Hey, let's admit that Microsoft did a good thing with NTFS. Before I get roasted, let me say I've been working with FAT, NTFS, EXT2/3, Reiser, and others over the last 12 years, and I've had a chance to get a view of reliability, ease of recovery, etc., with several of these in production environments. I think the NTFS permissions model is one that the Linux world would welcome over the old and, I think, inadequate U-G-O scheme we continue to tolerate.
You know, how you design office space should be dictated by the kind of work you do in the space. For instance, people who have to meet with people and discuss sensitive issues either need a real office with a real door, or they need a place where they can go for that kind of privacy. What I've seen is that, if people need privacy, they need an office. On the other hand, if much of the work you do is "collaborative," then nice-quality cubes that allow for some "prairie dogging" and hollering are not inappropriate. When I worked as a news reporter twenty years ago, we had nice, insulated, fabric-covered cubes with mixed fluorescent/incandescent lighting, adequate space, plenty of drawers, etc., and, even though I could hear everything going on in the newsroom, I was able to concentrate on what I was doing. So, the main thing I would say is: give people enough space that they don't hit their elbows when they spin around in their chairs, and give them a light source that they control. Make surfaces soft to absorb harsh sounds, and carpet the floor. Give people a break room with a fridge, a good coffee maker, a stovetop and TWO microwave ovens. And, of course, there must be at least two network ports per cube/office, and lots of electrical outlets. Colors are a personal thing, but medium blue and grey seem to wear well over the long haul for many people.
Re:Why is RHEL 3.0 "junk"???
on
SATA vs ATA?
·
· Score: 1
Yeah - - my thoughts, too. I just get tired of hearing people labeling the work of talented developers as "junk." Especially when the people being criticized have made many contributions to OSS, and the ones hurling the insults just have their panties in a wad because they couldn't get their ripped-off MP3s to play, or their porn viewer did not have the right codecs installed by default. I suspect most people who so flippantly disparage the work of others have never written a piece of software for public consumption.
Why is RHEL 3.0 "junk"???
on
SATA vs ATA?
·
· Score: 1
I've played with many a distribution over the last ten years, and when it came time to choose a web and file platform at work, RHEL was the best value in my opinion. I pay for one update subscription and feed all my other RHEL installations from that. I'm sincerely curious as to how the product has disappointed you. I find it to be rock solid and well tuned. And, no, I have no affiliation with RedHat other than my single subscription, for which we paid full freight.
I'm with you, Captain. I still have a number of PII-450 servers (Proliant 1600), some of them dualies, that are as reliable as the sunrise and not coming anywhere close to bogging down on CPU utilization. And they're doing lots of work for us, too. I went recently to eBay and picked up some new power supplies and case fans for these units. I found those, and some hot-swap drives, too, at prices so low it was almost embarassing. I have a feeling these babies are going to keep producing for us for a long time. Recently, an NT4 Proliant became a RHEL 3.0 webserver. We gave it a new PS, a new case fan, and a full load of memory, and it's just cranking away for us. Gotta love it.
. . . you are in management and do hiring and firing. Here's the truth of the matter: if you came up through the ranks - - and I did, starting with PC support - - then, by the time you're the one making choices about who joins your team, you know how to do the interview. You make the candidate write something to make sure he can spell and put a sentence together. You talk to him for a little while to make reasonably certain he is not schizoid. You have the criminal background check done to make sure he isn't a fugitive. And then, you give him a practical interview with maybe 20 tasks to perform on a workstation and/or server. These tasks range from the obvious to the arcane. If things look good after the practical interview, you have a serious chat about how he got his education and where he wants to go with it. The words "self taught" always ring loudly. Certs may enter in to such a conversation, but, from what I've seen, the hungry guys and gals who love computing have a glow to them that the money grubbers just can't fake. This is how it has been for me, and I have hired only one disaster (drug problem) so far. I'd be curious as to whether other IT managers would share this point of view.
My god, this is pathetic. This non-event is like, say, the announcement that Britney Spears is coming to town, with the Spice Girls opening. Do you REALLY want your friends to know you were there? Or are your friends, in fact, WITH YOU WHEN YOU GO? Man, I've aged out . . . .
When you can encourage consumers to compare your product with others of similar caliber, it must mean you feel you're doing some things right yourself. An interesting move, at the very least.
Don't sell us short here in North America. Some of us make our own dough, cook on flatstones, and keep herb gardens. Do I make EVERY pizza fresh at home? No, but it's about having - - or making - - the time to enjoy the process as much as the product. I will grant you, though, that Euro folk seem a little ahead of us in the respect that they see more to life than "getting ahead" at work. Even so, on a recent visit to Aix, I noticed that the HUGE McDonald's was full of happy local folk. They clearly know what a Mac Attack is these days.
DiDio is an "analyst" for the Yankee Group, a supposed think tank that looks at various corporate computing trends. She's famous for saying that Linux costs more to deploy and maintain than Windows, and that Linux will never achieve widespread deployment, and on and on. She was quick to jump on the SCO defense bandwagon. A real MS ho who seems to be well compensated by somone out there. Gets a lot of space in the CIO/management rags.
"Thomas Trepl (McDonald's Germany) says, "All in all, an enormous stability and availability is clearly evident."
Do you suppose more "wholesale adoption of Linux" could be coming? Heh heh.
What IS it with these people who think that the world should move no faster than their home town, population 357 (since old man Williams passed away last Thursday from a goiter complication), where all the kids are above average? If they want to live in such a place, then LET THEM GO THERE, GROW OLD, AND DIE QUIETLY. For the rest of us, things like the internal combustion engine and incandescent light bulb are just too important. I'm willing to pay the price!
The solution to your "problem" is obvious. Configure your PC to run to your satisfaction with the software that is available. There is a universe of it out there - - look at Freshmeat.net. You can't expect the software developers of the world to cater to you and your 64 megs of RAM, or whatever it is you're running. At my company, software vendors have pushed us to upgrade hardware any number of times. If you want the features they're offering, you put another stick of memory in. If the cost is too dear, then keep what you're running and look for a more lightweight solution - - if you can find one. It's the way of the world. Why fight it? Nothing says you can't continue to work from a command line if that's what floats your boat.
You're right, I'd say. Mere shell scripter that I am. But it sounds correct, giving it some thought. Although I suppose you could say that the Unix philosophy nowadays would be less about those tiny apps and more about reusable code, dynamic libs, etc.?
Dude, my network is 90 percent Windows 2000. I picked that OS for the company, knowing what it required on the hardware side. I give it what it needs to run well. And it does. It's a good product.
I buy hardware and software for a company of about 250 employees. A small company, yes. But I really don't care at all what the difference in hardware pricing might be between a Linux WS and a Windows WS. PCs are considered cheap, and most vendors make you buy a certain base system anyway whether you need the horsepower or not. The majority of our new workstations are vastly overpowered for either Windows or Linux. Especially where disk space is concerned. And memory, again, is dirt cheap per meg. The thing Linux has going for it - - for now, but not much longer, I think - - is the low or nonexistent price for licensing. But as the Redhat model moves forward, and other big names go the same route, we'll see those CALs, just like the ones from our big buddies in Redmond.
Hey, I understand the Unix philosopy, appreciate tight code, etc. But look - - memory is cheap and getter cheaper. For what it delivers, most computer hardware is not exorbitantly priced. We see silly stuff happening, like $500-plus video cards for consumers. But, overall, nobody cares much when they hear they'll need 256 mb RAM or more for their home machine or their business workstation. As long as the software is DELIVERING something, who cares? Does anyone ever look for a new laptop or desktop that has the bare minimum specs for the work they're doing TODAY?
When was the last time you saw a "labor saving" technology really save labor? It's not that there aren't such things, but, rather, that when true efficiency-boosting technologies come along, no one sits back and says, "Great - - more time to rest." Or, "Great, we can let some people go." Instead, expectations for greater productivity arise. One is expected to accomplish more with the resources at hand. Good companies don't let knowledgable people go. They push them for the greatest productivity they can achieve. I, for one, am not worried.
I guess I need to (kicking and screaming) have a look at Server 2003. Will have to, I suppose, since we're still running Exchange 5.5 on NT4. How long can that last? But, you know, it makes me happy to see that MS couldn't run away from NT4 support as quickly as they'd planned. I'll bet you that they'll end up supporting 2000 for at least 1 more service pack, maybe 2. You are right, though, that once one is on the treadmill, one must keep up the pace. MS knows how to get people to budge eventually. At least, though, the "LAMP" platform handles more and more of our needs - - fewer MS servers to "upgrade" as the MS shareholders holler for their pound(s) of flesh. We must keep our PHP/MySQL coder happy . . . .
Well, what do I know - - I run a small network. But with Windows 2000 Pro on the desktops, 2000 Server and Linux in the back office, and an enterprise license for Norton AntiVirus Corporate, we keep 250 or so machines clean and updated. We run the free MS SUS for updates, by the way. Not a bad little system - - we set up Active Directory to force clients to hit our SUS server once a week, and have another method of shooting out emergency patches rapidly if we need to. XP seems to be another black eye for MS - - I don't know any admins who have been pleased with upgrades from Win2k to XP. Thank Zeus we didn't buy Software Assurance and feel compelled to "get our money's worth" by moving to this pretty, but deeply flawed piece of work from Redmond. Reminds me of the Windows Me fiasco - - it was all about needing profits, had nothing to do with improving the product line. XP is another one for the "Bob" file.
Microsoft demonstrates once again that there are intelligent people working in Redmond. They realize that the general public, and even the business community, do not yet understand what "free software" is. So the time is right for them to step in and shape the definition - - using "friendly" words - - to make them look like good buddies to end users. Clearly, Microsoft wishes not to be known as monopolists who keep their code secret in order to keep market dominance. "Sharing" sounds so much better . . . .
An anonymous coward wondered, "Do the following errors count: . . .."
Well, yes, assuming the inquisitive one fails to recognize that informal style in an informal setting is entirely appropriate.
I'd say your editorial remarks are more opinion than learned commentary. If you were able to point out the differences between formal and informal style, though, referencing any authority on usage, I'd be surprised. Remember, Coward: writing effectively has much to do with knowing who the audience is. If I were writing for my professor, then yes - - my form would be different.
And I am sorry you are challenged by newspapers. We were taught in journalism school to keep sentences short for people such as yourself.
Try this: learn to speak and write English correctly. The folks in India produce good code for less money while, at the same time, speaking and writing better English than most Americans. I am not trying to be funny here. The truth is that it's very sad. On the upside, though, I can tell you that if you can communicate well, both verbally and in the written word, AND you are technically proficient, there is work for you. I am living proof. You CAN do it. I was a starving journalist when I decided to dive into systems administration. I made IT Manager in three years at a nice little firm of about 250 employees, and it pays just fine. No weekends or nights for me, either. It is staggering to see the oceans of techies who can't spell, refuse to use a spellchecker, and wet themselves at the thought of speaking to a room full of execs.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, let's admit that Microsoft did a good thing with NTFS. Before I get roasted, let me say I've been working with FAT, NTFS, EXT2/3, Reiser, and others over the last 12 years, and I've had a chance to get a view of reliability, ease of recovery, etc., with several of these in production environments. I think the NTFS permissions model is one that the Linux world would welcome over the old and, I think, inadequate U-G-O scheme we continue to tolerate.
. . . . Of course, I'm still trying to cool my overclocked Pentium 4 with a Nissan Sentra radiator - - but THAT'S worthwhile.
You know, how you design office space should be dictated by the kind of work you do in the space. For instance, people who have to meet with people and discuss sensitive issues either need a real office with a real door, or they need a place where they can go for that kind of privacy. What I've seen is that, if people need privacy, they need an office. On the other hand, if much of the work you do is "collaborative," then nice-quality cubes that allow for some "prairie dogging" and hollering are not inappropriate. When I worked as a news reporter twenty years ago, we had nice, insulated, fabric-covered cubes with mixed fluorescent/incandescent lighting, adequate space, plenty of drawers, etc., and, even though I could hear everything going on in the newsroom, I was able to concentrate on what I was doing. So, the main thing I would say is: give people enough space that they don't hit their elbows when they spin around in their chairs, and give them a light source that they control. Make surfaces soft to absorb harsh sounds, and carpet the floor. Give people a break room with a fridge, a good coffee maker, a stovetop and TWO microwave ovens. And, of course, there must be at least two network ports per cube/office, and lots of electrical outlets. Colors are a personal thing, but medium blue and grey seem to wear well over the long haul for many people.
Yeah - - my thoughts, too. I just get tired of hearing people labeling the work of talented developers as "junk." Especially when the people being criticized have made many contributions to OSS, and the ones hurling the insults just have their panties in a wad because they couldn't get their ripped-off MP3s to play, or their porn viewer did not have the right codecs installed by default. I suspect most people who so flippantly disparage the work of others have never written a piece of software for public consumption.
I've played with many a distribution over the last ten years, and when it came time to choose a web and file platform at work, RHEL was the best value in my opinion. I pay for one update subscription and feed all my other RHEL installations from that. I'm sincerely curious as to how the product has disappointed you. I find it to be rock solid and well tuned. And, no, I have no affiliation with RedHat other than my single subscription, for which we paid full freight.
I'm with you, Captain. I still have a number of PII-450 servers (Proliant 1600), some of them dualies, that are as reliable as the sunrise and not coming anywhere close to bogging down on CPU utilization. And they're doing lots of work for us, too. I went recently to eBay and picked up some new power supplies and case fans for these units. I found those, and some hot-swap drives, too, at prices so low it was almost embarassing. I have a feeling these babies are going to keep producing for us for a long time. Recently, an NT4 Proliant became a RHEL 3.0 webserver. We gave it a new PS, a new case fan, and a full load of memory, and it's just cranking away for us. Gotta love it.
. . . you are in management and do hiring and firing. Here's the truth of the matter: if you came up through the ranks - - and I did, starting with PC support - - then, by the time you're the one making choices about who joins your team, you know how to do the interview. You make the candidate write something to make sure he can spell and put a sentence together. You talk to him for a little while to make reasonably certain he is not schizoid. You have the criminal background check done to make sure he isn't a fugitive. And then, you give him a practical interview with maybe 20 tasks to perform on a workstation and/or server. These tasks range from the obvious to the arcane. If things look good after the practical interview, you have a serious chat about how he got his education and where he wants to go with it. The words "self taught" always ring loudly. Certs may enter in to such a conversation, but, from what I've seen, the hungry guys and gals who love computing have a glow to them that the money grubbers just can't fake. This is how it has been for me, and I have hired only one disaster (drug problem) so far. I'd be curious as to whether other IT managers would share this point of view.
My god, this is pathetic. This non-event is like, say, the announcement that Britney Spears is coming to town, with the Spice Girls opening. Do you REALLY want your friends to know you were there? Or are your friends, in fact, WITH YOU WHEN YOU GO? Man, I've aged out . . . .
When you can encourage consumers to compare your product with others of similar caliber, it must mean you feel you're doing some things right yourself. An interesting move, at the very least.
Don't sell us short here in North America. Some of us make our own dough, cook on flatstones, and keep herb gardens. Do I make EVERY pizza fresh at home? No, but it's about having - - or making - - the time to enjoy the process as much as the product. I will grant you, though, that Euro folk seem a little ahead of us in the respect that they see more to life than "getting ahead" at work. Even so, on a recent visit to Aix, I noticed that the HUGE McDonald's was full of happy local folk. They clearly know what a Mac Attack is these days.
DiDio is an "analyst" for the Yankee Group, a supposed think tank that looks at various corporate computing trends. She's famous for saying that Linux costs more to deploy and maintain than Windows, and that Linux will never achieve widespread deployment, and on and on. She was quick to jump on the SCO defense bandwagon. A real MS ho who seems to be well compensated by somone out there. Gets a lot of space in the CIO/management rags.
"Thomas Trepl (McDonald's Germany) says, "All in all, an enormous stability and availability is clearly evident." Do you suppose more "wholesale adoption of Linux" could be coming? Heh heh.
What IS it with these people who think that the world should move no faster than their home town, population 357 (since old man Williams passed away last Thursday from a goiter complication), where all the kids are above average? If they want to live in such a place, then LET THEM GO THERE, GROW OLD, AND DIE QUIETLY. For the rest of us, things like the internal combustion engine and incandescent light bulb are just too important. I'm willing to pay the price!
The solution to your "problem" is obvious. Configure your PC to run to your satisfaction with the software that is available. There is a universe of it out there - - look at Freshmeat.net. You can't expect the software developers of the world to cater to you and your 64 megs of RAM, or whatever it is you're running. At my company, software vendors have pushed us to upgrade hardware any number of times. If you want the features they're offering, you put another stick of memory in. If the cost is too dear, then keep what you're running and look for a more lightweight solution - - if you can find one. It's the way of the world. Why fight it? Nothing says you can't continue to work from a command line if that's what floats your boat.
You're right, I'd say. Mere shell scripter that I am. But it sounds correct, giving it some thought. Although I suppose you could say that the Unix philosophy nowadays would be less about those tiny apps and more about reusable code, dynamic libs, etc.?
Dude, my network is 90 percent Windows 2000. I picked that OS for the company, knowing what it required on the hardware side. I give it what it needs to run well. And it does. It's a good product.
I buy hardware and software for a company of about 250 employees. A small company, yes. But I really don't care at all what the difference in hardware pricing might be between a Linux WS and a Windows WS. PCs are considered cheap, and most vendors make you buy a certain base system anyway whether you need the horsepower or not. The majority of our new workstations are vastly overpowered for either Windows or Linux. Especially where disk space is concerned. And memory, again, is dirt cheap per meg. The thing Linux has going for it - - for now, but not much longer, I think - - is the low or nonexistent price for licensing. But as the Redhat model moves forward, and other big names go the same route, we'll see those CALs, just like the ones from our big buddies in Redmond.
Hey, I understand the Unix philosopy, appreciate tight code, etc. But look - - memory is cheap and getter cheaper. For what it delivers, most computer hardware is not exorbitantly priced. We see silly stuff happening, like $500-plus video cards for consumers. But, overall, nobody cares much when they hear they'll need 256 mb RAM or more for their home machine or their business workstation. As long as the software is DELIVERING something, who cares? Does anyone ever look for a new laptop or desktop that has the bare minimum specs for the work they're doing TODAY?
When was the last time you saw a "labor saving" technology really save labor? It's not that there aren't such things, but, rather, that when true efficiency-boosting technologies come along, no one sits back and says, "Great - - more time to rest." Or, "Great, we can let some people go." Instead, expectations for greater productivity arise. One is expected to accomplish more with the resources at hand. Good companies don't let knowledgable people go. They push them for the greatest productivity they can achieve. I, for one, am not worried.
I guess I need to (kicking and screaming) have a look at Server 2003. Will have to, I suppose, since we're still running Exchange 5.5 on NT4. How long can that last? But, you know, it makes me happy to see that MS couldn't run away from NT4 support as quickly as they'd planned. I'll bet you that they'll end up supporting 2000 for at least 1 more service pack, maybe 2. You are right, though, that once one is on the treadmill, one must keep up the pace. MS knows how to get people to budge eventually. At least, though, the "LAMP" platform handles more and more of our needs - - fewer MS servers to "upgrade" as the MS shareholders holler for their pound(s) of flesh. We must keep our PHP/MySQL coder happy . . . .
Well, what do I know - - I run a small network. But with Windows 2000 Pro on the desktops, 2000 Server and Linux in the back office, and an enterprise license for Norton AntiVirus Corporate, we keep 250 or so machines clean and updated. We run the free MS SUS for updates, by the way. Not a bad little system - - we set up Active Directory to force clients to hit our SUS server once a week, and have another method of shooting out emergency patches rapidly if we need to. XP seems to be another black eye for MS - - I don't know any admins who have been pleased with upgrades from Win2k to XP. Thank Zeus we didn't buy Software Assurance and feel compelled to "get our money's worth" by moving to this pretty, but deeply flawed piece of work from Redmond. Reminds me of the Windows Me fiasco - - it was all about needing profits, had nothing to do with improving the product line. XP is another one for the "Bob" file.
Microsoft demonstrates once again that there are intelligent people working in Redmond. They realize that the general public, and even the business community, do not yet understand what "free software" is. So the time is right for them to step in and shape the definition - - using "friendly" words - - to make them look like good buddies to end users. Clearly, Microsoft wishes not to be known as monopolists who keep their code secret in order to keep market dominance. "Sharing" sounds so much better . . . .
An anonymous coward wondered, "Do the following errors count: . . . ."
Well, yes, assuming the inquisitive one fails to recognize that informal style in an informal setting is entirely appropriate.
I'd say your editorial remarks are more opinion than learned commentary. If you were able to point out the differences between formal and informal style, though, referencing any authority on usage, I'd be surprised. Remember, Coward: writing effectively has much to do with knowing who the audience is. If I were writing for my professor, then yes - - my form would be different.
And I am sorry you are challenged by newspapers. We were taught in journalism school to keep sentences short for people such as yourself.
Try this: learn to speak and write English correctly. The folks in India produce good code for less money while, at the same time, speaking and writing better English than most Americans. I am not trying to be funny here. The truth is that it's very sad. On the upside, though, I can tell you that if you can communicate well, both verbally and in the written word, AND you are technically proficient, there is work for you. I am living proof. You CAN do it. I was a starving journalist when I decided to dive into systems administration. I made IT Manager in three years at a nice little firm of about 250 employees, and it pays just fine. No weekends or nights for me, either. It is staggering to see the oceans of techies who can't spell, refuse to use a spellchecker, and wet themselves at the thought of speaking to a room full of execs.
I'd like to see the Superbowl start off with a spirited R-P-S, with close-up camera catching the action.