Or would they? You see it's not the base salary that corrupts. In theory, a corrupt politician should be pretty much willing to work for free, he sees opportunities to make money from his power to make binding decisions. If can award a no bid contract for $1 billion to his friend the oil guy, then the oil guy would almost certainly be willing to send him a kick back of $10 million for his largesse.
Reducing the pay scale only makes the job less tempting to honest men.
True. That's why we need the guns...;)
If the danger of being a cheating politician was a quick jerk at the end of a rope, a lot of politicians would think twice before giving deals to friends.
Unfortunately in our system of government, Congress can vote themselves pay raises, and they are allowed to get money from people and companies to fund their campaigns, etc...
If congress members earned as much as the one guy they hire to work at the DMV in a city of a million people, things would be different. People wouldn't be there for the money and greed.
Of course the citizens being armed and able to overthrow the government when enough citizens get pissed would also help...
Yeah--but how do I know if you're running Intrepid with updates from this morning verses the Alpha 3 CD?
You can't, but it still gives you a much better idea that "ubuntu-unstable".
Right--so instead of being 6 months old, you could potentially be 2 years old.
But who cares. If you are a developer installing a development release, you're smart enough to figure out what's going on. If you ask for help and someone says: "type 'cat/etc/lsb-release' in a terminal" and you spit back "...ubuntu-devel..." they can say "do an apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" and then let me know how it works.
Hell--update-manager already does that. If there is an updated version of the package you are trying to report, it won't let you report a bug--it tells you to update first and try again.
I think you misunderstand. The 8.10 release is focused on improving mobility and connectivity in the standard Ubuntu desktop, it is not separate product designed for mobility of mobile devices.
Yeah--I know. Leave it up to the marketing guys to figure out better names than what I came up with.
Which is why the release names are date-based numbers, only the code names are attribute-animal.
And I think we just went full-circle. My original bitch was that retards constantly use the codename in the forums even after the f*cking thing has been released. Just get rid of the dumb codenames--then you can't have some dumb website or forum post using the term 'warty'.
But again you have a problem. If I told you I was running "ubuntu-unstable" you would have no idea if it was the current unstable, or the unstable from 3 years ago. At least if I said I was running "Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex" you would know what I had.
Yeah--but how do I know if you're running Intrepid with updates from this morning verses the Alpha 3 CD?
You have the same issue if you use codenames or version numbers. I could be running 8.04 from it's initial release (with the SSL vuln) or I could be running it with the fixes. (Yeah, I know they tagged it 8.04.1). When it comes down to troubleshooting an issue, it doesn't really matter the codename, or the release version, but rather the package versions. Think about the upgrades to 6.06 since it was first released...
They pick animals names and attributes (hardy, gutsy, intrepid) that give an indication of their goals for that release. The goal of 8.10 isn't to have the latest and greatest packages, it's mobility, for which an "Intrepid Ibex" seems well suited. The goal of 8.04 was stability and reliability for an LTS release, so "Hardy" also seemed appropriate. 7.10 was to test experimental things like Compiz, so "Gutsy" was chosen.
So if they want to give the impression of mobility, they could pick any number of codenames. Ubuntu Mobile, Ubuntu Roaming, etc...and yes, you could use Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex, or even Ubuntu Devel. But whatever--it's personal preference. I just think 'cute animal names' isn't very corporate. And while that is only one of Ubuntu's apparent goals, it's a big market--and the one likely to purchase support and landscape from Canonical.
You mean like 'debian-stable', 'debian-unstable' and 'debian-testing'? Well that doesn't tell you much either, because if I installed 'debian-unstable' 3 years ago and never upgraded, then what am I using today?
No, I mean like 6.06, 6.10, 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, and 'ubuntu-unstable'.
Then, when it comes time to release, rename 'ubuntu-unstable' to 8.10, and start a new 'unstable' branch.
When I check out a project from subversion, I can check out the trunk, or a named version. Use something similar for Ubuntu. If I pick ubuntu-unstable, I always get the latest, greatest, and sometimes broken stuff. Or I can pick a specific version like 8.04. When 8.10 comes out, I can choose to upgrade if I'd like.
I don't think we're every going to agree 100% on this. It's a preference thing. We both agree that you need a code name rather than a specific date since a project might slip--I just can't figure out why they picked animals. Dumb.
My opinion is that if they are trying to pick stupid 'cute' animal names, why not pick something equally as stupid like 'Ubuntu fuzzy lovie bunny' which is scheduled for 8.10?
Think that codename is retarded? What makes it any more or less retarded than Gutsy Gibbon?
The answer is opinion. So take a poll and figure out what the community wants.
Dapper was originally supposed to be 6.04, but it's release was delayed so that extra work could be put into making it the first LTS release, so it became version 6.06. If it had been officially called 6.04 during development, then they would have either had to change it, or kept the inaccurate date-based version number.
So call it 'ubuntu-pre', 'ubuntu-dev', 'ubuntu-head', or whatever. Those are all decent codenames.
As for date-based, Microsoft really hit the nail on the head naming their OS Windows 95 and Windows 98 with software called Office 2000
It's easy for me to say to a client "You're running Office 2000. That's about 8 years old. It was released in 2000."
I don't even know the release date of Windows ME, or Office XP, let alone my clients.
Stick with a date-based numbering scheme. As an added benefit, clients will realize it's based on the year and want to upgrade when that number starts to get too old.
warty, gutsy, hardy, intrepid. Ubuntu names went in alphabetical order starting with Dapper Drake (6.06). If you memorize the fact that warty and hoary were used before alphabetical ordering, you're mostly fine.
Except now in my head if someone says they are running gutsy, I have to think to myself: Ok--Dapper was 6.06, E comes after D...WTF was it again? Oh yeah, Edgy, so that was 6.10 unless they released late...which release was late again? Oh well, doesn't matter. F was feisty...uh..7.04, and G was Gutsy...7.10. Ok--So you're running a version release about a year ago.
Instead if they just said "I'm running 7.10", I can think to myself: 7.10, that was about a year ago.
There is NO point to the stupid codenames. It doesn't actually change anything. The software still runs the same. Get rid of 'em.
Oh yeah? Well then why don't these people solve their own damn problem. Take the Ubuntu releases and repackage them under another distro name! Name it Ultra Serious Linux (USL). Start with USL 9000, and go up in number from there.
Nothing stoping you. Infact, even charge for it, because everyone knows good software is not available for free. Use the same Ubuntu repos if you'd like.
Yeah, that's a logical, rational response.
That's like saying "You don't like notepad? Well just fork Windows."
Other than the/etc/lsb-release file, I never see the retarded animal name. It's just the forum, launchpad, etc...
But I'll keep your suggestion in mind. The next time I don't like the name, I'll just rsync all the ubuntu sites, scrape the wiki, and change every single reference from 'flaccid falcon' to '9.06' because it's such a good use of one person's time.
On the other hand, if they just did a quick poll, they could stop making up dumb codenames and just call the development versions 8.10-pre.
Nothing says "we're trying to attract business users" than codenaming your distro "hardy".
As much as I despise Microsoft, names like 'XP, Vista, Longhorn, ME', etc... are much better than 'hardy, warthog, heron, gutsy', etc...
I for one would rather have "Lenny" than *any* of Ubuntu's childish names.
Agreed.
The major pain though is that retard users keep referring to it by 'codename' after it's been released.
The current version in development is 'Intrepid Ibex'. Yeah--the name blows, but when it's released, it'll become 8.10. Of course you'd never know if because idiots will still refer to it as 'intrepid'.
Now--think fast, and put these in the order of release and tell me the version number: "intrepid, hoard, gutsy, warty, vista"
That's right--it's a pain in the ass to remember the mapping of names to version numbers. (And yes, 'vista' is in there to throw you off track.
It's a lot easier to remember the order and release dates of: "6.06, 6.10, 7.10, 8.04, etc..."
If it came down to a vote, I'm willing to bet most people would like to get rid of the dumb animal names.
When you smash a spider, you are VERY likely to bash several keys near each other on the keyboard, and you are VERY unlikely to input characters that involve multiple-key combinations (and even more unlikely to use characters that are not directly accessible on your keyboard).
I guess you've never tried to smash a camel spider.
You hit every key on the keyboard trying to kill one of those bastards.
That's a good reason not to used closed source software or a web page. It's not a good reason not to use Keepass, the program suggested above, which is open source, offline, and has high-entropy random number generation. Saying some software is bad so I won't use any is like saying some clothes are bad so I won't wear any.
Agreed--but using software that does nothing to increase security is bad too.
Are there any studies out there that say using a random password generator is more secure than me attempting to smash a spider on my keyboard and using that? At some point, what's the difference if you are using a 25-character random password generated by software, or spider smashing?
In fact, I'd bet mine is more secure--as much as I hate them, Spiders seem to provide good entropy.
I don't see why I would need software generating a random password for me if I can do it as well just by smashing keys.
In fact, I can see several reasons to not use software to generate random passwords for you.
Some software lacks randomness.
Some software is not open and you don't know what's happening with your secret key.
That's a good reason to not use a web page to generate a secret key.
I don't know--didn't Steve Jobs just predict the downfall of the iPod--saying something about how the market is flooded....so if everyone has one, are you 'cool, hip, and edgy' still, or does it mean you are following the masses...which makes you a conformist...which is against everything Apple stands for. Damn--my brain hurts.
This seems dubious to me.
Your company is sticking Microsoft bits (Word, etc.) where they don't really need to go, thus, the fault is yours
Exactly. Why not build in a requirement for Microsoft Office? It didn't cost us anything....oh...the customer is going to have to buy it? Oh well. That's ok.
Since our developers are lazy and don't care about the end cost to the customer, they choose whatever is the easiest for them.
The end user is gaining legitimate value from that integration that probably outweighs what they're paying. For example, if the end users actually need to manipulate or tinker with the data your reports spit out for them, probably being able to do it in a program that they're very used to (Excel) is worth the price.
I could argue that integration point a bit differently. Go buy a new BMW, a new cell phone, and a new car adapter. Integrate them and pay $30,000 to travel from point A to point B while talking on your cell phone.
Now go buy a new Suzuki Swift, a new cell phone, and a new adapter...and you will pay $15,000 to get from point A to point B while being able to chat on your cell phone.
I'll take the less expensive option.
And where the analogy breaks down is that if you buy the BMW option, you must buy BMW forever.
And not just Windows XP Vista - all three versions of XP and all eight versions of Windows Vista! Truly the broadest, deepest multiplatform support of any programming language available!
You're forgetting the x86 versions and 64-bit versions...
does it really bother you that someone, somewhere just went 'yes, this is perfect for me'?
Yeah--because they are probably wrong.
My company gets all the Microsoft development tools for free.
With those tools, we build things like Contact management systems, inventory applications, and websites.
We then turn around and sell them to customers. Customers love the price, but then later realize that they must buy a server to run in on, a copy of Windows, a server to run SQL on, a copy of Microsoft SQL Server, licenses, licenses to allow 'anonymous' internet connections, copies of Microsoft Office 2007 to be able to read the reports it spits out in Word 2007 format, etc...
...and the price balloons by thousands of dollars.
When I develop applications, I don't go looking for the tools that make my life the easiest--I go looking for the tools that will make the end-user's life easier. I develop in languages that work across multiple platforms (except for the abomination that is Java).
Microsoft tools are awesome if you're a developer. They make pumping out applications and websites easy...unless you want to use non-microsoft technologies...or want to save money...or have one of those stubborn Mac users that won't switch to windows;)
In other words, if you want to be locked into using and paying extortionate fees for Microsoft technologies until the end of time, go ahead. Use Visual Studio. Otherwise, look elsewhere.
There is also more bullshit in that statement than meets the eye. Power cycling a system can cause failure if you have cheap soldering or marginal parts.
Sounds like someone is speaking from experience.
My boss asked me why we don't power down the servers and workstations overnight and on the weekends. I told him it was to help eliminate the monday morning disaster that would follow.
He didn't believe me.
There are 50 computers in his company that are more than 3 years old.
He told me to turn them off over the weekend.
Sure enough--Monday morning a server power supply failed along with 4 workstations. One of the workstations fried itself and had to be replaced.
I spent the entire day running around--to the local parts store for power supplies (because we had 2 spares on-hand), and to the 5 different offices that had dead PCs.
Now we just pay the extra $15 per month per office in increased electrical bills rather than the roughly $1200 spent in purchasing power supplies, paying for fuel costs, buying a new computer, paying for staff to sit around, etc...
Like the BOFH said: Computers are like old people. If you put them to sleep at night, some won't wake up in the morning.
To backup, use rsync and OpenSSH, write a few batch scripts and hey - presto! Instant solution
Instant? Meh. apt-get install backuppc.
Most home firewalls support either the true DDNS or that dynDNS crap. Give 'em a hostname or get a static IP for the people you need backed up. Install backuppc on one of your machines and remotely connect in and back them up.
I have 10 machines that get backed up nightly across my comcast connection. (That's part of the reason I'm so near that damn 250 MB cap).
I'm sure if my friends and family cared, I could enable remote access through my firewall so they could restore when needed--but usually when it gets to that point, they call me anyways.
If a box dies, I just drag it over to my place, hook it up to my network, replaced the dead drive, and restore it over my LAN.
Slashdot Mirror
Or would they? You see it's not the base salary that corrupts. In theory, a corrupt politician should be pretty much willing to work for free, he sees opportunities to make money from his power to make binding decisions. If can award a no bid contract for $1 billion to his friend the oil guy, then the oil guy would almost certainly be willing to send him a kick back of $10 million for his largesse.
Reducing the pay scale only makes the job less tempting to honest men.
True. That's why we need the guns... ;)
If the danger of being a cheating politician was a quick jerk at the end of a rope, a lot of politicians would think twice before giving deals to friends.
It didn't work in 1861, why should it work now?
Unfortunately in our system of government, Congress can vote themselves pay raises, and they are allowed to get money from people and companies to fund their campaigns, etc...
If congress members earned as much as the one guy they hire to work at the DMV in a city of a million people, things would be different. People wouldn't be there for the money and greed.
Of course the citizens being armed and able to overthrow the government when enough citizens get pissed would also help...
Yeah--but how do I know if you're running Intrepid with updates from this morning verses the Alpha 3 CD?
You can't, but it still gives you a much better idea that "ubuntu-unstable".
Right--so instead of being 6 months old, you could potentially be 2 years old.
/etc/lsb-release' in a terminal" and you spit back "...ubuntu-devel..." they can say "do an apt-get update && apt-get upgrade" and then let me know how it works.
But who cares. If you are a developer installing a development release, you're smart enough to figure out what's going on. If you ask for help and someone says: "type 'cat
Hell--update-manager already does that. If there is an updated version of the package you are trying to report, it won't let you report a bug--it tells you to update first and try again.
I think you misunderstand. The 8.10 release is focused on improving mobility and connectivity in the standard Ubuntu desktop, it is not separate product designed for mobility of mobile devices.
Yeah--I know. Leave it up to the marketing guys to figure out better names than what I came up with.
Which is why the release names are date-based numbers, only the code names are attribute-animal.
And I think we just went full-circle. My original bitch was that retards constantly use the codename in the forums even after the f*cking thing has been released. Just get rid of the dumb codenames--then you can't have some dumb website or forum post using the term 'warty'.
But again you have a problem. If I told you I was running "ubuntu-unstable" you would have no idea if it was the current unstable, or the unstable from 3 years ago. At least if I said I was running "Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex" you would know what I had.
Yeah--but how do I know if you're running Intrepid with updates from this morning verses the Alpha 3 CD?
You have the same issue if you use codenames or version numbers. I could be running 8.04 from it's initial release (with the SSL vuln) or I could be running it with the fixes. (Yeah, I know they tagged it 8.04.1). When it comes down to troubleshooting an issue, it doesn't really matter the codename, or the release version, but rather the package versions. Think about the upgrades to 6.06 since it was first released...
They pick animals names and attributes (hardy, gutsy, intrepid) that give an indication of their goals for that release. The goal of 8.10 isn't to have the latest and greatest packages, it's mobility, for which an "Intrepid Ibex" seems well suited. The goal of 8.04 was stability and reliability for an LTS release, so "Hardy" also seemed appropriate. 7.10 was to test experimental things like Compiz, so "Gutsy" was chosen.
So if they want to give the impression of mobility, they could pick any number of codenames. Ubuntu Mobile, Ubuntu Roaming, etc...and yes, you could use Ubuntu Intrepid Ibex, or even Ubuntu Devel. But whatever--it's personal preference. I just think 'cute animal names' isn't very corporate. And while that is only one of Ubuntu's apparent goals, it's a big market--and the one likely to purchase support and landscape from Canonical.
You mean like 'debian-stable', 'debian-unstable' and 'debian-testing'? Well that doesn't tell you much either, because if I installed 'debian-unstable' 3 years ago and never upgraded, then what am I using today?
No, I mean like 6.06, 6.10, 7.04, 7.10, 8.04, and 'ubuntu-unstable'.
Then, when it comes time to release, rename 'ubuntu-unstable' to 8.10, and start a new 'unstable' branch.
When I check out a project from subversion, I can check out the trunk, or a named version. Use something similar for Ubuntu. If I pick ubuntu-unstable, I always get the latest, greatest, and sometimes broken stuff. Or I can pick a specific version like 8.04. When 8.10 comes out, I can choose to upgrade if I'd like.
I don't think we're every going to agree 100% on this. It's a preference thing. We both agree that you need a code name rather than a specific date since a project might slip--I just can't figure out why they picked animals. Dumb.
My opinion is that if they are trying to pick stupid 'cute' animal names, why not pick something equally as stupid like 'Ubuntu fuzzy lovie bunny' which is scheduled for 8.10?
Think that codename is retarded? What makes it any more or less retarded than Gutsy Gibbon?
The answer is opinion. So take a poll and figure out what the community wants.
Dapper was originally supposed to be 6.04, but it's release was delayed so that extra work could be put into making it the first LTS release, so it became version 6.06. If it had been officially called 6.04 during development, then they would have either had to change it, or kept the inaccurate date-based version number.
So call it 'ubuntu-pre', 'ubuntu-dev', 'ubuntu-head', or whatever. Those are all decent codenames.
As for date-based, Microsoft really hit the nail on the head naming their OS Windows 95 and Windows 98 with software called Office 2000
It's easy for me to say to a client "You're running Office 2000. That's about 8 years old. It was released in 2000."
I don't even know the release date of Windows ME, or Office XP, let alone my clients.
Stick with a date-based numbering scheme. As an added benefit, clients will realize it's based on the year and want to upgrade when that number starts to get too old.
warty, gutsy, hardy, intrepid. Ubuntu names went in alphabetical order starting with Dapper Drake (6.06). If you memorize the fact that warty and hoary were used before alphabetical ordering, you're mostly fine.
Except now in my head if someone says they are running gutsy, I have to think to myself: Ok--Dapper was 6.06, E comes after D...WTF was it again? Oh yeah, Edgy, so that was 6.10 unless they released late...which release was late again? Oh well, doesn't matter. F was feisty...uh..7.04, and G was Gutsy...7.10. Ok--So you're running a version release about a year ago.
Instead if they just said "I'm running 7.10", I can think to myself: 7.10, that was about a year ago.
There is NO point to the stupid codenames. It doesn't actually change anything. The software still runs the same. Get rid of 'em.
Oh yeah? Well then why don't these people solve their own damn problem. Take the Ubuntu releases and repackage them under another distro name! Name it Ultra Serious Linux (USL). Start with USL 9000, and go up in number from there.
Nothing stoping you. Infact, even charge for it, because everyone knows good software is not available for free. Use the same Ubuntu repos if you'd like.
Yeah, that's a logical, rational response.
/etc/lsb-release file, I never see the retarded animal name. It's just the forum, launchpad, etc...
That's like saying "You don't like notepad? Well just fork Windows."
Other than the
But I'll keep your suggestion in mind. The next time I don't like the name, I'll just rsync all the ubuntu sites, scrape the wiki, and change every single reference from 'flaccid falcon' to '9.06' because it's such a good use of one person's time.
On the other hand, if they just did a quick poll, they could stop making up dumb codenames and just call the development versions 8.10-pre.
Nothing says "we're trying to attract business users" than codenaming your distro "hardy".
As much as I despise Microsoft, names like 'XP, Vista, Longhorn, ME', etc... are much better than 'hardy, warthog, heron, gutsy', etc...
If it came down to a vote, I'm willing to bet most people would like to get rid of the dumb animal names.
Flamebait? WTF? Who gave Mark Shuttleworth modpoints?
settle down there, 623900.
Get off my lawn, 697238!
Damn kids...
Ubuntu Hardy is easier for search engines to find than Ubuntu 8.04
Which makes it easier to find references to what you're looking for.
There's no difference between searching for "ubuntu" and "hardy" in a document verses "ubuntu" and "8.04".
As a matter of fact, searching google for "8.04 -ubuntu" verses "hardy -ubuntu" returns interesting results.
There are more references to 'hardy' that don't have anything to do with ubuntu than there are to 8.04.
So it would appear to me that your statement is incorrect.
Also I am pretty sure that Ubuntu is based on Debian.
Yes, in much the same way that elephants and helicopters are both made out of molecules.
I for one would rather have "Lenny" than *any* of Ubuntu's childish names.
Agreed.
The major pain though is that retard users keep referring to it by 'codename' after it's been released.
The current version in development is 'Intrepid Ibex'. Yeah--the name blows, but when it's released, it'll become 8.10. Of course you'd never know if because idiots will still refer to it as 'intrepid'.
Now--think fast, and put these in the order of release and tell me the version number: "intrepid, hoard, gutsy, warty, vista"
That's right--it's a pain in the ass to remember the mapping of names to version numbers. (And yes, 'vista' is in there to throw you off track.
It's a lot easier to remember the order and release dates of: "6.06, 6.10, 7.10, 8.04, etc..."
If it came down to a vote, I'm willing to bet most people would like to get rid of the dumb animal names.
When you smash a spider, you are VERY likely to bash several keys near each other on the keyboard, and you are VERY unlikely to input characters that involve multiple-key combinations (and even more unlikely to use characters that are not directly accessible on your keyboard).
I guess you've never tried to smash a camel spider.
You hit every key on the keyboard trying to kill one of those bastards.
That's a good reason not to used closed source software or a web page. It's not a good reason not to use Keepass, the program suggested above, which is open source, offline, and has high-entropy random number generation. Saying some software is bad so I won't use any is like saying some clothes are bad so I won't wear any.
Agreed--but using software that does nothing to increase security is bad too.
Are there any studies out there that say using a random password generator is more secure than me attempting to smash a spider on my keyboard and using that? At some point, what's the difference if you are using a 25-character random password generated by software, or spider smashing?
In fact, I'd bet mine is more secure--as much as I hate them, Spiders seem to provide good entropy.
I don't see why I would need software generating a random password for me if I can do it as well just by smashing keys.
In fact, I can see several reasons to not use software to generate random passwords for you.
Some software lacks randomness.
Some software is not open and you don't know what's happening with your secret key.
That's a good reason to not use a web page to generate a secret key.
It doesn't make me cool, hip and edgy?
I don't know--didn't Steve Jobs just predict the downfall of the iPod--saying something about how the market is flooded. ...so if everyone has one, are you 'cool, hip, and edgy' still, or does it mean you are following the masses...which makes you a conformist...which is against everything Apple stands for. Damn--my brain hurts.
This seems dubious to me.
Your company is sticking Microsoft bits (Word, etc.) where they don't really need to go, thus, the fault is yours
Exactly. Why not build in a requirement for Microsoft Office? It didn't cost us anything. ...oh...the customer is going to have to buy it? Oh well. That's ok.
Since our developers are lazy and don't care about the end cost to the customer, they choose whatever is the easiest for them.
The end user is gaining legitimate value from that integration that probably outweighs what they're paying. For example, if the end users actually need to manipulate or tinker with the data your reports spit out for them, probably being able to do it in a program that they're very used to (Excel) is worth the price.
I could argue that integration point a bit differently. Go buy a new BMW, a new cell phone, and a new car adapter. Integrate them and pay $30,000 to travel from point A to point B while talking on your cell phone.
Now go buy a new Suzuki Swift, a new cell phone, and a new adapter...and you will pay $15,000 to get from point A to point B while being able to chat on your cell phone.
I'll take the less expensive option.
And where the analogy breaks down is that if you buy the BMW option, you must buy BMW forever.
Yeah, your doing real justice with your customer's. This is another M$ proprietary thing. And then you have the gall to mention Unix.
What you just said made absolutely no sense...
On top of that, nowhere did I say 'Unix', 'Linux' or anything remotely like it.
Are you on drugs, or just a moron?
And not just Windows XP Vista - all three versions of XP and all eight versions of Windows Vista! Truly the broadest, deepest multiplatform support of any programming language available!
You're forgetting the x86 versions and 64-bit versions...
The iPod is a specialized computer for a specialized task. Just like M.
Yeah.
M helps you reach your goal of being completely locking in your company to Microsoft products.
The iPod just plays music.
does it really bother you that someone, somewhere just went 'yes, this is perfect for me'?
Yeah--because they are probably wrong.
...and the price balloons by thousands of dollars.
;)
My company gets all the Microsoft development tools for free.
With those tools, we build things like Contact management systems, inventory applications, and websites.
We then turn around and sell them to customers. Customers love the price, but then later realize that they must buy a server to run in on, a copy of Windows, a server to run SQL on, a copy of Microsoft SQL Server, licenses, licenses to allow 'anonymous' internet connections, copies of Microsoft Office 2007 to be able to read the reports it spits out in Word 2007 format, etc...
When I develop applications, I don't go looking for the tools that make my life the easiest--I go looking for the tools that will make the end-user's life easier. I develop in languages that work across multiple platforms (except for the abomination that is Java).
Microsoft tools are awesome if you're a developer. They make pumping out applications and websites easy...unless you want to use non-microsoft technologies...or want to save money...or have one of those stubborn Mac users that won't switch to windows
In other words, if you want to be locked into using and paying extortionate fees for Microsoft technologies until the end of time, go ahead. Use Visual Studio. Otherwise, look elsewhere.
Because the UN sucks too? It isn't a symptom of who belongs to the organization, but the very fact that it is a large organization.
No. The problem is that we are talking about trust--and the need to find one person or group we ultimately trust.
;)
I'm sure a lot of people out there would share my view:
I have no trust in any other man besides myself.
That goes doubly so for the UN.
There is also more bullshit in that statement than meets the eye. Power cycling a system can cause failure if you have cheap soldering or marginal parts.
Sounds like someone is speaking from experience.
My boss asked me why we don't power down the servers and workstations overnight and on the weekends. I told him it was to help eliminate the monday morning disaster that would follow.
He didn't believe me.
There are 50 computers in his company that are more than 3 years old.
He told me to turn them off over the weekend.
Sure enough--Monday morning a server power supply failed along with 4 workstations. One of the workstations fried itself and had to be replaced.
I spent the entire day running around--to the local parts store for power supplies (because we had 2 spares on-hand), and to the 5 different offices that had dead PCs.
Now we just pay the extra $15 per month per office in increased electrical bills rather than the roughly $1200 spent in purchasing power supplies, paying for fuel costs, buying a new computer, paying for staff to sit around, etc...
Like the BOFH said: Computers are like old people. If you put them to sleep at night, some won't wake up in the morning.
To backup, use rsync and OpenSSH, write a few batch scripts and hey - presto! Instant solution
Instant? Meh. apt-get install backuppc.
Most home firewalls support either the true DDNS or that dynDNS crap. Give 'em a hostname or get a static IP for the people you need backed up. Install backuppc on one of your machines and remotely connect in and back them up.
I have 10 machines that get backed up nightly across my comcast connection. (That's part of the reason I'm so near that damn 250 MB cap).
I'm sure if my friends and family cared, I could enable remote access through my firewall so they could restore when needed--but usually when it gets to that point, they call me anyways.
If a box dies, I just drag it over to my place, hook it up to my network, replaced the dead drive, and restore it over my LAN.