left (That was a pain in the arse to do, but as soon as we told them what we were doing they all of a sudden pulled their finger out and played ball) pulled apart the messages and lodged all the orders automatically into their database. Immediately that kicked off a trigger, and the database went through and processed all the information we dropped in. This meant that not only did we free up resources in finance to get payments done quicker (Mine included!) it meant that their customers were recieving goods a day or so faster.
Now this would have been possible to do under Exchange, but it would have taken a lot longer to program and the system itself doesn't really lend itself to this type of work so easily.
Now if you are front ending Exchange with Sendmail, yes this is still possible, but at the same time it's not as clean a solution as running everything under *nix. We did this setup a couple of years ago, we gave the customer the documentation and another contractor has re-implemented the same solution for them on newer hardware. They are still running it to this day. Now, if they grow any more and NEED Exchange they can still do that, but at the same time, from the owners there who I still know, they think it's still the best thing for their business and it's given them an edge over their competition that the others still haven't picked up on yet.
My experience with Maximizer is that it's not worth the hassles associated with it.
Any other solution, a paper folder on a desk with a bunch of business cards in it is better than maximizer.
We had stability problems, issues getting support and the UI was not very intuitive at all...
Overall, it was decided that the old system was better and that they would go back after god knows how much money they spent on training and everything else.
Overall if you do it right, the chances are actually that you will not only end up with a more robust system than what Exchange is. Especially if you buy it soon, you have the ability to go 64bit on your servers before Microsoft do! This means that you can run one server instead of 4 or 4000 (Depending really on the size of the organisation that you look after)
This interface looks like it will join onto anything. If you like it, it might even join onto OpenExchange.
Just to throw one more thing in, I have found that smaller organisations are a lot better to work for. Companies that are about 400 people in size (This is an average, I have found this in companies that are 2500 people, but that's rare) are very flexible, while still having the mass that you can walk away from work for a couple of days to a couple of weeks without there being complete hell to pay when you get back.
A lot larger organisations seem to pigeon hole you more and if you find having the flexability in your working environment makes you happier then this would be something to look into as well.
Answer to your question
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Is it really better working for a company that cares about your satisfaction? Are there any companies like that and (more importantly) are they hiring?
Yes, yes, and just to add it another time for good measure YES!
Job satisfaction is a huge one on my priority list, it should be on your employers list, but most of the time it won't be. It's a shame that it works this way, but that's life I guess. I am self motivated normally because what I do the people who I work for can see the benefits of what I am trying to do. I also have a very good working relationship with them so if I need money for budgets or someone out of my way to do things, it's all very easy to organise. This means when I have to work two or three weeks straight and pull 12 - 14 hours days for that period I know that taking time off afterwards to see family / friends won't even be questioned. Anything else that I need during that time will also be taken care of without question too.
It all comes down to the person / people who you report to, some people just aren't adept at keeping people happy by doing all those little things that keep staff. Most of the time, it's usually other members who care more and make your boss do things. I know that I bought a lot of alcohol (Bottles of wine, champagne) pens and other small gifts for staff. I managed to get one of our staff members sent away to a resort with one of her friends for a weekend away after finishing a project.
A lot of the time I find it's all about the relationship you have with the people that you report to, if you can see them as friends and they respect you for what you are doing, then all problems seem to fade away. If you are consistently not seeing eye-to-eye on things, I would definitely move somewhere else.
Just to let you know as well, from having managed teams before, and people that have been unhappy and going to leave, the company policy before was just to give them a pay rise and that would make them stay. Only problem with that is none of the issues about WHY that person is unhappy have been resolved. In two or three months they will want to leave again. Usually it comes down to job appreciation and giving them challenges to keep them thinking. If you do this I have seen people work for a lot less because they actually enjoy their work. When people are happy it's very very easy to correlate between their performance at work as well.
Employers like this do exist, but it's just a case of finding them. I would find out what makes you happy and ask questions about this in your interviews to see if the company that you could be working for is really what you are after.
I was under the impression that it was the opposite way around, that they paid off enough people that when the government changed (and therefore the DOJ) that they got what they did.
The previous comment was a tongue in cheek comment too. I think they will eventually sink under their own weight and that splitting them up would have done them some good.
Slashdot Mirror
And not the eval? I can't stand having to burn and insert, take out, insert etc etc 4 or 5 CDs just to install an OS. Put the DVD in, set it up to install, go for coffee, come back, all done.
Isn't this an expiring eval?
I have a Sony DVD player that I bought in Australia, and that is region free too.
It's essentially illegal to sell a region specific DVD player in Australia.
Aside from your personal issues with Geoff Huston, don't you think he's right?
I would suggest he is correct, but I also suggest that he is stating the obvious. If it is more of a benefit to one side than the other, I would suggest that the Tier x of each side is not equal and that it's not a peer style link, and that it's transitive.
Peering points don't really address this since they generally provide a way for more regional people to interconnect and to connect to the backbone providers, but if you build an peering point and none of the big providers come, who carries stuff to the rest of the world?
Maybe it was just me, but I thought the whole point of setting up of the peering points was to get away from the transitive costs of going through a Tier 1 ISP, Level 3 or otherwise for local traffic. Then the smaller ISPs could connect to each other through a peering point (saving the cost of running 101 links all over the place) and doing small / local traffic through that. In my experience it hasn't been about redundancy, it's been about cost.
You then still have seperate (And most likely, a lot larger) internet links out to other Tier 1 ISPs who then act as a transitive for you to connect to the rest of the world.
Where are your multiple links and aren't you advertising your own AS?
Isn't there another transitive ISP who connects to Cogent?
GE have a class A if memory serves me correctly. 4.0.0.0/8
How about a few class A's?? Remember back in the early days of the internet, universities were given Class A's and I would suspect that a number of the universities still have them.
Ask anyone who has a good idea about BGP in Aus what they think about Geoff Huston and you might not want to quote him next time. I know a few people that do internet design and service provider design back in Aus, and his policies for Telstra on their BGP setup leave a lot to be desired.
I am not denying the fact that he is an intelligent man, but I would have to say that from my personal experience, meeting him at an event hosted by Optus (Funnily enough) a few years back and from what the other people I know in the area say I wouldn't be singing his praises or quoting him (Which is to his benefit really, that's why he puts out papers).
I highly doubt RR would have to change config and do a clear ip bgp * on "hundreds" of routers.
Their internal AS would handle updating a bulk of the work, I think in all honesty they would only have to change at most ~10 to get around this problem.
Anyone want to explain for those of us that don't get it?
What they are essentially saying is: "We haven't done anything. We haven't made any changes on our side" Level 3 have terminated their connection to Cogent "Without cause". Now, that's probably legal speak on Cogent's side for we haven't got the letter in triplicate yet telling us what the reason is. Or otherwise whoever put up the notification about it doesn't know.
Now, Cogent may have tried to change the peering arrangement, or Level 3 may have too, one side probably didn't agree, or otherwise an agreement ran out and the switch got flipped. This has happened previously with Cogent in their peering arrangement with AOL.
What Cogent are trying to do is get business from Level 3 customers because Level 3 stopped the connection. Cogent is offering them connections to the Cogent network (And subsequently Cogent's customers) for a year with no fee on the amount of data they put through. That connection itself they will obviously have to pay for, but the customer can connect into (presumably) the closest of any of 1000 points across North America and Europe.
Now some people are already connected to both Cogent and Level 3. These people won't have any problems as they will be able to go direct into either ISP. These people would probably have never have used the interconnect between Cogent and Level 3 either, unless one of their connections into either Cogent or Level 3 went down.
I understand this is still rather technical, for a simpler version, take a look through the document that I linked to.
I wasn't under that impression, and I hope the readers of my comment weren't either. Thanks for the point though.
I was reading up on PostgreSQL.com site before my previous post, and the PostgreSQL organisation doesn't exactly seem that big. It was just that the grandparent poster referred to the purchase of PostgreSQL and I took his / her point to mean PostgreSQL Inc.
I understand and it was mentioned in another post that apparently (I haven't checked this one) PostgreSQL is under a BSD license. If this is correct, then it would be impossible for PostgreSQL Inc to own the project or the code.
It could be that Sun is eyeing off one of the other companies that writes for / supports PostgreSQL, only time will tell on that one, but it could be cheaper and easier to set up another dept and just hire developers. (That's what I would do anyway, but that's with no homework)
I do find it interesting that Telstra is a Sun software customer
Telstra are also a big Microsoft customer and also a big Linux user. They use IBM GSA extensively too. What's your point?
I know one guy who worked on an implementation of part of the Telstra Mobile billing system for IBM GSA as Telstra found out that they weren't cathing the milliseconds to seconds in cell switch time and therefore billing users for it.
This just like the comment in the article is just padding. It doesn't really add anything to the post.
IBM has DB2, Microsoft has Microsoft SQL Server, Sun has.... Oracle? No....
I doubt very highly that Sun would buy PostgreSQL Inc, they would partner with them and do some code development of PostgreSQL to get it to the level where it can definately compete head on with Oracle (Although Oracle do have a lot of other software that at present Sun doesn't have) and MS SQL and DB2. The thing they would be best off doing (And probably will do) would be to go out and hire key developers of PostgreSQL to try to prioritize more the requirements that they are after.
There's a good question, when are they next doing a tour of London?
Microsoft Foundation Classes a way of getting events, drawing dialog boxes that sorta shit. Yes I know what it is, I have been a sysadmin for the past 10 years, you sorta pick up a couple of things along the way. Sorry that I put that badly. They included ways to use MFC and GDI directly from java if memory serves me correctly. Basically they were extending the JVM, which although was allowed, they were doing it in the java.* area which they weren't allowed to do.
They also used the Java trademark without permission (They used the steaming cup logo in IE 4 although it wasn't Java compliant)
so Sun won the lawsuit and got an injunction that prevented MS from distributing future versions
Microsoft also got told by the court that they had to fix the JVM that they stopped shipping and then start shipping it for two months till their agreement expired.
Sun prevented Java from gaining a significant foothold on Windows
I think Sun could have done better at trying to convince developers not to use MS extensions and to write once run anywhere code. The fact that Microsoft were including GDI and MFC code in their JDK and not other sections of code (Which were supposed to be in there such as JNI and RMI) didn't help the situation. Namely because developers could use the MS extentions thinking that they were part of the Java standard.
As far as I can see with the amount of apps that were around at the time that didn't work because of different versions of Java this seemed to work pretty well.
It means that the machine that you are using gets filled with worms and junk but the server you are connecting to doesn't.
I want to throw a "Hear Hear!" in for RedHat, simply because they don't deny community contributions either.
I am working with Fedora Directory Service, and they are very interested in what I am doing. They bought this software for how much? (It was less than $25 mil, but still a good chunk of change) and they are releasing to the community. Microsoft of not, they aren't alienating their customers. They are going to release the certificate server shortly too.
Sorry, but I don't exactly think they could turn into another Microsoft. The GPL denies them that ability. All their money they are making comes from selling RedHat Enterprise Linux and from selling services. They are doing well at it too. They have done so much for the community for so long, how can this be a bad thing?
What did you run it up on? What hardware?
I know people who run Dual Xeon with 4GB of RAM for Exchange servers (Namely because they have 400+ users on them) and Exchange to this day can't use more than 4GB of RAM (Damned 32 bit apps with no PAE!)
If the Zimbra suite is designed to be run on the same scale hardware as Exchange, then maybe that's why it was running slow..
One of the biggest reasons that I can see for using Sendmail as your MTA and a *nix based system is programming using procmail. Yes Exchange does have the Exchange event system, but it's no where near as simple to program as using procmail.
I had a customer previously that we changed their business over to Linux, we gave them an "Exchange replacement" admittedly it wasn't as feature rich, but in a business of less than 100 employees, they weren't using a lot of the functionality anyway.
What they were getting though was a lot of orders that had to be processed manually. These orders were coming in via email in a standard format. We got the emails PGP / GPG signed before they left (That was a pain in the arse to do, but as soon as we told them what we were doing they all of a sudden pulled their finger out and played ball) pulled apart the messages and lodged all the orders automatically into their database. Immediately that kicked off a trigger, and the database went through and processed all the information we dropped in. This meant that not only did we free up resources in finance to get payments done quicker (Mine included!) it meant that their customers were recieving goods a day or so faster.
Now this would have been possible to do under Exchange, but it would have taken a lot longer to program and the system itself doesn't really lend itself to this type of work so easily.
Now if you are front ending Exchange with Sendmail, yes this is still possible, but at the same time it's not as clean a solution as running everything under *nix. We did this setup a couple of years ago, we gave the customer the documentation and another contractor has re-implemented the same solution for them on newer hardware. They are still running it to this day. Now, if they grow any more and NEED Exchange they can still do that, but at the same time, from the owners there who I still know, they think it's still the best thing for their business and it's given them an edge over their competition that the others still haven't picked up on yet.
My experience with Maximizer is that it's not worth the hassles associated with it.
...
Any other solution, a paper folder on a desk with a bunch of business cards in it is better than maximizer.
We had stability problems, issues getting support and the UI was not very intuitive at all
Overall, it was decided that the old system was better and that they would go back after god knows how much money they spent on training and everything else.
It takes a little bit of effort to get setup initially, but yes it is possible.
Public Folder functionality can be replaced with this:
Open Exchange Outlook Client
Outlook will publish a summary of it's free busy data to the internet as opposed to publishing it to an exchange public folder:
Outlook free / busy information for Outlook 2003
Overall if you do it right, the chances are actually that you will not only end up with a more robust system than what Exchange is. Especially if you buy it soon, you have the ability to go 64bit on your servers before Microsoft do! This means that you can run one server instead of 4 or 4000 (Depending really on the size of the organisation that you look after)
This interface looks like it will join onto anything. If you like it, it might even join onto OpenExchange.
Berny
Just to throw one more thing in, I have found that smaller organisations are a lot better to work for. Companies that are about 400 people in size (This is an average, I have found this in companies that are 2500 people, but that's rare) are very flexible, while still having the mass that you can walk away from work for a couple of days to a couple of weeks without there being complete hell to pay when you get back.
A lot larger organisations seem to pigeon hole you more and if you find having the flexability in your working environment makes you happier then this would be something to look into as well.
Is it really better working for a company that cares about your satisfaction? Are there any companies like that and (more importantly) are they hiring?
Yes, yes, and just to add it another time for good measure YES!
Job satisfaction is a huge one on my priority list, it should be on your employers list, but most of the time it won't be. It's a shame that it works this way, but that's life I guess. I am self motivated normally because what I do the people who I work for can see the benefits of what I am trying to do. I also have a very good working relationship with them so if I need money for budgets or someone out of my way to do things, it's all very easy to organise. This means when I have to work two or three weeks straight and pull 12 - 14 hours days for that period I know that taking time off afterwards to see family / friends won't even be questioned. Anything else that I need during that time will also be taken care of without question too.
It all comes down to the person / people who you report to, some people just aren't adept at keeping people happy by doing all those little things that keep staff. Most of the time, it's usually other members who care more and make your boss do things. I know that I bought a lot of alcohol (Bottles of wine, champagne) pens and other small gifts for staff. I managed to get one of our staff members sent away to a resort with one of her friends for a weekend away after finishing a project.
A lot of the time I find it's all about the relationship you have with the people that you report to, if you can see them as friends and they respect you for what you are doing, then all problems seem to fade away. If you are consistently not seeing eye-to-eye on things, I would definitely move somewhere else.
Just to let you know as well, from having managed teams before, and people that have been unhappy and going to leave, the company policy before was just to give them a pay rise and that would make them stay. Only problem with that is none of the issues about WHY that person is unhappy have been resolved. In two or three months they will want to leave again. Usually it comes down to job appreciation and giving them challenges to keep them thinking. If you do this I have seen people work for a lot less because they actually enjoy their work. When people are happy it's very very easy to correlate between their performance at work as well.
Employers like this do exist, but it's just a case of finding them. I would find out what makes you happy and ask questions about this in your interviews to see if the company that you could be working for is really what you are after.
Nothing to see here.. Move along.
I was under the impression that it was the opposite way around, that they paid off enough people that when the government changed (and therefore the DOJ) that they got what they did.
The previous comment was a tongue in cheek comment too. I think they will eventually sink under their own weight and that splitting them up would have done them some good.