The most common problem is "system setting" dialogs that require root privileges, but won't actually accept any input after you do the "sudo" thing. In other words, you *can't* "sudo" for those dialogs, but you *need* to.
It doesn't happen in all dialogs, and it doesn't happen on every install of Kubuntu. But I've personally seen it on 3 different installs. It royally sucks.
That, and Kubuntu is ridiculously slow. If you've ever tried one of the other KDE-based distros, you'd be dismayed at how slow Kubuntu is.
Just wait until you encounter one of the MANY bugs with Kubuntu. I don't know what the Kubuntu guys are doing to KDE, but they managed to break it in quite a few ways.
I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that the profit to be had comes from *what you send through the wires*. Building the network is just a necessary step. If the wires were available to anybody (for a reasonable cost), then we'd see MUCH more competition in network services. Right now, the costs of bandwidth make it prohibitive for anyone but the BIGGEST players to do the really cool things.
Again, though, it doesn't seem exactly fair that ONE company has to eat the cost of building the network, which is why I think the "feds" should do it.
On the one hand, if you paid to build the network, it *is* yours, and you should get exclusive access to it. Why should your competitors get a "free ride"?
On the other hand, you don't really want a bunch of fiber running everywhere, when there's PLENTY already in the ground. Building "duplicate" networks is a waste of resources, and the construction is disruptive.
Honestly, at this point, I think that "the government" should be building the networks with tax money, and letting the various providers lease it for a reasonable price. Bandwidth/communications has really become the backbone of the modern economy in a lot of ways. It should be treated almost like the highway system. The only downside is the bureaucracy that will rise up around it all. But I think that, overall, it would be a better situation.
Second Life, the enormously popular Internet "virtual reality" world with over 60 zillion users, has PLENTY of tropical glaciers available. You can even build your own glacier, and earn REAL money selling the land to other Second Life players!
Relax. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
He wasn't insulting the intelligence of Mormons. He was just remarking on how odd it is that an employee of a *church* was so talented. And it is odd. You would expect that someone so skilled would be more likely to be working for a "tech" company.
That is such a small number of users, that you anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
You don't get spam because you don't have many users sending mail, your users are in a controlled corporate environment that (probably) keeps their machines virus/trojan/spyware free, your users probably are somewhat careful to only use their "work e-mail" for "work-related" stuff, and you have a domain that isn't very widely-known.
Try running an ISP with hundreds of thousands of users, a large percentage of which have viruses on their machines, and with a domain name that is a target of spammers (because you have so many users).
200 users is NOTHING. Until you are processing hundreds-of-thousands of messages per hour, you don't know how difficult it is to stop spam.
They are probably the only company with the cash and skills to "fix" everything that is wrong with Linux on the desktop. But they don't do it.
Why isn't IBM throwing money at the Ubuntu guys? Why isn't IBM basically bribing Adobe to port their apps to Linux? Why isn't IBM paying their software guys to write shitloads of GPLs drivers? Why aren't they writing *all kinds* Linux software to fill in the gaps that would make it better than Windows in every way?
I'm always amused by the companies that want to "beat" Microsoft, but don't seem to really TRY. If Linux is going to displace MS on the desktop, or even be a real competitor, then it's going to take BILLIONS of dollars and at least 5 years of development. IBM could do it. But they don't. Why not?
NFS is a joke. The security model is broken in version 3, and in version 4, it's a complicated mess.
Not that Samba is a lot better. But it's still better than NFS. As in, if I was networking a bunch of Linux machines together, I'd use Samba, even if I didn't have any Windows clients.
Linux in general isn't good at LAN-level networking. It's hard to manage network users, and it's hard to get permissions set correctly. It's getting better, but right now, for heavy-duty LAN stuff, Windows and Active Directory are much better and easier to deal with in almost all cases.
Oh, come on. Are you trying to tell me that if only ATI and Nvidia would open up the specs to their video cards, someone would write a FREE driver that worked better? Or even nearly as well?
They've been writing 3D drivers for almost a decade at this point. They have entire teams of guys writing the drivers. How can anyone compete with that? And why would they try?
Ubuntu doesn't include any proprietary stuff, really.
And honestly, the only "proprietary" or "closed" things that EVER get included with ANY distro are things like *decent* drivers for 3D video cards, and codecs.
The video card driver situation kind of sucks, but it's just a driver. It would be nice if there were open-source drivers that worked well, but the fact is that Nvidia and ATI are better at writing drivers for their own hardware than anyone else could ever hope to be.
The codec thing ALSO sucks, but there is nothing to do about it. If you want to keep you system "pure", then you aren't going to be watching any Quicktime or Windows Media files or DVDs.
NASA needs to cut a deal with Blizzard. Make each of the pieces of "space junk" an ultra-rare item in World of Warcraft that the players have to go and collect themselves.
Using OpenOffice is pretty much the same as using Microsoft Office. It's an easy switch, and mostly painless.
Using Ubuntu, especially *managing* Ubuntu on a large network, is VASTLY different (and harder) from doing the same thing with Windows. It would be a major undertaking for a school/district to switch to Ubuntu.
Computer and videogame magazines are almost *completely* pointless. If there are two subjects that the internet has covered, it's computers and videogames. There is literally NO information a magazine could possibly offer you that you can't get for free on the internet. Plus, you'll get it WAY before it reaches print.
They had their run. I enjoyed reading some of those mags back in the day. But I haven't bought any since about 1997.
Eh. Macs would be somewhat workable if you had a SMALL network, I guess. But on a large network, you WANT the control that Active Directory and GPOs give you.
Hers's how it works. You buy a zillion Windows machines. You create a "standard" image of Windows for these machines, and keep the image on the network, and use Ghost (or equivalent) to push images onto the client PCs. This image has everything locked down. Users can't tweak or install anything. Their "My Documents" folder is redirected to a share on the server, which gets backed up. If you need to install software on a machine, you do it with SMS, and don't even have to touch the client machines. If you want to REALLY get crazy, you give everyone a roaming profile, so any machine they login to has all their stuff. For anti-virus, you buy a Fortigate unit to block viruses and spyware at the "gateway" level.
The end. Any problems, you just re-image the machine.
Yes, it's a lot of work. But it's a one-time thing. And big networks NEED this kind of functionality. Not to mention they probably need Exchange/Outlook, too. I personally think Exchange sucks balls, but it does do a lot of neat stuff, and lots of companies use it.
As for "internet servers"...you should use Linux in almost all cases.
Macs are more expensive. A lot more expensive, when you consider you can buy a basic Windows box that is more than sufficient for most business uses for around $500.
The vast majority of "business apps", especially custom stuff, don't run on MacOS.
Macs don't have anything to really compare with Active Directory, and especially GPOs.
So...why would a business run on Macs? Unless they are a pre-press or video-production house, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, your tax money would pay for the actual LINES, but not for the service.
Just like your tax money pays for roads, but not for your car or for gasoline.
The most common problem is "system setting" dialogs that require root privileges, but won't actually accept any input after you do the "sudo" thing. In other words, you *can't* "sudo" for those dialogs, but you *need* to.
It doesn't happen in all dialogs, and it doesn't happen on every install of Kubuntu. But I've personally seen it on 3 different installs. It royally sucks.
That, and Kubuntu is ridiculously slow. If you've ever tried one of the other KDE-based distros, you'd be dismayed at how slow Kubuntu is.
Just wait until you encounter one of the MANY bugs with Kubuntu. I don't know what the Kubuntu guys are doing to KDE, but they managed to break it in quite a few ways.
I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that the profit to be had comes from *what you send through the wires*. Building the network is just a necessary step. If the wires were available to anybody (for a reasonable cost), then we'd see MUCH more competition in network services. Right now, the costs of bandwidth make it prohibitive for anyone but the BIGGEST players to do the really cool things.
Yeah, that's a good point.
Again, though, it doesn't seem exactly fair that ONE company has to eat the cost of building the network, which is why I think the "feds" should do it.
On the one hand, if you paid to build the network, it *is* yours, and you should get exclusive access to it. Why should your competitors get a "free ride"?
On the other hand, you don't really want a bunch of fiber running everywhere, when there's PLENTY already in the ground. Building "duplicate" networks is a waste of resources, and the construction is disruptive.
Honestly, at this point, I think that "the government" should be building the networks with tax money, and letting the various providers lease it for a reasonable price. Bandwidth/communications has really become the backbone of the modern economy in a lot of ways. It should be treated almost like the highway system. The only downside is the bureaucracy that will rise up around it all. But I think that, overall, it would be a better situation.
68 million pounds buys a lot of surveillance cameras.
Caching works only for content that doesn't change frequently, and for servers that don't require authentication.
It would help, obviously, but not as much as you think.
No it isn't.
Cable modems and DSL modems can both provide roughly 10Mbps of bandwidth. That a LOT.
But how many websites can simultaneously provide EVERYONE ON THE PLANET WITH AN INTERNET CONNECTION with 10Mbps download speeds? The answer is none.
Remember, information on the internet flows from a relatively small number of servers to a HUGE number of end-users.
8/10 is a *good* review. You've been reading too many IGN game reviews.
IGN scoring works like this:
5/10 - The game runs
6/10 - The game is an FPS
7/10 - The game has team-based mulitplayer online play
8/10 - The game runs at 190 frames-per-second
9/10 - The game is made by a publisher that buys advertising on IGN
10/10 - The game is made by a publisher that buys A LOT of advertising on IGN
Second Life, the enormously popular Internet "virtual reality" world with over 60 zillion users, has PLENTY of tropical glaciers available. You can even build your own glacier, and earn REAL money selling the land to other Second Life players!
Also, it's great if you are a furry.
Relax. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
He wasn't insulting the intelligence of Mormons. He was just remarking on how odd it is that an employee of a *church* was so talented. And it is odd. You would expect that someone so skilled would be more likely to be working for a "tech" company.
"...about 200 employees with mailboxes."
That is such a small number of users, that you anecdotal evidence is meaningless.
You don't get spam because you don't have many users sending mail, your users are in a controlled corporate environment that (probably) keeps their machines virus/trojan/spyware free, your users probably are somewhat careful to only use their "work e-mail" for "work-related" stuff, and you have a domain that isn't very widely-known.
Try running an ISP with hundreds of thousands of users, a large percentage of which have viruses on their machines, and with a domain name that is a target of spammers (because you have so many users).
200 users is NOTHING. Until you are processing hundreds-of-thousands of messages per hour, you don't know how difficult it is to stop spam.
Would it be possible to use all that computing power to make an electronic voting machine that works?
Oh wait! How about a voting machine based on "quantum computing"! Then we wouldn't even have to vote, the machine would already know who won.
Goddamn liberal qubits! Bunch of flip-floppers!
Stupid conservative qubits! They think that there is ONE and ONLY ONE answer for everything!
They are probably the only company with the cash and skills to "fix" everything that is wrong with Linux on the desktop. But they don't do it.
Why isn't IBM throwing money at the Ubuntu guys? Why isn't IBM basically bribing Adobe to port their apps to Linux? Why isn't IBM paying their software guys to write shitloads of GPLs drivers? Why aren't they writing *all kinds* Linux software to fill in the gaps that would make it better than Windows in every way?
I'm always amused by the companies that want to "beat" Microsoft, but don't seem to really TRY. If Linux is going to displace MS on the desktop, or even be a real competitor, then it's going to take BILLIONS of dollars and at least 5 years of development. IBM could do it. But they don't. Why not?
NFS is a joke. The security model is broken in version 3, and in version 4, it's a complicated mess. Not that Samba is a lot better. But it's still better than NFS. As in, if I was networking a bunch of Linux machines together, I'd use Samba, even if I didn't have any Windows clients.
Linux in general isn't good at LAN-level networking. It's hard to manage network users, and it's hard to get permissions set correctly. It's getting better, but right now, for heavy-duty LAN stuff, Windows and Active Directory are much better and easier to deal with in almost all cases.
Oh, come on. Are you trying to tell me that if only ATI and Nvidia would open up the specs to their video cards, someone would write a FREE driver that worked better? Or even nearly as well?
They've been writing 3D drivers for almost a decade at this point. They have entire teams of guys writing the drivers. How can anyone compete with that? And why would they try?
Ubuntu doesn't include any proprietary stuff, really.
And honestly, the only "proprietary" or "closed" things that EVER get included with ANY distro are things like *decent* drivers for 3D video cards, and codecs.
The video card driver situation kind of sucks, but it's just a driver. It would be nice if there were open-source drivers that worked well, but the fact is that Nvidia and ATI are better at writing drivers for their own hardware than anyone else could ever hope to be.
The codec thing ALSO sucks, but there is nothing to do about it. If you want to keep you system "pure", then you aren't going to be watching any Quicktime or Windows Media files or DVDs.
NASA needs to cut a deal with Blizzard. Make each of the pieces of "space junk" an ultra-rare item in World of Warcraft that the players have to go and collect themselves.
The problem will be solved in 3 months.
I guess that means that my K-Fed CD is a a CD player on a CD.
Using OpenOffice is pretty much the same as using Microsoft Office. It's an easy switch, and mostly painless.
Using Ubuntu, especially *managing* Ubuntu on a large network, is VASTLY different (and harder) from doing the same thing with Windows. It would be a major undertaking for a school/district to switch to Ubuntu.
Not really.
There is simply more money to be made on the consoles. Plus, they're easier to develop for.
I like PC games, but they aren't mainstream, and they really aren't important to the "gaming" market-at-large.
Computer and videogame magazines are almost *completely* pointless. If there are two subjects that the internet has covered, it's computers and videogames. There is literally NO information a magazine could possibly offer you that you can't get for free on the internet. Plus, you'll get it WAY before it reaches print.
They had their run. I enjoyed reading some of those mags back in the day. But I haven't bought any since about 1997.
Eh. Macs would be somewhat workable if you had a SMALL network, I guess. But on a large network, you WANT the control that Active Directory and GPOs give you.
Hers's how it works. You buy a zillion Windows machines. You create a "standard" image of Windows for these machines, and keep the image on the network, and use Ghost (or equivalent) to push images onto the client PCs. This image has everything locked down. Users can't tweak or install anything. Their "My Documents" folder is redirected to a share on the server, which gets backed up. If you need to install software on a machine, you do it with SMS, and don't even have to touch the client machines. If you want to REALLY get crazy, you give everyone a roaming profile, so any machine they login to has all their stuff. For anti-virus, you buy a Fortigate unit to block viruses and spyware at the "gateway" level.
The end. Any problems, you just re-image the machine.
Yes, it's a lot of work. But it's a one-time thing. And big networks NEED this kind of functionality. Not to mention they probably need Exchange/Outlook, too. I personally think Exchange sucks balls, but it does do a lot of neat stuff, and lots of companies use it.
As for "internet servers"...you should use Linux in almost all cases.
Macs are more expensive. A lot more expensive, when you consider you can buy a basic Windows box that is more than sufficient for most business uses for around $500.
The vast majority of "business apps", especially custom stuff, don't run on MacOS.
Macs don't have anything to really compare with Active Directory, and especially GPOs.
So...why would a business run on Macs? Unless they are a pre-press or video-production house, of course.