He's not talking about corporate-maintained machines, but user machines.
Actually, he's jumping all over the place. I'm just trying to keep up.
Ignorant users install all sorts of shit
So do ignorant "IT" users.
I admit that I don't know shit about Windows
But, you'll have an opinion on it, won't you? Of course, why should lack of knowledge of a topic hinder someone coughing up their opinion on it?
WinXP as my corporate laptop, with a new job), but it would take me well over one working day to get that laptop up to speed
What does "get it up to speed" mean? Do you mean performance? Ability to do the work you need to do? Secure? Those are the kinds of things your IT department should have done for you BEFORE it even got into your hands.
(I don't know Windows, but I know IT principles, and have been working with computers since the mid 1980s), if I could ever get it back to its original speed.
Oh, I see. So, tell me Mr. "I know a lot about computers" (I love those people) If slow downs are caused by "Ignorant users install all sorts of shit", and your computer is running slower after a while, what does that make you? I'll give you a hint: it begins with an "I" and ends with a "gnorant user". If you know "IT principles", whatever that is, perhaps you should apply them to your laptop.
Compare that with a data-backup, format, install (ideally from an OEM CD/DVD), any other drivers, apps, etc - it would take a while, and be a PITA, but it would give a real result
Or, compare that to uninstalling any programs you're not using. Or, better yet, removing the cruft as you go along (such as getting rid of Quicktime or Realplayer's tray icons right after you install them. Taking stuff out of the startup group that was just installed, etc). Then, you don't need to spend a whole day mucking with your computer, it'll continue to work every day, just like the day before...like mine, which I was given over a year ago and it's as snappy today as it was the day I got it. Actually, snappier because I got rid of a couple of things left behind by the desktop admins. How many items in your tray? I have the clock, battery monitor, volume control and...ooo, new mail. Why do I care? I use the tray as a gauge of "computer savvy". The fewer things there, the better you know your stuff. The more things...well, you know. If you've got more than 7 items in your tray, please wipe the drool off your keyboard, it's not good for it.
without having to arse about with undocumented Registry entries, etc.
With Google, there is no such thing as "undocumented" anymore. If you can't figure out what an entry does either by its location in the registry or by a simple web search, you don't know as much about computers as you claim. Regardless, there are NUMEROUS utilities out there that can show you EVERY location where a startup item is (I will give the penguinheads that. init scripts are a PITA, but compared to all of the places a startup item can be placed in Windows...that being said...BSD's are more elegant). Sysinternals.com's autoruns is the one I use. Of course, you can save yourself a ton of aggie by just looking in {HKLM,HKCU}\Software\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run. That's where well-behaved apps will put their startup items. Anything in the other nooks and crannies is most likely there to do you harm.
Not in my experience. Mostly it was registry-creep, virii or simply a user willing to format in order to restart a messy system from scratch, or upgrading to a new system.
Who is this "registry creep"? Regardless, you're talking software when we were discussing hardware.
Yeah, of course... Hmmm I need to backup 40Gb of data, how many CDs I'm gonna need? And besides, I don't thrust CDs as a reliable media.
How many home users do you know that have 40G of data? I have a 300G array filled with data at home, but I only backup 1.5G of it. That's the extent of 20 years of files, images, mail, etc. Your average home user is only going to need one CD to backup their data. If you're talking about a corporate environment, then you use tape, and RAID arrays and all number of technology to backup data. But, you also (in theory) have IT people who know what they're doing and have the machines setup so these kinds of problems aren't an issue. Of course, nothing ever works as well in practice as it does in theory...
For me, as a Linux user, partitions are a must: I keep/home mounted in a distinct (large) partition and I can change from distro to distro at will... (as a matter of fact: I do that pretty often)
As Linux user myself, I keep everything on a single partition because installing distros every five minutes is a waste of time. When I DO need to investigate a distro, I use QEMU or VMware because that's the sane solution
I don't know... it seems pretty easier to balance various small trees than balancing a gigantic one...
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but it doesn't matter.
Many Windows users I've met reformat annually, and I've even heard some admins recommend this as SOP
That's nice. Just because there's a lot of "the blind leading the stupid" out there doesn't make it the right choice. Actually FIXING things is. That way they don't return.
he only Windows machine I use is a corporate issued one, and so far the latest one hasn't had any problems
Wanna know why? You apparently work in one of those very few places where your IT department seems to know what they're doing and have locked the machine down properly. And, surprise, surprise, you've had no problems with it. Given the generally accepted "wisdom" on slashdot, you're obviously lying because there's no way you can go 5 months without reinstalling the system.:) Of course, when I tell them I just retired 7 NT 4.0 servers that provided mail for 13K users, they think I'm lying, too.:)
This is utterly idiot. All stuff (system, apps, data) packed together in C:\.
That's the easiest way for the end user. As another posted pointed out, users don't care about/understand/want to deal with separate partitions.
Should the system go bad (virii, etc), which happens often
Actually, in the last 20 years, the most likely reason for a machine to "go bad" is a hard drive failure. Separate partitions aren't going to help you much if your head don't move.
the most used solution is to format.
Just because supposed "tech support" people don't know how to actually fix problems is not a limitation of Windows, it's a limitation of the people doing the hiring at support centers. Anyone who uses formatting as a "fix" instead of actually fixing should be fired...out of a cannon. Also, formatting isn't the fix, they tell the end user to use a recovery disk which wipes the whole hard drive instead of doing a repair install, which is easy enough to implement instead.
Hmm so, where do I backup my data before formatting when this data is in the same partition as the system and the apps... Not that joe-six-packs are organized enough to separate data from apps and system, thou.
So, you complain that joe user can't backup his data, and then admit that joe user can't figure out how to separate it anyway. As for backing up...mmmmm...pretty much every new PC these days comes with a CD burner. If, instead of complaining, you spent the five minutes teaching your joe user friends how to back up their data with that tool, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?
And I guess there is some slight performance boost in working with smaller partitions.
You would be incorrect.
So, IMHO, windows installer should have a decent partitioner... And brand new PCs should be sold with a reasonable partition scheme. E.g: a 120Gb should have about 20Gb for system and apps and 2x50Gb for data.
Firstly, your opinion isn't humble. It's chock full of righteous indignation. And it's that special kind of righteous indignation that stems from ignorance. There is only one instance where I separate my data from my apps: my work laptop. I have all of my data stored on an encrypted partition, and the apps/OS on a small non-encrypted partition. If I need to leave my company, I don't want to worry about what's left behind on the hard drive. Aside from that, I NEVER partition drives. Linux, Windows, OSX, doesn't matter. I HATE partitioned drives. There's never enough space on one of them and I end up scrambling to to figure out how to balance it. In the last 20 years, I've never regretted having single-partitioned drives.
In MY opinion, partitioning is a relic from the ancient times of tiny drives and OSes that couldn't support anything larger than "X megs". The fact that it remains, despite it being completely uneccessary, shows how too many people in IT can't grok and move forward. "That's the way it's always been done" is so scarily true...
the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses
It was my understanding that stem cells from aborted fetuses were LESS useful than those that were regressed from the host that would receive the benefit of the treatment. Thus, the reason the US ban is only on aborted fetus stem cell research is not a bad thing (if it's not the better way to go, let's not go there anyway).
And, has performance not even comparable to a 6-year old 32-bit Intel-based Windows box. I speak, of course, of the 1.33Ghz Powerbook I bought summer before last to replace the 1Ghz PIII machine I'd been using for years. Aside from the clunky, overly-moused based interface that made it too difficult to edit documents without having to reach for the rat every 3.5 seconds, I got rid of it because the performance was ABYSMAL! I sold it for half what I paid for it, and was glad to get rid of it at that cost.
What's so wrong with the iPod that they're wishing for competitors. None of the competitors really care about mac users, so why should I care about their products? And why do we want WMV to win the DRM battle? And why is the iPod entry level?
Well, let's see...over-priced, poorly manufactured, undersized and lacking of features above and beyond just playing MP3s. The only two reasons people buy iPods is to 1) perpetuate the cult of mac and 2) image. Everyone else buys a creative zen and laughs at their ipod-wielding friends.
10. Market share still sucks
There's only so much recruitment any cult can do before they start running into intelligent people who know better.
9. iPod still can't do bluetooth
Considering how useless bluetooth is for large file transfers, I'm surprised at this, too.
I would never let a developer have any kind of admin access to anything. They're just over-glorified users who think they know what they're doing. Being a developer does not make you an IT person, despite what management thinks. The reason you're so locked down is because you know just enough to be REALLY dangerous.
Another poster commented, but I'll repeat: they are not religions.
both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed
They're not both theories. ID is an extension of a theory that puts "and something magical happened" in all the parts that haven't been filled in, explained or proven. ID tries to serve as the "proof" of evolution by saying "yes, yes, that's all well and good. Things started out like this, and then changed, because someone started them and then changed them. All the other fiddly bits, like proof, are unimportant."
also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.
To a degree, I'll agree that the response that's often given to ID discussion is pretty much the same response religious types give when discussing gay couples raising children. It's a fear of conversion more than anything. Children are impressionable, and when you start discussing magic and the like, they get interested and want to participate. Since religion is based on some kind of magical superstition or another, it's easy to fear the children being pulled into cults like christianity and the like.
the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief
No, it's really not, and constantly calling it that doesn't make it so.
Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID
Um, no, it doesn't. Evolutionary theory can at least present some proof to backup its claims. Religion, however, has yet to produce even the slightest shred of credible evidence that some kind of god-figure exists. Again, ID simply fills in the missing parts of evolutionary theory with "magic".
protected by law from hearing or discussing anything different from the parent poster's personal beliefs
That's pretty much the basis of separating church from state. If I'm sending my child to a PUBLIC school, I wanted him educated, not indoctrinated in some kind of hoodoo-voodoo. I don't care if it's the prevailing hoodoo of the time, I don't want them anywhere near it. Ideally, if we could force all religious types to keep their intolerant, ingnorant, hate-filled agendas out of the public eye entirely, that would be, forgive the pun, heaven on Earth to me. Freedom OF religion should imply freedom FROM religion. I don't know why it's ok for churchy zealots to protest outside of the new local strip club, but I can't protest the building of yet another catholic church without someone calling me some kind of nut. In one building, I'd see naked women, in the other I'd practice cannabalism. Yeah, I'm the nut...
I think a lot of your issues revolve around the fact that you're completely wrong in many ways...
The main job of IS is connectivity. Connectivity is the core of why we have IS. Anything else is extraneous, and I shouldn't be dealing with it.
The main job of IS (IT, MIS, MCIS, whatever) is efficiency. Connectivity is part of that, but not the end all and be all. It's obvious that your focus is just on keeping things running, rather than being proactive and providing your company with solutions. This is further evidenced by...
IS involvement in other divisions isn't necessary. IS is involved with other divisions when physical products get connected to the network, but not before. Software should be evaluated by IS only when it becomes necessary for purchase and implementation, not before. Any developed piece of software should be evaluated by IS when the software is ready to install.
It's involvement is CRITICAL for success. How can you provide effective solutions to your endusers if you don't know what their problems are? How can you set and maintain standards if you're not involved in purchasing decisions? You don't get involved until something's ready to go on the network? That explains....
I'm too overloaded. With 93 permanent users and 110 workstations (some are floaters), I can't do both systems work and admin work (my title is Systems Administrator, but I carry no management authority) on my own. My proposal stated the need for the creation of staff (a tech and a clerk). Management thinks because things are running, I have no issues, but I'm falling apart from all I have to do to keep things running. I need to offset the load so I can do more of the 'bigger picture' things to help guide this company out of the IS dark ages. (We have no CTO or CIO; Management is made up of engineers from different disciplines)
With a microscopic network like that, you shouldn't be overloaded. I've handled networks and evironments three times that size completely on my own (well, technically we had a desktop tech, but he was worthless and I had to give him all the answers). The problem isn't management any further than the fact that they hired you. I'm sorry to tell you that your 20 years of experience have been wasted because frankly, you're incompetent. It's really time you looked into a new field. Perhaps fast food?
How would Slashdot users attack this? I've done my Google searches; went back to traditional books from Barnes and Noble; and even contacted my alma mater, Northern Arizona University, to find some answers. How would you prove the need for change on these three points? Can I institute change here?"
First, I would fire you. Second, I'd take an inventory of everything that is in place and figure out what's wrong and fix it. Third, create a strategy that creates standards and policies to keep things in line for the future (standards such as what hardware to buy, what software is approved, and policies that define how these things are enforced). That should only take a couple of months on such a small network, at most. During that time, you can also work with the other departments so that you can better understand their needs. You can also explain to them the policies and standards you're putting into place, why they're necessary, and solicit their input on them (which gets them involved and on YOUR side).
Once these things have been accomplished, you can go back to those departments you've determined are the most likely to work with you, find out what their biggest problems are and help them find solutions. After a couple of successes like that, you'll find the other departments will be coming to you on their own to help them out. It's at that point that you can go to senior management and say "here's what we've accomplished, but I can't do any more without a headcount increase and a little more pull". Only the worst of managers will deny this request outright. If you at least get "a
...the reason it's so hard to change that policy in your company. No one knows why they do it, or if it actually produces results, but it's the way it's always been done, so....
How about the simple fact that unless you read, memorize and completely digest the entirety of the Apache documentation, there's no way to know exactly what the bare minimum is necessary in an httpd.conf to just serve static webpages on a particular port. Is a "MaxKeepAliveRequests" an absolute essential? "StartServers"? Which modules? Is dir_module an absolute minimum requirement?
"Oh, but httpd comes with a default configuration file", you say? The default configuration file is almost 1100 lines long! If you remove all of the comments (none of which say "you MUST have this line for Apache to work"), it's still over 300 lines long. Hardly a simple configuration. Are these important questions? For a server that's facing the Internet, it would be nice if I could follow the best practice of "minimum necessary", but Apache doesn't give that as an option. I finally had to figure it out by starting with a conf file that just had a "ServerRoot" directive and kept adding to it until the damn thing finally started and served pages. And, FORGET asking the Apache community for help. Their default answer to any question is "did you RTFM"? To which I respond: "Why not narrow it down to one or two of the 600 pages for a brother?"
Oh, and my config file after I got it down to barest? 15 lines.
Agreed. I've only met one person who said they had better luck with any of the other spyware killers. Every time I've used it, it's been after someone said "Oh, don't bother checking for spyware. I ran spybot and adware on it, and the machine is clean". Ten minutes later the comments are always "it found HOW MANY?!":)
Spend the $65k to get software that works the way you want it to, rather than forcing your users to work extra hard just to get their jobs done. How much money is wasted by all of your users having to tweak settings constantly? How much time and money is wasted by every user that calls you to help walk them through the process when they move to a new computer? How about when you leave and whatever kluge you implement has to be supported? How about when they don't get a perfect rendition of that Word file the outside customer sent them? Worse, how 'bout when the salesmen call to say "I sent my customer a Write document, and they said they could barely read it when they opened it in Word!?"
Yes, they're the typical MS-favorable rhetoric, but they're also valid points and questions that need answering. I understand we're more than likely talking less than 300 users ($65k/$300 per license=260 users), but still...I've supported networks that small (that's not a medium-sized network), and $65k so I can move on to the next problem is a mighty small price to pay...
Well, that's 'cause you don't know what you're doing. I have two images I use on all servers, one for Dell, one for HP (for the system partitions). Using sysprep, that's all I need and can deploy a complete server in minutes.
Possibly, but not if done right. There's really no reason the "non-US" population couldn't have some sort of backwards compatibility so they can access US stuff, but the US can't access theirs. Financially, it might be an issue as it cuts off US dollars from foreign websites. Dunno, I wasn't looking to provide a long-term plan here. I was in it primarily for the spite.:)
World: But that will break the internet.
USA: OK
World: But that would be bad.
Only for a short while. Eventually, when people in the US can't get to anything anywhere else, there will be enough of an outcry that they'll come around. Speaking as a US citizen, I hearby grant the world the right to disconnect us from the rest of you. Wow, did that not sound like a typically US separatist statement or what?:) Seriously, cut us off, it's the only way we'll learn.
...includes freedom FROM religion. People have a right to walk down the street and not see the christian symbols of hatred and intolerance everywhere. It's time to take it all back. We need to start protesting in front of churches until they take their crosses down. I don't want MY children exposed to their evil, I don't want their minds warped by their derisive ideas. Hell, christians practice cannabalism and support the KKK (they say they are a christian organization)! Why are they still tolerated? Worst part is, most of them don't even know anything about the religion they follow and pervert it to their ends. I have a fair proposal: we start dunking them in water. If they float, they're true christians and can live in solitude on an island somewhere. If they drown, they're not true christians and we're better off without them. If only the Romans had done their jobs properly, we wouldn't be having all of the problems we have today.
I switched to a Mac in June of 2004, and switched back in June of 2005. The interface was nice enough, but too mouse-centric for me. The key combinations necessary for simple day-to-day operation were too complex and finger-twisting. In the end, I decided I needed to work too hard to accomplish a lot of the same things I could do on my Windows machine with ease. I sold my $2800 powerbook and bought a $900 HP and haven't looked back...
want to avoid paying another two hundred bucks for an x86 Mac
Have you not looked at Mac prices in a while? Current Macs run 2-10X more expensive than comparable PCs. There are plenty of articles out there on building a $200 x86-Mac clone, and I don't expect you're going to see real Macs anywhere close to that price.
Stick to what the guy is doing to help the world, for once get off his back, geesh...
Too right. The crowd on this damn site is just so damn paranoid. How much evil they must have in their hearts to see it in everyone else's. They just don't get it. When the most recent "Top 60 Philanthropists" list came out last year, Bill & Melissa donated MORE by themselves than the other 59 people on that list COMBINED. Unfortunately, the jealousy all of these people feel for Mr. G is so overwhelming, he could have god himself come down and say he's the new messiah and people would find an ulterior motive.
Slashdot Mirror
He's not talking about corporate-maintained machines, but user machines.
Actually, he's jumping all over the place. I'm just trying to keep up.
Ignorant users install all sorts of shit
So do ignorant "IT" users.
I admit that I don't know shit about Windows
But, you'll have an opinion on it, won't you? Of course, why should lack of knowledge of a topic hinder someone coughing up their opinion on it?
WinXP as my corporate laptop, with a new job), but it would take me well over one working day to get that laptop up to speed
What does "get it up to speed" mean? Do you mean performance? Ability to do the work you need to do? Secure? Those are the kinds of things your IT department should have done for you BEFORE it even got into your hands.
(I don't know Windows, but I know IT principles, and have been working with computers since the mid 1980s), if I could ever get it back to its original speed.
Oh, I see. So, tell me Mr. "I know a lot about computers" (I love those people) If slow downs are caused by "Ignorant users install all sorts of shit", and your computer is running slower after a while, what does that make you? I'll give you a hint: it begins with an "I" and ends with a "gnorant user". If you know "IT principles", whatever that is, perhaps you should apply them to your laptop.
Compare that with a data-backup, format, install (ideally from an OEM CD/DVD), any other drivers, apps, etc - it would take a while, and be a PITA, but it would give a real result
Or, compare that to uninstalling any programs you're not using. Or, better yet, removing the cruft as you go along (such as getting rid of Quicktime or Realplayer's tray icons right after you install them. Taking stuff out of the startup group that was just installed, etc). Then, you don't need to spend a whole day mucking with your computer, it'll continue to work every day, just like the day before...like mine, which I was given over a year ago and it's as snappy today as it was the day I got it. Actually, snappier because I got rid of a couple of things left behind by the desktop admins. How many items in your tray? I have the clock, battery monitor, volume control and...ooo, new mail. Why do I care? I use the tray as a gauge of "computer savvy". The fewer things there, the better you know your stuff. The more things...well, you know. If you've got more than 7 items in your tray, please wipe the drool off your keyboard, it's not good for it.
without having to arse about with undocumented Registry entries, etc.
With Google, there is no such thing as "undocumented" anymore. If you can't figure out what an entry does either by its location in the registry or by a simple web search, you don't know as much about computers as you claim. Regardless, there are NUMEROUS utilities out there that can show you EVERY location where a startup item is (I will give the penguinheads that. init scripts are a PITA, but compared to all of the places a startup item can be placed in Windows...that being said...BSD's are more elegant). Sysinternals.com's autoruns is the one I use. Of course, you can save yourself a ton of aggie by just looking in {HKLM,HKCU}\Software\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run. That's where well-behaved apps will put their startup items. Anything in the other nooks and crannies is most likely there to do you harm.
Not in my experience. Mostly it was registry-creep, virii or simply a user willing to format in order to restart a messy system from scratch, or upgrading to a new system.
/home mounted in a distinct (large) partition and I can change from distro to distro at will... (as a matter of fact: I do that pretty often)
Who is this "registry creep"? Regardless, you're talking software when we were discussing hardware.
Yeah, of course... Hmmm I need to backup 40Gb of data, how many CDs I'm gonna need? And besides, I don't thrust CDs as a reliable media.
How many home users do you know that have 40G of data? I have a 300G array filled with data at home, but I only backup 1.5G of it. That's the extent of 20 years of files, images, mail, etc. Your average home user is only going to need one CD to backup their data. If you're talking about a corporate environment, then you use tape, and RAID arrays and all number of technology to backup data. But, you also (in theory) have IT people who know what they're doing and have the machines setup so these kinds of problems aren't an issue. Of course, nothing ever works as well in practice as it does in theory...
For me, as a Linux user, partitions are a must: I keep
As Linux user myself, I keep everything on a single partition because installing distros every five minutes is a waste of time. When I DO need to investigate a distro, I use QEMU or VMware because that's the sane solution
I don't know... it seems pretty easier to balance various small trees than balancing a gigantic one...
I have no idea what that's supposed to mean, but it doesn't matter.
Many Windows users I've met reformat annually, and I've even heard some admins recommend this as SOP
:) Of course, when I tell them I just retired 7 NT 4.0 servers that provided mail for 13K users, they think I'm lying, too. :)
That's nice. Just because there's a lot of "the blind leading the stupid" out there doesn't make it the right choice. Actually FIXING things is. That way they don't return.
he only Windows machine I use is a corporate issued one, and so far the latest one hasn't had any problems
Wanna know why? You apparently work in one of those very few places where your IT department seems to know what they're doing and have locked the machine down properly. And, surprise, surprise, you've had no problems with it. Given the generally accepted "wisdom" on slashdot, you're obviously lying because there's no way you can go 5 months without reinstalling the system.
This is utterly idiot. All stuff (system, apps, data) packed together in C:\.
That's the easiest way for the end user. As another posted pointed out, users don't care about/understand/want to deal with separate partitions.
Should the system go bad (virii, etc), which happens often
Actually, in the last 20 years, the most likely reason for a machine to "go bad" is a hard drive failure. Separate partitions aren't going to help you much if your head don't move.
the most used solution is to format.
Just because supposed "tech support" people don't know how to actually fix problems is not a limitation of Windows, it's a limitation of the people doing the hiring at support centers. Anyone who uses formatting as a "fix" instead of actually fixing should be fired...out of a cannon. Also, formatting isn't the fix, they tell the end user to use a recovery disk which wipes the whole hard drive instead of doing a repair install, which is easy enough to implement instead.
Hmm so, where do I backup my data before formatting when this data is in the same partition as the system and the apps... Not that joe-six-packs are organized enough to separate data from apps and system, thou.
So, you complain that joe user can't backup his data, and then admit that joe user can't figure out how to separate it anyway. As for backing up...mmmmm...pretty much every new PC these days comes with a CD burner. If, instead of complaining, you spent the five minutes teaching your joe user friends how to back up their data with that tool, it wouldn't be a problem, would it?
And I guess there is some slight performance boost in working with smaller partitions.
You would be incorrect.
So, IMHO, windows installer should have a decent partitioner... And brand new PCs should be sold with a reasonable partition scheme. E.g: a 120Gb should have about 20Gb for system and apps and 2x50Gb for data.
Firstly, your opinion isn't humble. It's chock full of righteous indignation. And it's that special kind of righteous indignation that stems from ignorance. There is only one instance where I separate my data from my apps: my work laptop. I have all of my data stored on an encrypted partition, and the apps/OS on a small non-encrypted partition. If I need to leave my company, I don't want to worry about what's left behind on the hard drive. Aside from that, I NEVER partition drives. Linux, Windows, OSX, doesn't matter. I HATE partitioned drives. There's never enough space on one of them and I end up scrambling to to figure out how to balance it. In the last 20 years, I've never regretted having single-partitioned drives.
In MY opinion, partitioning is a relic from the ancient times of tiny drives and OSes that couldn't support anything larger than "X megs". The fact that it remains, despite it being completely uneccessary, shows how too many people in IT can't grok and move forward. "That's the way it's always been done" is so scarily true...
the fact that the most useful stem cells still come from aborted fetuses
It was my understanding that stem cells from aborted fetuses were LESS useful than those that were regressed from the host that would receive the benefit of the treatment. Thus, the reason the US ban is only on aborted fetus stem cell research is not a bad thing (if it's not the better way to go, let's not go there anyway).
Tiger has been a huge success. (it's 64-bit)
And, has performance not even comparable to a 6-year old 32-bit Intel-based Windows box. I speak, of course, of the 1.33Ghz Powerbook I bought summer before last to replace the 1Ghz PIII machine I'd been using for years. Aside from the clunky, overly-moused based interface that made it too difficult to edit documents without having to reach for the rat every 3.5 seconds, I got rid of it because the performance was ABYSMAL! I sold it for half what I paid for it, and was glad to get rid of it at that cost.
What's so wrong with the iPod that they're wishing for competitors. None of the competitors really care about mac users, so why should I care about their products? And why do we want WMV to win the DRM battle? And why is the iPod entry level?
Well, let's see...over-priced, poorly manufactured, undersized and lacking of features above and beyond just playing MP3s. The only two reasons people buy iPods is to 1) perpetuate the cult of mac and 2) image. Everyone else buys a creative zen and laughs at their ipod-wielding friends.
10. Market share still sucks
There's only so much recruitment any cult can do before they start running into intelligent people who know better.
9. iPod still can't do bluetooth
Considering how useless bluetooth is for large file transfers, I'm surprised at this, too.
I would never let a developer have any kind of admin access to anything. They're just over-glorified users who think they know what they're doing. Being a developer does not make you an IT person, despite what management thinks. The reason you're so locked down is because you know just enough to be REALLY dangerous.
Let's not forget that his injury occured while engaging in a dangerous sport reserved for the rich and stupid.
See, I get what I deserve for being a sexist pig. :)
Too right, my brother. Just got home with it and pissing off the S-O by watchin' it. hehehe
being agnostic are all religions too
Another poster commented, but I'll repeat: they are not religions.
both Evolution and ID are Theories, and therefore perfectly legitimate to be discussed
They're not both theories. ID is an extension of a theory that puts "and something magical happened" in all the parts that haven't been filled in, explained or proven. ID tries to serve as the "proof" of evolution by saying "yes, yes, that's all well and good. Things started out like this, and then changed, because someone started them and then changed them. All the other fiddly bits, like proof, are unimportant."
also, if you are so sure ID is incorrect, where is the fear coming from that it cannot even be mentioned and discussed by rational thinking people.
To a degree, I'll agree that the response that's often given to ID discussion is pretty much the same response religious types give when discussing gay couples raising children. It's a fear of conversion more than anything. Children are impressionable, and when you start discussing magic and the like, they get interested and want to participate. Since religion is based on some kind of magical superstition or another, it's easy to fear the children being pulled into cults like christianity and the like.
the belief that those that believe in a creator are wrong is a religious belief
No, it's really not, and constantly calling it that doesn't make it so.
Evolution requires every bit as much faith as ID
Um, no, it doesn't. Evolutionary theory can at least present some proof to backup its claims. Religion, however, has yet to produce even the slightest shred of credible evidence that some kind of god-figure exists. Again, ID simply fills in the missing parts of evolutionary theory with "magic".
protected by law from hearing or discussing anything different from the parent poster's personal beliefs
That's pretty much the basis of separating church from state. If I'm sending my child to a PUBLIC school, I wanted him educated, not indoctrinated in some kind of hoodoo-voodoo. I don't care if it's the prevailing hoodoo of the time, I don't want them anywhere near it. Ideally, if we could force all religious types to keep their intolerant, ingnorant, hate-filled agendas out of the public eye entirely, that would be, forgive the pun, heaven on Earth to me. Freedom OF religion should imply freedom FROM religion. I don't know why it's ok for churchy zealots to protest outside of the new local strip club, but I can't protest the building of yet another catholic church without someone calling me some kind of nut. In one building, I'd see naked women, in the other I'd practice cannabalism. Yeah, I'm the nut...
It's coming out on DVD very soon
Not very soon, very NOW! It's out today! W00T! First stop on the way home is Best Buy to pick it up..
I think a lot of your issues revolve around the fact that you're completely wrong in many ways...
The main job of IS is connectivity. Connectivity is the core of why we have IS. Anything else is extraneous, and I shouldn't be dealing with it.
The main job of IS (IT, MIS, MCIS, whatever) is efficiency. Connectivity is part of that, but not the end all and be all. It's obvious that your focus is just on keeping things running, rather than being proactive and providing your company with solutions. This is further evidenced by...
IS involvement in other divisions isn't necessary. IS is involved with other divisions when physical products get connected to the network, but not before. Software should be evaluated by IS only when it becomes necessary for purchase and implementation, not before. Any developed piece of software should be evaluated by IS when the software is ready to install.
It's involvement is CRITICAL for success. How can you provide effective solutions to your endusers if you don't know what their problems are? How can you set and maintain standards if you're not involved in purchasing decisions? You don't get involved until something's ready to go on the network? That explains....
I'm too overloaded. With 93 permanent users and 110 workstations (some are floaters), I can't do both systems work and admin work (my title is Systems Administrator, but I carry no management authority) on my own. My proposal stated the need for the creation of staff (a tech and a clerk). Management thinks because things are running, I have no issues, but I'm falling apart from all I have to do to keep things running. I need to offset the load so I can do more of the 'bigger picture' things to help guide this company out of the IS dark ages. (We have no CTO or CIO; Management is made up of engineers from different disciplines)
With a microscopic network like that, you shouldn't be overloaded. I've handled networks and evironments three times that size completely on my own (well, technically we had a desktop tech, but he was worthless and I had to give him all the answers). The problem isn't management any further than the fact that they hired you. I'm sorry to tell you that your 20 years of experience have been wasted because frankly, you're incompetent. It's really time you looked into a new field. Perhaps fast food?
How would Slashdot users attack this? I've done my Google searches; went back to traditional books from Barnes and Noble; and even contacted my alma mater, Northern Arizona University, to find some answers. How would you prove the need for change on these three points? Can I institute change here?"
First, I would fire you. Second, I'd take an inventory of everything that is in place and figure out what's wrong and fix it. Third, create a strategy that creates standards and policies to keep things in line for the future (standards such as what hardware to buy, what software is approved, and policies that define how these things are enforced). That should only take a couple of months on such a small network, at most. During that time, you can also work with the other departments so that you can better understand their needs. You can also explain to them the policies and standards you're putting into place, why they're necessary, and solicit their input on them (which gets them involved and on YOUR side).
Once these things have been accomplished, you can go back to those departments you've determined are the most likely to work with you, find out what their biggest problems are and help them find solutions. After a couple of successes like that, you'll find the other departments will be coming to you on their own to help them out. It's at that point that you can go to senior management and say "here's what we've accomplished, but I can't do any more without a headcount increase and a little more pull". Only the worst of managers will deny this request outright. If you at least get "a
We should also be saving their souls
Gee, and who says Linux isn't a religion? Seriously, it's just a computer, it's not important.
...the reason it's so hard to change that policy in your company. No one knows why they do it, or if it actually produces results, but it's the way it's always been done, so....
How about the simple fact that unless you read, memorize and completely digest the entirety of the Apache documentation, there's no way to know exactly what the bare minimum is necessary in an httpd.conf to just serve static webpages on a particular port. Is a "MaxKeepAliveRequests" an absolute essential? "StartServers"? Which modules? Is dir_module an absolute minimum requirement?
"Oh, but httpd comes with a default configuration file", you say? The default configuration file is almost 1100 lines long! If you remove all of the comments (none of which say "you MUST have this line for Apache to work"), it's still over 300 lines long. Hardly a simple configuration. Are these important questions? For a server that's facing the Internet, it would be nice if I could follow the best practice of "minimum necessary", but Apache doesn't give that as an option. I finally had to figure it out by starting with a conf file that just had a "ServerRoot" directive and kept adding to it until the damn thing finally started and served pages. And, FORGET asking the Apache community for help. Their default answer to any question is "did you RTFM"? To which I respond: "Why not narrow it down to one or two of the 600 pages for a brother?"
Oh, and my config file after I got it down to barest? 15 lines.
the one from MS is not such a bad choice
:)
Agreed. I've only met one person who said they had better luck with any of the other spyware killers. Every time I've used it, it's been after someone said "Oh, don't bother checking for spyware. I ran spybot and adware on it, and the machine is clean". Ten minutes later the comments are always "it found HOW MANY?!"
Spend the $65k to get software that works the way you want it to, rather than forcing your users to work extra hard just to get their jobs done. How much money is wasted by all of your users having to tweak settings constantly? How much time and money is wasted by every user that calls you to help walk them through the process when they move to a new computer? How about when you leave and whatever kluge you implement has to be supported? How about when they don't get a perfect rendition of that Word file the outside customer sent them? Worse, how 'bout when the salesmen call to say "I sent my customer a Write document, and they said they could barely read it when they opened it in Word!?"
Yes, they're the typical MS-favorable rhetoric, but they're also valid points and questions that need answering. I understand we're more than likely talking less than 300 users ($65k/$300 per license=260 users), but still...I've supported networks that small (that's not a medium-sized network), and $65k so I can move on to the next problem is a mighty small price to pay...
Well, that's 'cause you don't know what you're doing. I have two images I use on all servers, one for Dell, one for HP (for the system partitions). Using sysprep, that's all I need and can deploy a complete server in minutes.
Possibly, but not if done right. There's really no reason the "non-US" population couldn't have some sort of backwards compatibility so they can access US stuff, but the US can't access theirs. Financially, it might be an issue as it cuts off US dollars from foreign websites. Dunno, I wasn't looking to provide a long-term plan here. I was in it primarily for the spite. :)
World: But that will break the internet.
:) Seriously, cut us off, it's the only way we'll learn.
USA: OK
World: But that would be bad.
Only for a short while. Eventually, when people in the US can't get to anything anywhere else, there will be enough of an outcry that they'll come around. Speaking as a US citizen, I hearby grant the world the right to disconnect us from the rest of you. Wow, did that not sound like a typically US separatist statement or what?
...includes freedom FROM religion. People have a right to walk down the street and not see the christian symbols of hatred and intolerance everywhere. It's time to take it all back. We need to start protesting in front of churches until they take their crosses down. I don't want MY children exposed to their evil, I don't want their minds warped by their derisive ideas. Hell, christians practice cannabalism and support the KKK (they say they are a christian organization)! Why are they still tolerated? Worst part is, most of them don't even know anything about the religion they follow and pervert it to their ends. I have a fair proposal: we start dunking them in water. If they float, they're true christians and can live in solitude on an island somewhere. If they drown, they're not true christians and we're better off without them. If only the Romans had done their jobs properly, we wouldn't be having all of the problems we have today.
I switched to a Mac in June of 2004, and switched back in June of 2005. The interface was nice enough, but too mouse-centric for me. The key combinations necessary for simple day-to-day operation were too complex and finger-twisting. In the end, I decided I needed to work too hard to accomplish a lot of the same things I could do on my Windows machine with ease. I sold my $2800 powerbook and bought a $900 HP and haven't looked back...
want to avoid paying another two hundred bucks for an x86 Mac
Have you not looked at Mac prices in a while? Current Macs run 2-10X more expensive than comparable PCs. There are plenty of articles out there on building a $200 x86-Mac clone, and I don't expect you're going to see real Macs anywhere close to that price.
Stick to what the guy is doing to help the world, for once get off his back, geesh...
Too right. The crowd on this damn site is just so damn paranoid. How much evil they must have in their hearts to see it in everyone else's. They just don't get it. When the most recent "Top 60 Philanthropists" list came out last year, Bill & Melissa donated MORE by themselves than the other 59 people on that list COMBINED. Unfortunately, the jealousy all of these people feel for Mr. G is so overwhelming, he could have god himself come down and say he's the new messiah and people would find an ulterior motive.