The fundamental difference, so far as these tests go, is that NDS was tuned and optimized while AD was out of the box. In fact, there are more implications than that...
Microsoft and several independent authors have warned against using Netscape LDAP with AD; it's tuned and optimized (of course) for Microsoft's LDAP3 standard. Netscape is optimized for NetWare, because that was the most prevelant when it was released. The NetWare test is on a shipped, finished, tuned product; the AD tests were on a pre-release build (2194 is the one just before the RTM build, which is NOT identical to the retail.) Finally, the tests were designed to test functions AD is not optimized for; AD is intended to fill the distributed IntraNet environment.
My point is that when you read a report, consider the facts before you slam Microsoft. There are good tools made by Microsoft; Windows 2000 is one of them. Oh, and by the way; a GUI is useful on a server for a number of reasons. To name three:
It's better to monitor performance by watching graphs than by waiting for error messages. Graphs show trends, which error messages never do.
In a GUI, you can have multiple control panels open at once. A command line forces you to work one at a time.
GUIs are more impressive and "boss friendly." Don't underestimate the importance of this one; anyone who doesn't think it's important has never had to fight for a budget.
I can see that happening, if you've got a shitty admin. Good admins, on the other hand, listen to users, even if the user IS clueless. Why? Because it's still data. If you have to listen to ten minutes of rambling to get the useful data - that's worth it. Hell, we all read hundreds of Slashdot comments looking for the few good ones. Where's the difference?
It's only dumb to land vertically if you never intend to make it practical on a commercial basis. Commercial practability means the ability to land the sucker at existing airports, which, considering horizontal-landers typically need a runway the size of Tennessee, is impractical for any but a vertical-land craft.
the X-33, THATS a reuseable spacecraft looks much better too.
Now if only it could be made to fly... as of the last Critical Design Review I attended, it was still 5000 pounds overweight. Which a certain group of engineers pointed out years ago, and were subsequently canned.
Bring back the Delta Clipper. Now THERE's a spacecraft.
Speech is NOT software. Speech, written or spoken, is about perception. How many of the dear people, God love 'em, would notice those changes posted at the bottom? How many would even think to look? Giving someone else ownership and control of your words is far too chancy.
How many firearms related crimes do you think occure in the UK? We used to have tight firearms controls, and they've been made even tighter in the past couple of years. Firearms offences have droped since the new regulations were imposed.
Why use a gun when you don't need one? Crime rates aren't lower in the UK - they're higher. It's just that instead of gang-bangers shotgunning someone on the sidewalk, it's a drunken football fan knifing an opposing fan. Gun or knife, you're still dead. The statistics are clear; the looser the gun control laws, the lower the crime rate. Period. Very few crooks are dumb enough to try anything when they know their target might be armed.
I'm not saying you aren't right; I have no evidence of that. You may indeed be right in every detail. When is the last time I listened to an "official" news release without a very large grain of salt?
The problem is that you and others like you are going to be considered crackpots. Not just by the "uninformed," either. By me and by others like me. You like to throw around these accusations; very well. It's all possible. There are plenty of odd things happening.
But where's your evidence? Hell, where's your logical thought process?
Don't talk to me about plots and conspiracy. Do they exist? Certainly. The primary goal of every government is to keep power, democratic or no. But what plots? What conspiracy? How do you KNOW Putin ordered those bombings? How do you know that journalist wasn't killed for sticking his nose in where it wasn't wanted? By either side? Every journalist does that, and when you do it in a war zone you've got to expect to have it cut off.
We live in interesting times. The government is corrupt, unfeeling, unfair, and tyrannical; well, yes, that's true to a greater or lesser extent depending on your country. The Socialist/Communist tendancies of most of the Open Source Nazis on Slashdot aren't much better. Like 99.9% of all revolutionaries, they want to throw out the rats in government and replace them with their own. The solution is the same it has always been. Break the law.
Quietly. The government outlawed guns? Well, then, don't own a registered weapon, and be careful with the unlicensed ones. The government outlawed encryption? Use it carefully, with those you trust, and only when absolutely necessary. Better never to use it at all; use circumlocations and code phrases instead. Not stupid things like "The penguin flies at midnight." Use things like "Jill is sick; we'll be late to the party. Say midnight or so?" The person you're sending it to will know what you mean, if you laid it out ahead of time.
The point is that all through history, governments have pulled things like this. The dumb ones get caught, which smart governments use to prove the need for the systems and the dumb governments use to publicize their stupidity. Some do both. Smart individuals stay smart, work the angles, stay free, and have no problems. The Internet and other modern communications/computing devices make such tasks EASIER, not harder. They give the governments greater powers over the masses, but they give even greater FREEDOM to those with the wit to use it.
It's not just the older ones that are a problem. I'm 22 as well; my best employee is 47. My worst is 21. Sometimes you just have to make a judgement call on the employee's worth to the company.
The big problem comes in when the 21 year old has a really impressive background. The important thing to remember is that the employee's worth to you is not based on past experience or accomplishments. That's yesterday. Show me what you'll do tomorrow, if you really want to impress me.
ABC News claimed, last night, that the ad was done by digitizing his body from various speaking gigs where he's braced himself at the podium. The "Walking" was done by taking the digitized model and making it move to the motions of someone roughly the same height and build.
So does linux. That's what's wrong with the statement.
Want it all summed up? If you don't change anything in the system, NT and Linux both run effectively forever.
As for Windows 2000 being more stable... it is. I love this OS. It's got the same bullet-proof feeling Linux has, without the hassle. I haven't rebooted my Windows 2000 box in weeks, and I do a hell of a lot more on it than on my Linux box. I've changed configurations, added and removed software, even changed the mouse. All things that used to require reboots. Without a single problem. I don't even know what a Windows 2000 BSOD looks like. Never seen one.
For the past year, you Linux zealots have all been laughing and quoting Ghandi. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Well, Microsoft has fought back. Damn effectively, too. And you guys are laughing...
As opposed to a Linux Bigot such as yourself? I'd rather spend approximately 1 hour building a Windows 2000 Professioanl system, and have it be rock solid and secure out of the box, than spend hours and days building a linux box that STILL doesn't have comparable productivity apps. Then applying all the thousands of fixes and patches, instead of one service pack. Oh, and let's not forget the constant maintenance and tweaking to keep that Linux box at "top performance." I've done both. I regularly do both. If I wanted to spend all my time getting "top performance" rather than getting work done, Linux would definitely be the way to go for everything.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to blaspheme in the holy halls of Slashdot.
I am a strong free speech advocate, and if people want to talk about naked petrified people with grits in their pants, they should be free to do so, in a forum that wants to hear it. Perhaps they should start a mailing list.
The problem with this argument is that it then opens the door for restrictions against unpopular speech. "You can talk about Natalie Portman naked while pouring grits down your pants if you are talking only to people who are ALSO pouring grits down their pants" is, while an amusing picture for some, I'm sure, syntactically no different than "You may only discuss being gay/having an abortion/the republican party only if you are talking to another gay person/unwanted pregnancy/republican." This is the sort of thing that people like to bring up where they say "You don't want this one specific problem, right?" The problem is, as soon as you say "You're right, I don't want that" to one case, it gets MUCH easier to introduce new restrictions.
No, I don't want a lunatic standing outside my house with a bullhorn. But I prefer that to a lunatic in Congress taking away the rights of lunatics everywhere.
Bullshit. The first amendment is not designed to allow ACs to post on/. any more than it's designed to protect grafitti artists who write their names on billboards.
Actually, it is. Free Speech protections do not protect vandlas, you're correct there. The reason is that someone spray-painting a sign, or a wall, are doing physical damage to physical property of some physical value. That same vandal, however, is and should be protected if they simply stand IN FRONT OF the wall and scream whatever they like. No physical damage, no vandalism.
Slashdot posters fail this test. There is no physical damage, no forced entry. Crackers fit the description of vandals because web pages and their administrators' time are both commodities; they have value. But on Slashdot, the POINT is to be able to express yourself however you see fit.
In short, we may lament that these idiots and assholes - my belief of what they are - have nothing better to say. They waste time, they waste bandwidth, they waste valuable oxygen. But I will defend to the death their right to do so.
No one doubts the command line is king for certain TASKS. If you have a list of, say five tasks - write a document, send an email, print 2 other documents, create an image, and send another email - you can do EACH TASK faster from the command line than from a GUI. But the advantage to a GUI is that I can do all of those at once, limited only by my ability to multitask, keep the tasklist in the corner, and keep going.
This fits with that sort of GUI. The problem with the intelligent agents is that they only work with massive intervention on the part of the user, which defeats the purpose of having one in the first place. If the users don't need to interact with the agent as much, there's less of a problem.
IIS gets hacked a new way twice a month. And microsoft release a "Hot fix" and says that the software is now bugfree... Only to be proven wrong.
Wrong. Reviewing the Microsoft Security list, there's an average of two to three "Bulletins" a week. Those usually consist of an error report, an update, and then a fix. That's for ALL Microsoft web software, be it old versions of IE, IIS, SQL, whatever. And nowhere does it say the software is now "bugfree," it just says the current known vunlerabilities are fixed. Which is true.
Outlook Express runs ActiveX Components in emails ! Why the f*** is html being used in emails anyway ? And why put windows only stuff in html ?
Because not everyone shares your views. I prefer plain text email. My boss prefers HTML. That's his right. I also prefer pseudo-HTML "humor" tags to smileys. He prefers smileys. They're both incorrect grammar, but who cares. If your mail program can't handle it, don't complain to the user. It's *YOUR* problem. Not theirs.
IE has some of the same ActiveX and other security related problems. And it is so damn annoying. IE: "Now we are going to setup an internet account" USER: "But i have already setup my dial-up connection" IE: "I DONT FUCKING CARE. ITS MY WAY OR THE HIGH WAY"
Proving you're talking out of the side of your face and have no idea what you're talking about. Option 1; Sign up for new Internet Account. Option 2; Modify existing dial-up networking. Option 3; Use Existing Settings
IE: "Now we are going to dial up to your internet connection. 'cuz you clicked on the Internet icon on your desktop" USER: clicks cancel, as he is wanting to access his lan IE: "Operation aborted, Offline" USER: types http://192.168.0.53 in his browser IE: "Now we are going to dial up to your internet connection." USER: Clicks cancel once again IE: "Operation aborted, offline" USER: "Grr"
Wait just a minute. You can (as you seem to be claiming) configure Linux to do all this, but you can't figure out Microsoft Networking? Get real. You haven't tried. Configuring Microsoft - any flavor - is simple - define your IP, Gateway, and netmask. If those are correct, then there won't be a problem.
Actually, it does and it doesn't. By default, unless you change the options during install, Telnet doesn't even run. If you run it, then by default localhost and Windows 2000 machines in the same domain don't need to authenticate, but any other machine won't be able to connect. Or, you can set a lower security option to use password authentication. It's not too bad, actually; I've been running the various versions from RC1 through 2195 (RTM final) for months now, and it actually kicks ass. Beats NT hands down, 98 no question, and even Linux on some tasks.
Of course, that just got this comment labeled a troll because it doesn't proclaim it to suck, but hey - the truth hurts. Deal.
Irrelevant. If I change the terms of the license, it's legal, so long as I don't claim it to be the GPL.
So that copyright doesn't apply. If I, or our anonymous poster, rewrite the license to include extra clauses, and change the Copyright statement as well to name the license the "Green Fuzzy Choo-Choo" license, by someone other than the Free Software Foundation, then it is legal. How many modified versions of the GPL have we seen? Do you really think they're all illegal?
I disagree. The sites are linked to each other, yes, but this creates an "island" of like-minded sites, and, more often than not, like-minded individuals, as well. True research requires finding more than one point of view on the topic.
What's needed is a search engine that can find ALL pages relating to the topic, and intelligently search through those sites and the sites they link to - their "islands" - to find as much information as possible.
Of course, while we're at it, it'd be nice if the search engine printed it up in a nice summary format, with references and links, but let's start with the basics.
Batpucky. The reason for going has nothing to do with the quality of the food or the conditions here. The reason for going is, as they say, the reason the bear went around the mountain - to see what it was like over there.
Regardless of the amount of food, drink, money, or energy, we will still be human. And humans are never satisfied with what they have, they always want more, better, faster, and cheaper. And I ain't talking algae cakes.
Slashdot Mirror
The older stuff, including the one this is quoted from
The NEW BOFH stories, still by Simon Travaglia
Microsoft and several independent authors have warned against using Netscape LDAP with AD; it's tuned and optimized (of course) for Microsoft's LDAP3 standard. Netscape is optimized for NetWare, because that was the most prevelant when it was released. The NetWare test is on a shipped, finished, tuned product; the AD tests were on a pre-release build (2194 is the one just before the RTM build, which is NOT identical to the retail.) Finally, the tests were designed to test functions AD is not optimized for; AD is intended to fill the distributed IntraNet environment.
My point is that when you read a report, consider the facts before you slam Microsoft. There are good tools made by Microsoft; Windows 2000 is one of them. Oh, and by the way; a GUI is useful on a server for a number of reasons. To name three:
Less than it cost to make Waterworld. Deal.
Actually, they'd be building permanent orbiting colonies inside of 20 years, and it would be child's play to turn one of those into a starship.
Either way, don't block of the easiest and richest strikes; that might prevent it from happening at all.
Now if only it could be made to fly... as of the last Critical Design Review I attended, it was still 5000 pounds overweight. Which a certain group of engineers pointed out years ago, and were subsequently canned.
Bring back the Delta Clipper. Now THERE's a spacecraft.
Speech is NOT software. Speech, written or spoken, is about perception. How many of the dear people, God love 'em, would notice those changes posted at the bottom? How many would even think to look? Giving someone else ownership and control of your words is far too chancy.
Why use a gun when you don't need one? Crime rates aren't lower in the UK - they're higher. It's just that instead of gang-bangers shotgunning someone on the sidewalk, it's a drunken football fan knifing an opposing fan. Gun or knife, you're still dead. The statistics are clear; the looser the gun control laws, the lower the crime rate. Period. Very few crooks are dumb enough to try anything when they know their target might be armed.
I'm not saying you aren't right; I have no evidence of that. You may indeed be right in every detail. When is the last time I listened to an "official" news release without a very large grain of salt?
The problem is that you and others like you are going to be considered crackpots. Not just by the "uninformed," either. By me and by others like me. You like to throw around these accusations; very well. It's all possible. There are plenty of odd things happening.
But where's your evidence? Hell, where's your logical thought process?
Don't talk to me about plots and conspiracy. Do they exist? Certainly. The primary goal of every government is to keep power, democratic or no. But what plots? What conspiracy? How do you KNOW Putin ordered those bombings? How do you know that journalist wasn't killed for sticking his nose in where it wasn't wanted? By either side? Every journalist does that, and when you do it in a war zone you've got to expect to have it cut off.
We live in interesting times. The government is corrupt, unfeeling, unfair, and tyrannical; well, yes, that's true to a greater or lesser extent depending on your country. The Socialist/Communist tendancies of most of the Open Source Nazis on Slashdot aren't much better. Like 99.9% of all revolutionaries, they want to throw out the rats in government and replace them with their own. The solution is the same it has always been. Break the law.
Quietly. The government outlawed guns? Well, then, don't own a registered weapon, and be careful with the unlicensed ones. The government outlawed encryption? Use it carefully, with those you trust, and only when absolutely necessary. Better never to use it at all; use circumlocations and code phrases instead. Not stupid things like "The penguin flies at midnight." Use things like "Jill is sick; we'll be late to the party. Say midnight or so?" The person you're sending it to will know what you mean, if you laid it out ahead of time.
The point is that all through history, governments have pulled things like this. The dumb ones get caught, which smart governments use to prove the need for the systems and the dumb governments use to publicize their stupidity. Some do both. Smart individuals stay smart, work the angles, stay free, and have no problems. The Internet and other modern communications/computing devices make such tasks EASIER, not harder. They give the governments greater powers over the masses, but they give even greater FREEDOM to those with the wit to use it.
The big problem comes in when the 21 year old has a really impressive background. The important thing to remember is that the employee's worth to you is not based on past experience or accomplishments. That's yesterday. Show me what you'll do tomorrow, if you really want to impress me.
Never underestimate the power of stupidity.
Still interesting.
Want it all summed up? If you don't change anything in the system, NT and Linux both run effectively forever.
As for Windows 2000 being more stable... it is. I love this OS. It's got the same bullet-proof feeling Linux has, without the hassle. I haven't rebooted my Windows 2000 box in weeks, and I do a hell of a lot more on it than on my Linux box. I've changed configurations, added and removed software, even changed the mouse. All things that used to require reboots. Without a single problem. I don't even know what a Windows 2000 BSOD looks like. Never seen one.
For the past year, you Linux zealots have all been laughing and quoting Ghandi. "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." Well, Microsoft has fought back. Damn effectively, too. And you guys are laughing...
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to blaspheme in the holy halls of Slashdot.
Actually, I've had that happen with NT systems. Get it running doing what you want, don't overload it, and it'll be fine for as long as needed.
The problem with this argument is that it then opens the door for restrictions against unpopular speech. "You can talk about Natalie Portman naked while pouring grits down your pants if you are talking only to people who are ALSO pouring grits down their pants" is, while an amusing picture for some, I'm sure, syntactically no different than "You may only discuss being gay/having an abortion/the republican party only if you are talking to another gay person/unwanted pregnancy/republican." This is the sort of thing that people like to bring up where they say "You don't want this one specific problem, right?" The problem is, as soon as you say "You're right, I don't want that" to one case, it gets MUCH easier to introduce new restrictions.
No, I don't want a lunatic standing outside my house with a bullhorn. But I prefer that to a lunatic in Congress taking away the rights of lunatics everywhere.
Actually, it is. Free Speech protections do not protect vandlas, you're correct there. The reason is that someone spray-painting a sign, or a wall, are doing physical damage to physical property of some physical value. That same vandal, however, is and should be protected if they simply stand IN FRONT OF the wall and scream whatever they like. No physical damage, no vandalism.
Slashdot posters fail this test. There is no physical damage, no forced entry. Crackers fit the description of vandals because web pages and their administrators' time are both commodities; they have value. But on Slashdot, the POINT is to be able to express yourself however you see fit.
In short, we may lament that these idiots and assholes - my belief of what they are - have nothing better to say. They waste time, they waste bandwidth, they waste valuable oxygen. But I will defend to the death their right to do so.
This fits with that sort of GUI. The problem with the intelligent agents is that they only work with massive intervention on the part of the user, which defeats the purpose of having one in the first place. If the users don't need to interact with the agent as much, there's less of a problem.
Wrong. Reviewing the Microsoft Security list, there's an average of two to three "Bulletins" a week. Those usually consist of an error report, an update, and then a fix. That's for ALL Microsoft web software, be it old versions of IE, IIS, SQL, whatever. And nowhere does it say the software is now "bugfree," it just says the current known vunlerabilities are fixed. Which is true.
Outlook Express runs ActiveX Components in emails ! Why the f*** is html being used in emails anyway ? And why put windows only stuff in html ?
Because not everyone shares your views. I prefer plain text email. My boss prefers HTML. That's his right. I also prefer pseudo-HTML "humor" tags to smileys. He prefers smileys. They're both incorrect grammar, but who cares. If your mail program can't handle it, don't complain to the user. It's *YOUR* problem. Not theirs.
IE has some of the same ActiveX and other security related problems. And it is so damn annoying.
IE: "Now we are going to setup an internet account"
USER: "But i have already setup my dial-up connection"
IE: "I DONT FUCKING CARE. ITS MY WAY OR THE HIGH WAY"
Proving you're talking out of the side of your face and have no idea what you're talking about.
Option 1; Sign up for new Internet Account.
Option 2; Modify existing dial-up networking.
Option 3; Use Existing Settings
IE: "Now we are going to dial up to your internet connection. 'cuz you clicked on the Internet icon on your desktop"
USER: clicks cancel, as he is wanting to access his lan
IE: "Operation aborted, Offline"
USER: types http://192.168.0.53 in his browser
IE: "Now we are going to dial up to your internet connection."
USER: Clicks cancel once again
IE: "Operation aborted, offline"
USER: "Grr"
Wait just a minute. You can (as you seem to be claiming) configure Linux to do all this, but you can't figure out Microsoft Networking? Get real. You haven't tried. Configuring Microsoft - any flavor - is simple - define your IP, Gateway, and netmask. If those are correct, then there won't be a problem.
Of course, that just got this comment labeled a troll because it doesn't proclaim it to suck, but hey - the truth hurts. Deal.
So that copyright doesn't apply. If I, or our anonymous poster, rewrite the license to include extra clauses, and change the Copyright statement as well to name the license the "Green Fuzzy Choo-Choo" license, by someone other than the Free Software Foundation, then it is legal. How many modified versions of the GPL have we seen? Do you really think they're all illegal?
What's needed is a search engine that can find ALL pages relating to the topic, and intelligently search through those sites and the sites they link to - their "islands" - to find as much information as possible.
Of course, while we're at it, it'd be nice if the search engine printed it up in a nice summary format, with references and links, but let's start with the basics.
Regardless of the amount of food, drink, money, or energy, we will still be human. And humans are never satisfied with what they have, they always want more, better, faster, and cheaper. And I ain't talking algae cakes.