I have a bunch of old systems that I need to dispose of properly. Is a pain, but I would never think of putting a monitor or a motherboard in the dump. I guess some people still dump their old auto oil in the storm drain. sigh...
but software has not kept up. I am running heavy duty processes on 5 year old gear. The VIA processors seem to be the direction to go, as they are 'about' the same CPU output as some of this old gear, but in some cases only drawing 20 watts.
Business is why the technology industry exists, not the other way around. If technology drove business then everyone would be using MACs. IE will continue to dominate because it is a Microsoft product and Microsoft delivers products that paying customers want. I speak from experience from all sides of this issue. Thanks for the reply.
So if Firefox gets 50% market share, but still adheres to standards...
they can start charging money...
or
make everyone go to freshmeat as the default home page...
or
I agree. It is good for the industry. Microsoft has already started adjusting their sales and support models to compete with RedHat and Novell. We are also pushing them to compete with open source to improve their interop. So far the developers and their managers have responded.
Explain how are you going to prove any OS crashes more than others. We have Linux, Windows, Solaris, and others. They are all stable. They are all owned by us. We paid for the software and hardware, thus we own them.
There are so many problems with what you wrote in this online article, I do not know where to begin. I will though.
You are complaining that by installing, uninstalling, and reinstalling open source, shareware, and retail software that you get mixed results as far as system performance and software reliability. Hmmm.
So you reinstall your system from scratch using a version of a operating system that is known to have remotely exploitable flaws and you get hacked as you were not using a firewall. Hmmmmmm.
You stated in your online article, 'Windows encourage users to reinstall it every once in a while, and when they do, Windows Update actively prevents users from updating their systems. ' Where to start with this statement. Microsoft wants users to reinstall their operating systems 'once in a while'... Who ever said this? The version of the Windows Update client which you are using works very well for everyone else.
'It is pretty obvious that such updates cannot work in the presence of the Windows Registry.' Another bizarre statement. Do you understand what you are talking about?
I will stop here as I need to get some work done ( I could almost go line by line ). I love reading Slashdot for stuff like this. Idealism is great, like beating up on Microsoft, but please come armed with facts and logic. This whole article is devoid of any of these pesky things.
Just because it is an available technology does not mean that it can be used. The phase "That is not a supported format or datasource" comes to mind. Or "no" is another good one, even for business partners. I have been around the block more than a few times. "No" works.
Exactly what is the problem here? It is only optional and a regular user would never use the feature.
It seems that there is a quite a few people looking for a reason to complain. Is anyone thinking out there?
Look, I use Linux, Solaris, and Windows. Guess which one pays the bills. Yes, datacenters use all kinds of flavors. We use Linux and Solaris in our datacenter. How much of the income for OS and hardware comes from that stream?.
I am sorry if you do not like my frankness, but the sad truth is that marketing is here to stay. There are some really crappy companies out there like CA that stay alive due to slick marketing. I would like to use Linux for business, but I have to use Windows for business.
I am sorry, but I will take Microsoft and it's business practices over ANY open source "product". Open source has and will always be a toy for those of use with too much time on our hands. I have experience with many flavors of companies and OSs. Some are sweet and drive fast. Some may go slower, but always get me where I am going. Cisco and Microsoft are not my best friends. They are also one of the major reasons why high tech is a player in today's economy. They market and listen to people who BUY stuff. Like my customers who pay for my services. Sorry for the rant, but I have to deal OpenSource drones all the time. They can not get jobs!
You would only really need another domain if the namespace needed to be different and/or you needed to upgrade in place a legacy domain without merging it with the parent domain. You could gain control over your OU and reset the ACLs on the OU so that only your OU administrators had access. Some things like domain admins, enterprise admins, and schema admins you would not have control over. To be honest, if you are not familar with Active Directory then hand the responsiblity of maintaining the domain controllers and the active directory databases over to a central group that will be focus on that task. Maintaining Active Directory is more like Exchange or SQL database management.
Yah, and Microsoft is going away as well. Right? Reality is that the ONLY LDAP directory out there that really is useful for Windows OS is..... Active Directory.
Sorry, but I have to say it.
DUH.
Very simply say "I believe the correct course of action is X, but if you want me to do Y; I will." We are hired to provide advice based on our experience and skill set, but also to do the bidding of the company who is paying us. Period.
If the TOC of Linux was lower than Windows, you would see many more companies going for open source than you do now. I love free software, but there is always a cost associated with something you get for 'free'. Wake me when the open source communities are interested in marketing and business models. Not a jab at open source, but that has not been the focus.
Slashdot Mirror
As Windows XP SP2 has locked down firewall by default your wish has been granted.
I have a bunch of old systems that I need to dispose of properly. Is a pain, but I would never think of putting a monitor or a motherboard in the dump. I guess some people still dump their old auto oil in the storm drain. sigh...
but software has not kept up. I am running heavy duty processes on 5 year old gear. The VIA processors seem to be the direction to go, as they are 'about' the same CPU output as some of this old gear, but in some cases only drawing 20 watts.
Business is why the technology industry exists, not the other way around. If technology drove business then everyone would be using MACs. IE will continue to dominate because it is a Microsoft product and Microsoft delivers products that paying customers want. I speak from experience from all sides of this issue. Thanks for the reply.
I have to LOL when an anti-microsoft thread is advertising microsoft products. Life is funnier than anything hollywood can come up with !!
So if Firefox gets 50% market share, but still adheres to standards... they can start charging money... or make everyone go to freshmeat as the default home page... or
I agree. It is good for the industry. Microsoft has already started adjusting their sales and support models to compete with RedHat and Novell. We are also pushing them to compete with open source to improve their interop. So far the developers and their managers have responded.
Explain how are you going to prove any OS crashes more than others. We have Linux, Windows, Solaris, and others. They are all stable. They are all owned by us. We paid for the software and hardware, thus we own them.
Cost to buy Linux is cheaper, cost to support Linux is more expensive. Simple as that.
There are so many problems with what you wrote in this online article, I do not know where to begin. I will though.
You are complaining that by installing, uninstalling, and reinstalling open source, shareware, and retail software that you get mixed results as far as system performance and software reliability. Hmmm.
So you reinstall your system from scratch using a version of a operating system that is known to have remotely exploitable flaws and you get hacked as you were not using a firewall. Hmmmmmm.
You stated in your online article, 'Windows encourage users to reinstall it every once in a while, and when they do, Windows Update actively prevents users from updating their systems. '
Where to start with this statement. Microsoft wants users to reinstall their operating systems 'once in a while'... Who ever said this? The version of the Windows Update client which you are using works very well for everyone else.
'It is pretty obvious that such updates cannot work in the presence of the Windows Registry.'
Another bizarre statement. Do you understand what you are talking about?
I will stop here as I need to get some work done ( I could almost go line by line ).
I love reading Slashdot for stuff like this. Idealism is great, like beating up on Microsoft, but please come armed with facts and logic. This whole article is devoid of any of these pesky things.
Just because it is an available technology does not mean that it can be used. The phase "That is not a supported format or datasource" comes to mind. Or "no" is another good one, even for business partners. I have been around the block more than a few times. "No" works.
Pet peev of mine, since I do work in gov't and many @&&#*!%& use Excel and Word as databases and then complain that it doesn't scale. Sorry to dump.
You are mining data from Excel and Word? For reporting? Ever heard of SQL databases? Hard to take anything you write seriously.
Exactly what is the problem here? It is only optional and a regular user would never use the feature. It seems that there is a quite a few people looking for a reason to complain. Is anyone thinking out there?
So if I gave my grandmother two identical systems; one with RedHat and one with WinXP, which one would she use?
Look, I use Linux, Solaris, and Windows. Guess which one pays the bills. Yes, datacenters use all kinds of flavors. We use Linux and Solaris in our datacenter. How much of the income for OS and hardware comes from that stream?. I am sorry if you do not like my frankness, but the sad truth is that marketing is here to stay. There are some really crappy companies out there like CA that stay alive due to slick marketing. I would like to use Linux for business, but I have to use Windows for business.
I am sorry, but I will take Microsoft and it's business practices over ANY open source "product". Open source has and will always be a toy for those of use with too much time on our hands. I have experience with many flavors of companies and OSs. Some are sweet and drive fast. Some may go slower, but always get me where I am going. Cisco and Microsoft are not my best friends. They are also one of the major reasons why high tech is a player in today's economy. They market and listen to people who BUY stuff. Like my customers who pay for my services. Sorry for the rant, but I have to deal OpenSource drones all the time. They can not get jobs!
You would only really need another domain if the namespace needed to be different and/or you needed to upgrade in place a legacy domain without merging it with the parent domain. You could gain control over your OU and reset the ACLs on the OU so that only your OU administrators had access. Some things like domain admins, enterprise admins, and schema admins you would not have control over. To be honest, if you are not familar with Active Directory then hand the responsiblity of maintaining the domain controllers and the active directory databases over to a central group that will be focus on that task. Maintaining Active Directory is more like Exchange or SQL database management.
Yah, and Microsoft is going away as well. Right? Reality is that the ONLY LDAP directory out there that really is useful for Windows OS is ..... Active Directory.
Sorry, but I have to say it.
DUH.
Very simply say "I believe the correct course of action is X, but if you want me to do Y; I will." We are hired to provide advice based on our experience and skill set, but also to do the bidding of the company who is paying us. Period.
If the TOC of Linux was lower than Windows, you would see many more companies going for open source than you do now. I love free software, but there is always a cost associated with something you get for 'free'. Wake me when the open source communities are interested in marketing and business models. Not a jab at open source, but that has not been the focus.