As someone who lives in Kodak's home town and has worked at the place, I can tell you that's probably not the reason. Much more likely than not, the manager in charge of B&W paper probably ate the lunch of the manager in charge of "digital stuff" and the digital guy convinced the senior managers to eliminate the other's division.
I joke, of course. Kodak's core decisions are usually based on less rational reasons than the one I gave...
It makes sense to shift to intel. the architecture isn't as good
I'm just curious as to what you mean that the architecture isn't as good. I agree that the proliferation of so many variations of Intel-based PCs is one of the main reasons for a lot of the problems out there, but are you talking about performance? The reason I ask is because I purchased my first Mac last year, a G4 1.33Mhz Powerbook (with the 7200 RPM hard drive upgrade). Compared to the PIII 1Ghz machine I replaced it with, performance is comparable, if not a bit slower.
First and foremost, the amount of updates for windows far far FAR exceeds the amount for any Unix I have ever dealt with.
Then, you're not keeping up with your updates. HP-UX, for example, seems to have an almost constant stream of updates.
While we are at it let me clue you into something: just because most apps are included within the base install of a unice doesnt mean you get to exclude the updates coming from third parties on that windows box.
You're the first person that's admitted that a Unix is more than just the kernel. The amount of updates to a Linux box is usually due to the dozens of extra little libs and such on that machine. But, I don't see how updates to a third party app have anything to do with OS updates. They're two different things. Besides, you don't check out apps before you purchase them? Like, for example, checking the support site to see how many updates have been issued? That would be a failure of the admin, not the OS and not the app.
Also of importance is that microsoft tries to bundle their updates into Service Packs, leaving its customers out to dry for months on end in some cases. Because "convinence" should always be paramount to security.
That hypocrite you smelled? I think I know who it is. Half the time you're complaining that there's a constant stream of updates from MS for Windows (and then try to add in third party updates to your complaints), then you complain that you have to wait months for the SP. Which, precisely, is your stance?
Securing any OS is equally easy. On a properly maintained network you really have no reason to do frequent updates because its virtually impossible to access a machine that is exposed to XYZ hole.
I'm glad to see I'm not having a conversation with one of the typical/. rhetoric spouters. You are absolutely correct: security is in the hands of the admin, and has nothing to do with the OS you use.
Really. That might have more to do with you not knowing solaris or the hardware failing than anything else. Of course you knew that already.
I did know it would be your response, yes. Because like most Unix admins, when a Unix fails, it's the fault of the admin. When Windows fails, it's the fault of the OS. I have NEVER put a machine into production, Windows or otherwise, that had those kinds of problems. (This machine was in production before I started here.) Since most of the Windows admins I know are fully familiar with regular year-long uptimes on their machines, your logic fails. As with any OS, if it crashes, it's the fault of the admin. But, it's been my experience that Windows admins are better at taking responsibility for their work.
IT department was run by a bunch of MCSE's who needed fun little point-n-click interfaces for everything
Alas, this is true everywhere. You can always tell an IT person who hasn't got a clue: they'll have certifications hanging on their walls. I have an MCSE, but only because the HR drones are instructed to look for it on resumes. I put more value on the napkin I used at lunch. It had real benefit to me, and didn't cost me $600 to acquire. There are admins out there who are completely oblivious to the fact that there's a command line in Windows. They also have no concept of scripting to automate their jobs. Fortunately, now that the dotcom bubble has burst, we're seeing a lot fewer MCSE-enabled former housewives in the industry. As with any ecosystem, IT is self-correcting.
If its built for XP, make it work on 3.1. I dare ya. Hence the need to upgrade. This isnt even obscure random crap, this is the core stuff.
I misunderstood, sorry. First of all, it ain't going to work on 3.1 because 3.1 was 16-bit. That being said, though, give me one core application available today that won't run on Windows 98 or higher. We're talking a 7 year old OS, I think that's far enough back in the past. It's called prog
Out of curiosity: what does 'user on the system' mean in your case?
In this case it's a web-based app with an Oracle backend.
At work I'm using remote desktop to server that has 4 processors, 4GB of RAM and RAID disk, running MS SQL, IIS and SharePoint. Sometimes Visual Studio.NET. The system is dying when 5 (that is five) users start doing something more intensive.
Then, don't you think you should fix that? That's not normal behavior for a Windows box. You should be able to get 50-125 users working simultaneously on that machine without it breaking a sweat. Back when I was a Citrix Admin, I had dual-PIII 1.5Ghz machines with 2G of RAM and would have 75 users using Office, Lotus Notes, etc without issue.
But, I know, it's easier to blame MS than to fix problems. I used to be like that a LOOONG time ago.
Your misunderstanding of the parent makes sense for a windows admin so don't feel bad. I believe he was referring to running new applications on old versions of the OS. Running a win3.1 on XP is not the point so much as running OfficeXP on win3.1 since in the Unix world you do not need to upgrade to the latest OS.
My misunderstanding stems more froma poorly worded paragraph. As to the issue itself, again, it's still not true...to a point. As I recall, Office 2000 would install on a Windows 95 machine, assuming it had the space for it. I think 2002 was the first that didn't support it, but it would work on 98. As 95 was 7 years old at that point, I'm not complaining. I wouldn't run a 1.x version of Linux, why would I stick with 95? The main problem with running these apps on 3.1 is that 3.1 was 16-bit, these apps are 32. Can you run 32-bit Unix apps on a 16-bit variant?
So, what you're saying is, if I take a program file that was compiled against glibc 2.3, it should work on a glibc 2.1 or 2.0-based machine without issue? How 'bout if it's 1.3?
And, I'm not a Windows admin, I'm an admin. I administer Windows machines and Unix machines pretty much equally. I don't limit myself to one tool, I use whatever works. I just prefer Windows. Well, technically I prefer an AS/400, but as it's an unfortunately dying breed, I don't have much choice there...
Perhaps what he meant was "I work at a company with a real IT department and have never seen windows used in a critical role."
Which wouldn't be so surprising. Most "real" IT departments are filled with people who know one thing and know it reasonably well enough to confuse the suits. They also spend all of their time denegrating anything that isn't "their thing". Well, that and they have a declining population of Unix admins, a growing population of Windows admins, and a growing number of users glad the stuff "just works" now.
Real world apps dont take 5 updates per release to become stable. Real world apps dont have more holes than swiss cheese.
Which leads to the question then of "why run Unix?" But, of course, you weren't talking about Unix, which is the thing you know. Having worked with both Unix and Windows relatively equally over the last 15 years, I'd say your statement is true of Windows 10 years ago, but not today. However, it's more equally true of Unix today, than 10 years ago. All of the major vendors push updates so frequently now, I can't comprehend how anyone could be so blind to it. I'd say, on average, we push updates to our servers about once every four weeks, maybe six. We check the update, see if it's going to fix something that's broken. If not, it'll wait. As for security fixes, well...on a properly secured Windows box, they aren't as necessary as the Unix crowd would have you believe. And, yes, it's relatively easy to secure a Windows box....just do what you'd do on a Unix box. If you lock it down, a good 95% of the security patches don't apply. OTOH, the amount of patches to a Unix box these days just makes me cringe.
Let me tell you a funny story about a company running a Java based CRM app on IIS. This company had roughly 5k users for this app and were having ungodly amounts of crashes and slow connect times. You know what the vendors solution was: Use Solaris or Linux.
Let me tell you a funny story about a system we just replaced. It had been running on Solaris, and on a good day, when the machine was running which was relatively rare, we could get 300 simulataneous users. Not a typo, only 300 users. We switched the app server over to Windows/IIS on relatively comparable hardware and now we can accomodate approximately 5000 users. That's the thing about anecdotes, for every one you have, someone has one that's exactly the opposite.
When dealing with a Unix platform the need to upgrade is much less since the majority of the needed items are rolled into almost all prior versions and you generally wont have some crap-ass "built for XP" compatibility issues.
This is probably the most interesting statement you made, as it's so untrue. I've rarely seen a Windows 3.1 program that won't work on XP, but don't try running something that's 11 years old on a "modern" Unix variant. Binary compatibility issues alone would make your statement false. The "Built for XP" crap is just marketing. It's got more to do with the fact that "all of the drivers for the hardware used in this machine are native to the XP CD. You only need to go to the website to get updated drivers." Nothing more. Sure, you'll find the odd program here and there that won't work, but see my prior statements on anecdotal evidence.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of techs and admins that fit that description, too....but I wouldn't let them administer my calculator, let alone a corporate network.
Windows has appeared to evolved into a seriously fragmented OS. How many different versions of Windows are there?
As opposed to say, Linux, which is SEVERLY fragmented. At least if I sit down at any of the mentioned versions of Windows, I'm pretty sure I'll not only be able to use it, but administer it as well, and pretty quickly. Each distro of Linux, OTOH has not only a different UI, but differing filesystems, configurations, installed applications, etc. Apple's the only one that really has it more or less right when it comes to OSes in this regard. Server or Desktop, which do you want? Of course, the primary difference between the two there is which free, open source apps come with it.:)
cant make Windows more stable...Either a bluescreen of death
What? Like come out and fix it for the idiots administrating those machines? The last time I saw a BSOD was about 7 years ago on an NT4 machine. A power line got crossed with it's network cable and the card was pretty much shards when I opened the case. Since then, nada. The problem is, the people behind those machines are probably the "Oh, a BSOD, that's MS' way of telling me I need to reboot. Chuckle, chuckle." No, dumbass, that's an error message telling you something's wrong! FIX IT!
Stability, like security, is in the hands of the admin. Anyone who tells you different is just a user who managed to weasel their way into the IT department.
Or, it could be that some people, like me, have weighed the options (AMD vs Intel, Windows vs others, etc) and decided we're not impressed with the "alternatives" and wouldn't buy an AMD-based system if it were free. I've had too many issues over the years with AMD-based systems ranging from random system crashes and complete lockups to utter system failure (and loss of a processor) because the RPMs on its fan decreased just a little too far. I've never had a single issue like that on Intel-based architecture. AMD may have a slight performance benefit over Intel at the moment (that will change soon enough. One never stays far ahead of the other for very long), but at a cost of being able to run stable, 24/7. It's like buying a Ferrari that breaks down every couple of miles. It may get you through those couple of miles pretty quickly, but the downtime's gonna cost you the race.
Worst idea ever. A few admin jobs ago, my company's IPs ended up on one of them (was it ORBS? I wanna say it was). I don't think it's still around, but I later found out it was one of the more popular ones but it was run by some guy out of his parent's basement. Once you're on one, it's a very short time before you're on them all. But, I shouldn't have been on any as from the moment that mail server was connected to the Internet, I used SMTPAuth for mail sending. There was no way you could send mail without a username/password. I finally tracked down who'd put us on the list, and there was no way to contact them (again, some guy in his parent's basement), so you had to use their automated utility to get off their lists. Everytime I ran it, the thing would tell me "SMTPAuth required, not a spammer". But, my IP wouldn't be removed. Instead, and this was the best part, it would list it as ANOTHER confirmation that we were spammers. It took over a month to get off this stupid list, be thankful it only took you a few days.
RBLs are the most useless, stupid, assinine idea ever to gain wide acceptance. All of the evidence proves that. Spam continues and continues to rise every day, despite all of the "hard work" put in by RBL groups. Fuck you idiots, you're not making anything better, you're only making life worse. Every mail admin I've met has had some kind of anecdote about an RBL fucking up and wrongly putting them on a list, it's time to stop using them and find a REAL solution to spam.
Philadelphia tried something similar a few years back. Philly has its own income tax: 5% right off the top if you live or work in the city. So, non-residents had to pay tax as well without receiving any of the benefits. Well, if there could be said to be any benefits to living in Philadelphia...
Anyway, Ed Rendell who was mayor for a while came up with a great idea, IMO, he said "we've got all of these sports teams, musicians, artists, etc coming into our town, collecting pay from us and leaving without paying taxes. Let's tax 'em!" I agree with his assessment: they're nothing more than commuters, why shouldn't they pay?
Just curious, but where are you? I don't think I've seen a credit card receipt anywhere in the last few years that has had more than just the last four digits of the card number.
I agree I'm impressed by the clerk. I always write "MUST ASK FOR ID" in permanent black marker ink on the back of every one of my credit cards, and it never ceases to amaze me how people will pretend to look at my card, then my signature on the receipt and hand both back to me. If I'm feeling evil, I'll turn to my gf and loudly say something like, "See, I told you they never really check the signatures on your cards here. And you were worried we'd get caught with his card!" Yeah, I know the trouble that could get me in. Most of the time, though, I'll make sure to make note of the person's name and contact their corporate offices with a long and scathing letter.
Is it really too hard to get up to turn off a light?
No, and if that was why people installed home automation systems, that would be a valid jab. Very few people will spend hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of dollars just to avoid getting up. My own needs were based on practicality. One, my home is set back far from the street, and stumbling around in the dark outside when I come home late is not my idea of fun. So, my system is set to turn on the outside lights a half hour after sundown (even though the sun has set, it's still pretty light out for half an hour or so). This way, they're on when I need them, and off when I don't. $5 Walmart-special timers can't predict sun rises and sets. They have to be reprogrammed ever season, at least if you're like me and hell-bent on giving over my hard earned cash to my utility company.
Two, I have an automated random routine for when I'm on vacation, to give the house a more lived-in look. $5 timers can't do that for you, either. In fact, they make it more obvious to criminals. If you have an expandable system like the one I use, HomeSeer, you can use it for more than just lights. For example, I have a humidity sensor in the basement that signals the system to turn on the dehumidifier down there when it reaches a certain level. Unless you get a VERY expensive model, most dehumidifiers aren't very accurate, and considering how much electricity they use, I only want it on when it's necessary.
Since I had a system in place to handle the practical needs, I started using it for the "impractical", too. I leave one of the X-10 wallwarts plugged into my vaccum, and if a call comes in while I'm vacuuming, it gets turned off so I can hear the the phone ring. When I had multiple computers in the house (since replaced with laptops), I had the system shut them all down at night, and sent a Wake-On-Lan around 5 PM so they'd be on when I got home. Or, how when I switch MythTV to DVD mode, the lights dim in the living room after a couple of minutes, and the front blinds close to block the glare on the TV.
I have my bedroom lamp set on to start dimming up in the morning gradually. I get up before the sun, but have a hard time climbing out of bed if it's still dark out. So, for about 15 minutes before my alarm goes off, the light starts dimming up (yes, it's bad grammar, but that's what it's called in "the community") starting at 1% and increasing 1% per 15 seconds. When the alarm goes off, it's at 60% intensity which isn't blinding first thing in the morning, but light enough to get up by. This may sound stupid, but since I'm not a morning person, getting up has never been easy for me. Since I've set this up, I've found I only hit the snooze button once or twice anymore, rather than 5 or 6 times. I also wake up in a better mood and more alert.
True, most of these are minor conveniences, but it's the 21st century and computing power is cheap. Why not take advantage of it? Just because YOU don't see a value you in them, doesn't mean others don't or are lazy because they do. I've saved approximately 45% on my electricity bills since automating my setup, and that's before switching to fluorescent where practical. I wake up more refreshed, and don't worry about my home when I'm out of town. There's plenty of value in it for me.
And, as that poster wishes, the determination of what that means about the company is left up to the viewer. Some viewers will say "That awful company, they show their guilt by not returning the newspapers calls!" and others will say "They are being legally prudent" and even others will disregard the phrase and say "Does anyone return phone calls from the newspaper anymore?"
An excellent point, but flawed. The assumptions are that people a) know enough about the legal system to know you shouldn't talk about pending litigation (not likely) and b) don't automatically assume that companies are "evil" and therefore out to screw everyone.
"Our calls were not returned" is as unbiased as it gets.
But, alas it is not. The actual phrase I believe I posted was "all calls to the company requesting comment went unanswered". There is an implication there..."We tried as hard as we could to get the company to cough up some excuse for their actions, but they refused to answer as if they had something to hide." By not pointing out that pending litigation can't be discussed, you're omitting a HUGE fact not generally known. Omission of facts is usually a good sign of bias. An unbiased end to the reporter's story would have been: "We contacted the company, but they could not provide a comment as they're legally bound to not discuss pending litigation." The comment goes from "the company wouldn't provide a comment" to "the company is legally unable to provide a comment". A subtle, but POWERFUL difference.
And you're damn wrong. It wasn't a troll. The correct terminology is flamebait.
I agree totally there, and a damn fine one it was!
You are totally contrary to your own point. On one hand, you say you want 'just the news', on the other hand you got wood when the anchorperson (surprisingly) said something insightful. So uh, what's your damn point?
Wow, ok...the anchor essentially provided an unbiased view of the report, by actively going out of her way to remove the bias added by the reporter.
you should diversify your sources.
I believe I stated that I do that in my post. That I see what's on the major network's news broadcasts, and compare it to third-party news.
Anything stopping you from taking the information they present, checking it against other sources, and making up your own mind on something?
Ever think that might be what has already happened? For some of us at least, we've seen the information provided by the major networks, reviewed it with third-parties and, where possible, first-hand knowledge. We've then formed opinions based on that. The problem is, you do this enough, and you start to see that yeah, maybe they ARE biased. And, the problem really isn't that they're biased, but that a) they're TOO biased to be reporting the news or disseminating information to the populace at large b) they present things in ways to influence people to their points of view.
Example, one night I'm watching the news, and they're discussing a company that's being sued by an employee or something. The person presenting the item ended it by saying, "And all calls to the company requesting comments went unanswered" which implied that they had something to hide, and therefore MUST be guilt of whatever they were being sued for. Most of the time, when you see such an item, that's how they end it which once again reinforces that "companies are evil and out to screw you and kill you".
But, this one time, they switched back to the anchor who said, brilliantly I might add, "We should point out that a company that doesn't comment on a lawsuit is doing so because it can jepardize their case. And not providing one does should not present an implication of guilt, but good legal sense."
The reporter then looked at her dumbfounded and said, "Well, yeah, I guess that could be true, too."
I want the news. I want to know exactly what happened, without commentary and without opinion so I CAN make up my own mind. The problem is, that doesn't happend, and apparently CAN'T happen because, as you say, the reporters are human. I, for one, welcome our new robot journalist overlords...
Looks like things haven't changed much since then.
I didn't RTFA, but I can say that if you're talking about the Explorer, I believe, 8100 boxes, they have changed. There's been quite a few firmware updates in recent years that have really made them better. Don't get me wrong, if I hadn't been on a free 4 month beta, I would have gotten rid of mine within the first day or two.
Pretty much most, if not all of the problems with scheduling and stability have gone away. Actually, stability hasn't been an issue since I had to replace the first unit I got about 3 months ago. The new one has been running 24/7 without issues, the first one had to be unplugged at least twice a week. I finally set it up on an X10 switch to have it automatically done in the middle of the night.:)
Okay, I just took a moment to read your review...wow, never had anything close to those kinds of problems with my first DVR. Odd, because I'm pretty sure I got mine in 2002. It's no defense of TW, but I think you just got a really bad unit. I had stuff on my DVR's drive that had been there over a year, never had stuff just mysteriously disappear like that.
Yes, because we all know what religious fanatics they were. People like Franklin and Washington. Good, god-fearin' men! Not. And, if god is so loving, why do you need to fear it anyway? Franklin, at least, wanted nothing religious to do with the founding of these United States. This is evidenced not only in his writing, but the manner in which he so violently scratched out "sacred" and wrote "self-evident" in the initial draft of the Declaration of Independance.
the infallible inspired word of God
In order for something to be infallible, it needs to a) not be self-contradictory on pretty much every page and b) not subject to millions of re-interpretation which would lead to dramatic fracturization of its followers. And, I'm not talking the millions of variations of christianity (such as the Branch Davidians in Waco or the KKK. Yes, they're a christian organization), nor even the dozens of differet translations of the book (King James, New Modern, Bob's Happy Bible, etc) but Judaism and Muslims and even THEIR multiple mis-re-interpretations.
Let's see how infallible it and the churches spawned by it are: what color was Jesus?
Slashdot Mirror
I guess they're really heavily banking on digital
As someone who lives in Kodak's home town and has worked at the place, I can tell you that's probably not the reason. Much more likely than not, the manager in charge of B&W paper probably ate the lunch of the manager in charge of "digital stuff" and the digital guy convinced the senior managers to eliminate the other's division.
I joke, of course. Kodak's core decisions are usually based on less rational reasons than the one I gave...
It makes sense to shift to intel. the architecture isn't as good
I'm just curious as to what you mean that the architecture isn't as good. I agree that the proliferation of so many variations of Intel-based PCs is one of the main reasons for a lot of the problems out there, but are you talking about performance? The reason I ask is because I purchased my first Mac last year, a G4 1.33Mhz Powerbook (with the 7200 RPM hard drive upgrade). Compared to the PIII 1Ghz machine I replaced it with, performance is comparable, if not a bit slower.
First and foremost, the amount of updates for windows far far FAR exceeds the amount for any Unix I have ever dealt with.
/. rhetoric spouters. You are absolutely correct: security is in the hands of the admin, and has nothing to do with the OS you use.
Then, you're not keeping up with your updates. HP-UX, for example, seems to have an almost constant stream of updates.
While we are at it let me clue you into something: just because most apps are included within the base install of a unice doesnt mean you get to exclude the updates coming from third parties on that windows box.
You're the first person that's admitted that a Unix is more than just the kernel. The amount of updates to a Linux box is usually due to the dozens of extra little libs and such on that machine. But, I don't see how updates to a third party app have anything to do with OS updates. They're two different things. Besides, you don't check out apps before you purchase them? Like, for example, checking the support site to see how many updates have been issued? That would be a failure of the admin, not the OS and not the app.
Also of importance is that microsoft tries to bundle their updates into Service Packs, leaving its customers out to dry for months on end in some cases. Because "convinence" should always be paramount to security.
That hypocrite you smelled? I think I know who it is. Half the time you're complaining that there's a constant stream of updates from MS for Windows (and then try to add in third party updates to your complaints), then you complain that you have to wait months for the SP. Which, precisely, is your stance?
Securing any OS is equally easy. On a properly maintained network you really have no reason to do frequent updates because its virtually impossible to access a machine that is exposed to XYZ hole.
I'm glad to see I'm not having a conversation with one of the typical
Really. That might have more to do with you not knowing solaris or the hardware failing than anything else. Of course you knew that already.
I did know it would be your response, yes. Because like most Unix admins, when a Unix fails, it's the fault of the admin. When Windows fails, it's the fault of the OS. I have NEVER put a machine into production, Windows or otherwise, that had those kinds of problems. (This machine was in production before I started here.) Since most of the Windows admins I know are fully familiar with regular year-long uptimes on their machines, your logic fails. As with any OS, if it crashes, it's the fault of the admin. But, it's been my experience that Windows admins are better at taking responsibility for their work.
IT department was run by a bunch of MCSE's who needed fun little point-n-click interfaces for everything
Alas, this is true everywhere. You can always tell an IT person who hasn't got a clue: they'll have certifications hanging on their walls. I have an MCSE, but only because the HR drones are instructed to look for it on resumes. I put more value on the napkin I used at lunch. It had real benefit to me, and didn't cost me $600 to acquire. There are admins out there who are completely oblivious to the fact that there's a command line in Windows. They also have no concept of scripting to automate their jobs. Fortunately, now that the dotcom bubble has burst, we're seeing a lot fewer MCSE-enabled former housewives in the industry. As with any ecosystem, IT is self-correcting.
If its built for XP, make it work on 3.1. I dare ya. Hence the need to upgrade. This isnt even obscure random crap, this is the core stuff.
I misunderstood, sorry. First of all, it ain't going to work on 3.1 because 3.1 was 16-bit. That being said, though, give me one core application available today that won't run on Windows 98 or higher. We're talking a 7 year old OS, I think that's far enough back in the past. It's called prog
Out of curiosity: what does 'user on the system' mean in your case?
.NET. The system is dying when 5 (that is five) users start doing something more intensive.
In this case it's a web-based app with an Oracle backend.
At work I'm using remote desktop to server that has 4 processors, 4GB of RAM and RAID disk, running MS SQL, IIS and SharePoint. Sometimes Visual Studio
Then, don't you think you should fix that? That's not normal behavior for a Windows box. You should be able to get 50-125 users working simultaneously on that machine without it breaking a sweat. Back when I was a Citrix Admin, I had dual-PIII 1.5Ghz machines with 2G of RAM and would have 75 users using Office, Lotus Notes, etc without issue.
But, I know, it's easier to blame MS than to fix problems. I used to be like that a LOOONG time ago.
Your misunderstanding of the parent makes sense for a windows admin so don't feel bad. I believe he was referring to running new applications on old versions of the OS. Running a win3.1 on XP is not the point so much as running OfficeXP on win3.1 since in the Unix world you do not need to upgrade to the latest OS.
My misunderstanding stems more froma poorly worded paragraph. As to the issue itself, again, it's still not true...to a point. As I recall, Office 2000 would install on a Windows 95 machine, assuming it had the space for it. I think 2002 was the first that didn't support it, but it would work on 98. As 95 was 7 years old at that point, I'm not complaining. I wouldn't run a 1.x version of Linux, why would I stick with 95? The main problem with running these apps on 3.1 is that 3.1 was 16-bit, these apps are 32. Can you run 32-bit Unix apps on a 16-bit variant?
So, what you're saying is, if I take a program file that was compiled against glibc 2.3, it should work on a glibc 2.1 or 2.0-based machine without issue? How 'bout if it's 1.3?
And, I'm not a Windows admin, I'm an admin. I administer Windows machines and Unix machines pretty much equally. I don't limit myself to one tool, I use whatever works. I just prefer Windows. Well, technically I prefer an AS/400, but as it's an unfortunately dying breed, I don't have much choice there...
Perhaps what he meant was "I work at a company with a real IT department and have never seen windows used in a critical role."
Which wouldn't be so surprising. Most "real" IT departments are filled with people who know one thing and know it reasonably well enough to confuse the suits. They also spend all of their time denegrating anything that isn't "their thing". Well, that and they have a declining population of Unix admins, a growing population of Windows admins, and a growing number of users glad the stuff "just works" now.
Real world apps dont take 5 updates per release to become stable. Real world apps dont have more holes than swiss cheese.
Which leads to the question then of "why run Unix?" But, of course, you weren't talking about Unix, which is the thing you know. Having worked with both Unix and Windows relatively equally over the last 15 years, I'd say your statement is true of Windows 10 years ago, but not today. However, it's more equally true of Unix today, than 10 years ago. All of the major vendors push updates so frequently now, I can't comprehend how anyone could be so blind to it. I'd say, on average, we push updates to our servers about once every four weeks, maybe six. We check the update, see if it's going to fix something that's broken. If not, it'll wait. As for security fixes, well...on a properly secured Windows box, they aren't as necessary as the Unix crowd would have you believe. And, yes, it's relatively easy to secure a Windows box....just do what you'd do on a Unix box. If you lock it down, a good 95% of the security patches don't apply. OTOH, the amount of patches to a Unix box these days just makes me cringe.
Let me tell you a funny story about a company running a Java based CRM app on IIS. This company had roughly 5k users for this app and were having ungodly amounts of crashes and slow connect times. You know what the vendors solution was: Use Solaris or Linux.
Let me tell you a funny story about a system we just replaced. It had been running on Solaris, and on a good day, when the machine was running which was relatively rare, we could get 300 simulataneous users. Not a typo, only 300 users. We switched the app server over to Windows/IIS on relatively comparable hardware and now we can accomodate approximately 5000 users. That's the thing about anecdotes, for every one you have, someone has one that's exactly the opposite.
When dealing with a Unix platform the need to upgrade is much less since the majority of the needed items are rolled into almost all prior versions and you generally wont have some crap-ass "built for XP" compatibility issues.
This is probably the most interesting statement you made, as it's so untrue. I've rarely seen a Windows 3.1 program that won't work on XP, but don't try running something that's 11 years old on a "modern" Unix variant. Binary compatibility issues alone would make your statement false. The "Built for XP" crap is just marketing. It's got more to do with the fact that "all of the drivers for the hardware used in this machine are native to the XP CD. You only need to go to the website to get updated drivers." Nothing more. Sure, you'll find the odd program here and there that won't work, but see my prior statements on anecdotal evidence.
Believe it or not, there are a lot of techs and admins that fit that description, too....but I wouldn't let them administer my calculator, let alone a corporate network.
Really? Never seen one.
Windows has appeared to evolved into a seriously fragmented OS. How many different versions of Windows are there?
:)
As opposed to say, Linux, which is SEVERLY fragmented. At least if I sit down at any of the mentioned versions of Windows, I'm pretty sure I'll not only be able to use it, but administer it as well, and pretty quickly. Each distro of Linux, OTOH has not only a different UI, but differing filesystems, configurations, installed applications, etc. Apple's the only one that really has it more or less right when it comes to OSes in this regard. Server or Desktop, which do you want? Of course, the primary difference between the two there is which free, open source apps come with it.
cant make Windows more stable...Either a bluescreen of death
What? Like come out and fix it for the idiots administrating those machines? The last time I saw a BSOD was about 7 years ago on an NT4 machine. A power line got crossed with it's network cable and the card was pretty much shards when I opened the case. Since then, nada. The problem is, the people behind those machines are probably the "Oh, a BSOD, that's MS' way of telling me I need to reboot. Chuckle, chuckle." No, dumbass, that's an error message telling you something's wrong! FIX IT!
Stability, like security, is in the hands of the admin. Anyone who tells you different is just a user who managed to weasel their way into the IT department.
Or, it could be that some people, like me, have weighed the options (AMD vs Intel, Windows vs others, etc) and decided we're not impressed with the "alternatives" and wouldn't buy an AMD-based system if it were free. I've had too many issues over the years with AMD-based systems ranging from random system crashes and complete lockups to utter system failure (and loss of a processor) because the RPMs on its fan decreased just a little too far. I've never had a single issue like that on Intel-based architecture. AMD may have a slight performance benefit over Intel at the moment (that will change soon enough. One never stays far ahead of the other for very long), but at a cost of being able to run stable, 24/7. It's like buying a Ferrari that breaks down every couple of miles. It may get you through those couple of miles pretty quickly, but the downtime's gonna cost you the race.
Worst idea ever. A few admin jobs ago, my company's IPs ended up on one of them (was it ORBS? I wanna say it was). I don't think it's still around, but I later found out it was one of the more popular ones but it was run by some guy out of his parent's basement. Once you're on one, it's a very short time before you're on them all. But, I shouldn't have been on any as from the moment that mail server was connected to the Internet, I used SMTPAuth for mail sending. There was no way you could send mail without a username/password. I finally tracked down who'd put us on the list, and there was no way to contact them (again, some guy in his parent's basement), so you had to use their automated utility to get off their lists. Everytime I ran it, the thing would tell me "SMTPAuth required, not a spammer". But, my IP wouldn't be removed. Instead, and this was the best part, it would list it as ANOTHER confirmation that we were spammers. It took over a month to get off this stupid list, be thankful it only took you a few days.
RBLs are the most useless, stupid, assinine idea ever to gain wide acceptance. All of the evidence proves that. Spam continues and continues to rise every day, despite all of the "hard work" put in by RBL groups. Fuck you idiots, you're not making anything better, you're only making life worse. Every mail admin I've met has had some kind of anecdote about an RBL fucking up and wrongly putting them on a list, it's time to stop using them and find a REAL solution to spam.
What about bi-directional replication? I know, t'ain't easy, but is it easier now?
Philadelphia tried something similar a few years back. Philly has its own income tax: 5% right off the top if you live or work in the city. So, non-residents had to pay tax as well without receiving any of the benefits. Well, if there could be said to be any benefits to living in Philadelphia... Anyway, Ed Rendell who was mayor for a while came up with a great idea, IMO, he said "we've got all of these sports teams, musicians, artists, etc coming into our town, collecting pay from us and leaving without paying taxes. Let's tax 'em!" I agree with his assessment: they're nothing more than commuters, why shouldn't they pay?
Alas, as I understand it, it never came to be...
What's wrong with spooning!? :)
Not exactly. a) he said it worked flawlessly and b) didn't complain of performance issues. Sounds nothing like Java to me.
Just curious, but where are you? I don't think I've seen a credit card receipt anywhere in the last few years that has had more than just the last four digits of the card number.
I agree I'm impressed by the clerk. I always write "MUST ASK FOR ID" in permanent black marker ink on the back of every one of my credit cards, and it never ceases to amaze me how people will pretend to look at my card, then my signature on the receipt and hand both back to me. If I'm feeling evil, I'll turn to my gf and loudly say something like, "See, I told you they never really check the signatures on your cards here. And you were worried we'd get caught with his card!" Yeah, I know the trouble that could get me in. Most of the time, though, I'll make sure to make note of the person's name and contact their corporate offices with a long and scathing letter.
Yes, you're the only one. :) In fact, one programmer decided to do something about it: Slashfix. Been using it for a while now and it works just great.
Is it really too hard to get up to turn off a light?
No, and if that was why people installed home automation systems, that would be a valid jab. Very few people will spend hundreds, or in some cases thousands, of dollars just to avoid getting up. My own needs were based on practicality. One, my home is set back far from the street, and stumbling around in the dark outside when I come home late is not my idea of fun. So, my system is set to turn on the outside lights a half hour after sundown (even though the sun has set, it's still pretty light out for half an hour or so). This way, they're on when I need them, and off when I don't. $5 Walmart-special timers can't predict sun rises and sets. They have to be reprogrammed ever season, at least if you're like me and hell-bent on giving over my hard earned cash to my utility company.
Two, I have an automated random routine for when I'm on vacation, to give the house a more lived-in look. $5 timers can't do that for you, either. In fact, they make it more obvious to criminals. If you have an expandable system like the one I use, HomeSeer, you can use it for more than just lights. For example, I have a humidity sensor in the basement that signals the system to turn on the dehumidifier down there when it reaches a certain level. Unless you get a VERY expensive model, most dehumidifiers aren't very accurate, and considering how much electricity they use, I only want it on when it's necessary.
Since I had a system in place to handle the practical needs, I started using it for the "impractical", too. I leave one of the X-10 wallwarts plugged into my vaccum, and if a call comes in while I'm vacuuming, it gets turned off so I can hear the the phone ring. When I had multiple computers in the house (since replaced with laptops), I had the system shut them all down at night, and sent a Wake-On-Lan around 5 PM so they'd be on when I got home. Or, how when I switch MythTV to DVD mode, the lights dim in the living room after a couple of minutes, and the front blinds close to block the glare on the TV.
I have my bedroom lamp set on to start dimming up in the morning gradually. I get up before the sun, but have a hard time climbing out of bed if it's still dark out. So, for about 15 minutes before my alarm goes off, the light starts dimming up (yes, it's bad grammar, but that's what it's called in "the community") starting at 1% and increasing 1% per 15 seconds. When the alarm goes off, it's at 60% intensity which isn't blinding first thing in the morning, but light enough to get up by. This may sound stupid, but since I'm not a morning person, getting up has never been easy for me. Since I've set this up, I've found I only hit the snooze button once or twice anymore, rather than 5 or 6 times. I also wake up in a better mood and more alert.
True, most of these are minor conveniences, but it's the 21st century and computing power is cheap. Why not take advantage of it? Just because YOU don't see a value you in them, doesn't mean others don't or are lazy because they do. I've saved approximately 45% on my electricity bills since automating my setup, and that's before switching to fluorescent where practical. I wake up more refreshed, and don't worry about my home when I'm out of town. There's plenty of value in it for me.
And, as that poster wishes, the determination of what that means about the company is left up to the viewer. Some viewers will say "That awful company, they show their guilt by not returning the newspapers calls!" and others will say "They are being legally prudent" and even others will disregard the phrase and say "Does anyone return phone calls from the newspaper anymore?"
An excellent point, but flawed. The assumptions are that people a) know enough about the legal system to know you shouldn't talk about pending litigation (not likely) and b) don't automatically assume that companies are "evil" and therefore out to screw everyone.
"Our calls were not returned" is as unbiased as it gets.
But, alas it is not. The actual phrase I believe I posted was "all calls to the company requesting comment went unanswered". There is an implication there..."We tried as hard as we could to get the company to cough up some excuse for their actions, but they refused to answer as if they had something to hide." By not pointing out that pending litigation can't be discussed, you're omitting a HUGE fact not generally known. Omission of facts is usually a good sign of bias. An unbiased end to the reporter's story would have been: "We contacted the company, but they could not provide a comment as they're legally bound to not discuss pending litigation." The comment goes from "the company wouldn't provide a comment" to "the company is legally unable to provide a comment". A subtle, but POWERFUL difference.
And you're damn wrong. It wasn't a troll. The correct terminology is flamebait.
I agree totally there, and a damn fine one it was!
You are totally contrary to your own point. On one hand, you say you want 'just the news', on the other hand you got wood when the anchorperson (surprisingly) said something insightful. So uh, what's your damn point?
Wow, ok...the anchor essentially provided an unbiased view of the report, by actively going out of her way to remove the bias added by the reporter.
you should diversify your sources.
I believe I stated that I do that in my post. That I see what's on the major network's news broadcasts, and compare it to third-party news.
Anything stopping you from taking the information they present, checking it against other sources, and making up your own mind on something?
Ever think that might be what has already happened? For some of us at least, we've seen the information provided by the major networks, reviewed it with third-parties and, where possible, first-hand knowledge. We've then formed opinions based on that. The problem is, you do this enough, and you start to see that yeah, maybe they ARE biased. And, the problem really isn't that they're biased, but that a) they're TOO biased to be reporting the news or disseminating information to the populace at large b) they present things in ways to influence people to their points of view.
Example, one night I'm watching the news, and they're discussing a company that's being sued by an employee or something. The person presenting the item ended it by saying, "And all calls to the company requesting comments went unanswered" which implied that they had something to hide, and therefore MUST be guilt of whatever they were being sued for. Most of the time, when you see such an item, that's how they end it which once again reinforces that "companies are evil and out to screw you and kill you".
But, this one time, they switched back to the anchor who said, brilliantly I might add, "We should point out that a company that doesn't comment on a lawsuit is doing so because it can jepardize their case. And not providing one does should not present an implication of guilt, but good legal sense."
The reporter then looked at her dumbfounded and said, "Well, yeah, I guess that could be true, too."
I want the news. I want to know exactly what happened, without commentary and without opinion so I CAN make up my own mind. The problem is, that doesn't happend, and apparently CAN'T happen because, as you say, the reporters are human. I, for one, welcome our new robot journalist overlords...
They'll all start posting comments soon. They're regulars here. :)
Looks like things haven't changed much since then.
:)
I didn't RTFA, but I can say that if you're talking about the Explorer, I believe, 8100 boxes, they have changed. There's been quite a few firmware updates in recent years that have really made them better. Don't get me wrong, if I hadn't been on a free 4 month beta, I would have gotten rid of mine within the first day or two.
Pretty much most, if not all of the problems with scheduling and stability have gone away. Actually, stability hasn't been an issue since I had to replace the first unit I got about 3 months ago. The new one has been running 24/7 without issues, the first one had to be unplugged at least twice a week. I finally set it up on an X10 switch to have it automatically done in the middle of the night.
Okay, I just took a moment to read your review...wow, never had anything close to those kinds of problems with my first DVR. Odd, because I'm pretty sure I got mine in 2002. It's no defense of TW, but I think you just got a really bad unit. I had stuff on my DVR's drive that had been there over a year, never had stuff just mysteriously disappear like that.
as did many of the founders of the USA
Yes, because we all know what religious fanatics they were. People like Franklin and Washington. Good, god-fearin' men! Not. And, if god is so loving, why do you need to fear it anyway? Franklin, at least, wanted nothing religious to do with the founding of these United States. This is evidenced not only in his writing, but the manner in which he so violently scratched out "sacred" and wrote "self-evident" in the initial draft of the Declaration of Independance.
the infallible inspired word of God
In order for something to be infallible, it needs to a) not be self-contradictory on pretty much every page and b) not subject to millions of re-interpretation which would lead to dramatic fracturization of its followers. And, I'm not talking the millions of variations of christianity (such as the Branch Davidians in Waco or the KKK. Yes, they're a christian organization), nor even the dozens of differet translations of the book (King James, New Modern, Bob's Happy Bible, etc) but Judaism and Muslims and even THEIR multiple mis-re-interpretations.
Let's see how infallible it and the churches spawned by it are: what color was Jesus?
Nothing new to see here, folks...oh, wait, it IS new to you, isn't it, Slashdotter?