We're in the middle of an absolute bloodbath in the domestic technology (PCs, mobile phones, laptops) industry, and it seems the only companies that are avoiding this are those that don't harp on about their product having the Latest Super Intel Core MegaChip, instead focusing on emotion...
Interesting that this is also a viable explanation. From my point of view, we are in a bloodbath in the technology industry because nearly all the players turned up into lemmon sellers, and the consumers reacted by buying only the brands they learned to trust.
At least, that's the rationale I got out of every people that talked to me about buying a phone, a laptop or a tablet recently. People are not that concerned about the quality of their desktops because they can always replace a broken part, but the branding of desktop parts is also getting stronger.
There is still a huge portifolio of hardware problems that may get you at reboot time. Doing reboots in a controled manner is still the best way to catch those bugs before they turn into a real problem.
It's completely unlike DOS, since DOS didn't do a full-text search on all app names.
You are right. It's like UNIX, but not as good as it.
In Start menu/screen (not just Win8 - the feature has been there since Vista), you can type things like "resolution", and it will automatically find the control panel item that lets you adjust that.
You have to take off your IT hat and think about it from a business perspective.
I lost my IT hat a few years ago. Altough nowadays I'm kind of back on IT, that hat still don't fit.
A cost center like IT is a nightmare from an accounting perspective...
The division of activities in cost centers and revenue centers is bullshit. If you have an activity that won't improve your botton line (risks included), you just stop doing it. If you are doing it and claiming that it doesn't either increase revenues or reduce costs, you are either stupid or lying.
Also, accounting perspective is miopic. That's why accounting is a department, not a C-level position.
But enough with introductoy material. Let's get to the cloud.
You are now facing a $180/month bill for a 3-site redundant infrastructure that gives a 99.9% uptime SLA (that's Azure, other may vary) that is absolutely not dependant on the local staff vacation schedule.
Of course, that's not all. Otherwise all that conversation about changing providers wouldn't have happened. But, yes, that's all an acountant would see.
So the total for a full cloud scenario with unlimited email and no need for hardware/backup/maintenance/monitoring is around $40k/year. At Company C their current IT staff alone cost them about 10-15 times that;
And how much will it cost if their cloud provider simply took their data offline and closed doors? Yes, keeping your services on site is more expensive (and needs a bigger up-front investiment) than using the cloud, except when something happens. And something always happens.
As for SLAs: when you have a 15-person staff, with vacation, sick days and variable skill set you cannot expect to have the same availability as a well-staffed, established cloud provider. Volume speaks.
What, you can't schedule 15 people so they'll be able to keep the basics working at all times? I'd agree if you said 3... 4 would be really pushing it, but 15!?
All your examples have a lot to lose, and too little to gain from relying on the cloud.
The cloud is a great fit for for Company D, that is a sole founder that sells services for companies A, B and C. It needs some web presence, so clients will find it, but surely can't afford even to own its own servers (won't even think about owning a HA setup).
If you are not able to change providers* with a few days notice, the cloud is not a safe place for you. There is nothing to arguee about that, just stay out of it.
But you are wrong. It may be still cheaper than doing it yourself, depending on your size. That's the point.
* Without any kind of support from your current provider.
In a few days you should be somewhere else already, even if it is an expensive short term contract. (Of course, that if it is cheaper than just acepting the new contract, to cancel it later.)
for your convenience here is an overview of the main database cloud offerings:
So, if you don't like any of those options, you don't go to a mainstream option! What a surprize, there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of companies providing database access, there must be one that fits your requirements.
But, why are you looking for database offerings again? If you are small, a VPS or a rented server will probably fit your needs better. If you are big, there is no excuse from taking care of your own data.
Your timing is wrong. The correct ordering is the following:
1 - Oracle offers your a new contract. 2 - You deploy your code at a new provider and switch to it. 3 - You say "no" to Oracle's contract.
Or, if you have no other option, but reply to Oracle at the same moment they ask, you suffer a loss while you change providers, and cancel the contract at the first opportunity.
If you are too cheap to have a datacenter (not a derrogatory term mind you, it may just mean that you are small), you create (and test, often) a fast exit from the cloud provider. You should have the phone of your provider's competitors in hand and you must have a copy of your data at your own hands at all times. Also, you should not use proprietary APIs.
Of course, nobody using Oracle's cloud service will have an exit plan. Oracle selects those people as their clients when they make their APIs proprietary... Well, all I can say is that if you are too stupid to make yourself hostage of a corporation, you'll get what you deserve.
I don't get that. If the task is not compute-intensive, why do you want so many cores?
You solve disk throughput by offloading the disks at specialized servers (SAN), and you solve memory throughput by having more servers... And then, you can only increase density and memory throughput at the same time if you go with a custom server design, and less cores here equals to less power and thus more density.
...but I think to most it was just about having a computer for light work at all.
I've asked it around a bit (hell, I ask all kinds of strange questions around!) Most people aware enough to know what their procesor is and not technical enough to know what it means won't ever touch it again.
But then, you've just excluded everybody that'll buy a server in "people watching the battle of AMD vs Intel".
All big browsers will let you collect mouse heatmaps. The problem is that IE will let you collect heatmaps of whatever is on the screen, not just your page.
Now, why would analytics companies care about heatmaps of anything besides their own sites?
Well, TightVNC has a reasonable reason to do that, I'd bet all VNC servers and the Remote Desktop do that. Funny thing is that on Linux, TightVNC must create a new X-client for plugging into that kind of data, thus I think that X won't let you capture any click you want.
Every browser will let you track clicks ON THE PAGE YOUR SCRIPT IS RUNNING. Only IE will let you track clicks on other pages, or in places completely outside the browser Window.
(By the way, can an application track clicks outside of its window on X?)
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting that this is also a viable explanation. From my point of view, we are in a bloodbath in the technology industry because nearly all the players turned up into lemmon sellers, and the consumers reacted by buying only the brands they learned to trust.
At least, that's the rationale I got out of every people that talked to me about buying a phone, a laptop or a tablet recently. People are not that concerned about the quality of their desktops because they can always replace a broken part, but the branding of desktop parts is also getting stronger.
There is still a huge portifolio of hardware problems that may get you at reboot time. Doing reboots in a controled manner is still the best way to catch those bugs before they turn into a real problem.
You are right. It's like UNIX, but not as good as it.
So, just like apropos, but not as good as it.
As a matter of fact, most people just can't stick with XP. Not after they get new computers.
If they could, lots of them would. (But I'm certain an amount of them would prefer 7.)
I lost my IT hat a few years ago. Altough nowadays I'm kind of back on IT, that hat still don't fit.
The division of activities in cost centers and revenue centers is bullshit. If you have an activity that won't improve your botton line (risks included), you just stop doing it. If you are doing it and claiming that it doesn't either increase revenues or reduce costs, you are either stupid or lying.
Also, accounting perspective is miopic. That's why accounting is a department, not a C-level position.
But enough with introductoy material. Let's get to the cloud.
Of course, that's not all. Otherwise all that conversation about changing providers wouldn't have happened. But, yes, that's all an acountant would see.
And how much will it cost if their cloud provider simply took their data offline and closed doors? Yes, keeping your services on site is more expensive (and needs a bigger up-front investiment) than using the cloud, except when something happens. And something always happens.
What, you can't schedule 15 people so they'll be able to keep the basics working at all times? I'd agree if you said 3... 4 would be really pushing it, but 15!?
All your examples have a lot to lose, and too little to gain from relying on the cloud.
The cloud is a great fit for for Company D, that is a sole founder that sells services for companies A, B and C. It needs some web presence, so clients will find it, but surely can't afford even to own its own servers (won't even think about owning a HA setup).
If you are not able to change providers* with a few days notice, the cloud is not a safe place for you. There is nothing to arguee about that, just stay out of it.
But you are wrong. It may be still cheaper than doing it yourself, depending on your size. That's the point.
* Without any kind of support from your current provider.
In a few days you should be somewhere else already, even if it is an expensive short term contract. (Of course, that if it is cheaper than just acepting the new contract, to cancel it later.)
So, if you don't like any of those options, you don't go to a mainstream option! What a surprize, there are hundreds (maybe thousands) of companies providing database access, there must be one that fits your requirements.
But, why are you looking for database offerings again? If you are small, a VPS or a rented server will probably fit your needs better. If you are big, there is no excuse from taking care of your own data.
Your timing is wrong. The correct ordering is the following:
1 - Oracle offers your a new contract.
2 - You deploy your code at a new provider and switch to it.
3 - You say "no" to Oracle's contract.
Or, if you have no other option, but reply to Oracle at the same moment they ask, you suffer a loss while you change providers, and cancel the contract at the first opportunity.
If you are too cheap to have a datacenter (not a derrogatory term mind you, it may just mean that you are small), you create (and test, often) a fast exit from the cloud provider. You should have the phone of your provider's competitors in hand and you must have a copy of your data at your own hands at all times. Also, you should not use proprietary APIs.
Of course, nobody using Oracle's cloud service will have an exit plan. Oracle selects those people as their clients when they make their APIs proprietary... Well, all I can say is that if you are too stupid to make yourself hostage of a corporation, you'll get what you deserve.
One of them is lightheaded...
They are doing this because they want. No problem with that.
Why are people talking about this like if it was news? Or, in other words, why is it on /.?
No, you can't. You can't put sanitization in the database. All the database sees is a query, it can't know if the arguments are right.
Not only that, what is the difference - security wise - of those two:
execute_query("EXISTS(SELECT * FROM users WHERE login = " + login " AND pass = " + pass_hash + ")")
execute_query("SELECT sp_authenticate(" + login + ", " + pass + ")")
I don't get that. If the task is not compute-intensive, why do you want so many cores?
You solve disk throughput by offloading the disks at specialized servers (SAN), and you solve memory throughput by having more servers... And then, you can only increase density and memory throughput at the same time if you go with a custom server design, and less cores here equals to less power and thus more density.
Because AMD desktops come with the functionality, but lots of Intel servers don't.
I've asked it around a bit (hell, I ask all kinds of strange questions around!) Most people aware enough to know what their procesor is and not technical enough to know what it means won't ever touch it again.
But then, you've just excluded everybody that'll buy a server in "people watching the battle of AMD vs Intel".
This specific one can't rotate. But yes, it'll be great for dividing into a lot of files once somebody comes up with one that rotates.
Xerox also had a system that did that. Apple licensed the technology, so you'll start to see it everywhere any moment now.
All big browsers will let you collect mouse heatmaps. The problem is that IE will let you collect heatmaps of whatever is on the screen, not just your page.
Now, why would analytics companies care about heatmaps of anything besides their own sites?
Well, TightVNC has a reasonable reason to do that, I'd bet all VNC servers and the Remote Desktop do that. Funny thing is that on Linux, TightVNC must create a new X-client for plugging into that kind of data, thus I think that X won't let you capture any click you want.
But then, how do X-eyes run?
Every browser will let you track clicks ON THE PAGE YOUR SCRIPT IS RUNNING. Only IE will let you track clicks on other pages, or in places completely outside the browser Window.
(By the way, can an application track clicks outside of its window on X?)
It does solve the problem for everybody. Except for those 12 people that brought Surfaces.
If I understaood it correctly, some stars are expected to be older than their galaxies.