As an alumn, I am irritated with the decision. As a cluster developer of 5 years, I'm highly irritated with the rational of the G5. It's one thing to develop a system for the intention of doing research, it's another to base a decision on "..delivered by Oct. 1..". The question you should be asking is, which is more important - getting on the list? or doing the research? Seems to me that there is a more cost effective solution, that provides higher capacity, greater throughput, and more overall compute capability at lower cost... I'd personally suggest VT slow down, rethink the cluster, and buy something that fits the needs of the school and research programs-therein.
Side Note: While Tech has a great football team, the football program is (other than special discounts to students, and using the VT name) completely independent of the school. The football program is a business venture that does not interact with or require school permission, nor is it governed by the school boards that Steger answers to.
Yeah... you're still in the honeymoon phase of working at NASA... don't worry, it will wear off in time, and then you'll hit phase 2 -- pure frustration at not being able to do your job. Finally after a couple years you'll hit phase 3, and give up banging your head against a wall... what's odd is how long you've stayed in phase 1... you didn't by any chance ride the short bus to school did you? (only kidding)
100% agreement with you... while it wouldn't be a good thing to have no organization, the current layers are horrible on maintaining even a moiety of proficiency in relevant areas.
Might be a more interesting statistic to post the number of fatalaties per single end to end voyage. Meaning, how many cars travel from home to work, how many fatalities based on the total number of trips made. Then compare how many shuttle missions have there been. It doesn't matter if you travel 10 billion miles... it only takes one mile to kill people... so the real question is how many trips vs fatalities.
Read my other comments on this subject... I've got a lot to say to folks. There are problems within NASA, but there are just as many truly dedicated civil servants and contractors trying desperately to do the best job they can in spite of the never ending red tape and mgmt morons who get in the way. Keep this in mind when you think about NASA. There are mgmt folks who are interested in only increasing their own 'domain of control' at NASA, these are the sharks that once in power negatively effect NASA. There are contractors mgmt, who are only inteseted in their personnel being their to continue to bring in revenue from NASA (i.e. -- no care at all for how work gets done, or if it even gets done, just so long as they keep getting paid). And then there is a core group of folks, the engineers, and scientists, who are dedicated to doing the very best job they can. They're dedicated to their research, and without being dramatic to the idea of NASA and what NASA stands for. Those core folks take most of the heat when things go wrong, but they get no major part in the decision making process. It's my opinion that the NASA mgmt system and heirarchy is thoroughly screwed up, and that the sentiments of another poster are correct -- machine gun the mgmt and let the engineers do their job.
No, this is the kind of response I would expect from NASA mgmt. The reality is that those people who want 'oversight' generally lack the competence to make decisions properly. Your arguement is bullshit at best, and the engineers and scientists at NASA are anything but sloppy... Keep that crap to yourself, because it's the oversight that's the biggest problem. The reality is that the scientists should be making the decisions... not you mgmt jackasses...
... read some of my other comments on this subject... because right now I'm '...just the guy "crying wolf"'...
banging my head against the walls of mgmt hurts... I can only take so much of it before giving up.
I'd love to meet you and shake your hand. Unfortunately I'm well on my way to becoming one of the brainwashed... it happens once you get past the honeymoon phase (about 6 months), and then past the pure frustration phase (about 2 years of trying to fight the good fight and get your job done)... after that... there's only one phase left... you say screw it all, and do what's in your own best interest. After awhile even the best of us get tired of banging our heads against the walls of mgmt.
The answer to your question is no. The reality is that there was no way the engineers could have known ahead of time that this would happen. On top of that what is often found at NASA is that people who try to rock the boat because of concerns, are often shot down, both in their own fields and professions. What NASA more than likely did to those folks that thought there might be a mishap, is reject them on the basis that the supposed or potential mishap wouldn't occur using all the previous shuttle liftoffs as evidence. Or to put it more bluntly, if I were to start screaming that something isn't right, I'd be told to shutup because I don't have the experience that others do. To base your entire career on what you think "MIGHT" happen, when it hasn't happened before, is purely stupid. About the equivalent of saying that my car MIGHT explode, and then requiring that no one go near it simply because it has a gas tank and igniters... (a little off topic I know...)
The biggest bitch about working with/for NASA is the politics. Often times the experts are only experts in a small area, and generally they are not allowed complete control over their own area of expertise. This is ingrained early on in most civil servants and contractors, and eventually causes people to give up trying 'to fight the good fight'. It's sad, but also the truth.
There are a lot of really good scientists out there working very hard to do the best job they can. More often than not, the biggest problem is that instead of the scientists and engineers leading the decision making process, we have beurocrats and people who should not be in a position to make decisions effecting the decision making process. What's worse is when you know the person making a decision is not competent in the field, but has the support of officials above you. (equivalent to you knowing more than your boss, but your boss making all the decisions without consulting you)... This happens ALL the time in the NASA heirarchy... This is also sad, but the truth.
So the question we're left with is, what can you do about the problem? To put this as bluntly as possible, nothing. There is nothing that civil servants or contractors can do about this. For contractors more so than civil servants, their hands are almost literally tied behind their backs... At NASA there is a saying. We got to the moon in spite of NASA.
I don't know about the quantity decreasing... but I deffinately have to say that the quality has decreased... I'm getting more and more emails about buying things, and less and less about pr0n. I mean really... "sally want's you" and "you make me so hot" emails keep me going and knowing someone out there loves me! What would I do without all that positive reinforcement in my life??;-)
Unfortunately, the biggest problem with your statement is this:
"If 10 years from now linux becomes mainstream (yeah right), you'll soon see a rise in virii written for the audience that uses the most popular OS.
Not to mention the fact that most virii rely on users stupidity (Moms, grandmothers, suit types etc etc etc) to click an attachment. This is something a well informed user would never do."
The rational of that statement is that users can effect the system. A properly setup system (as is the case for a standard *nix install) provides users with a baseline environment to work in, in addition steps have already been taken to negate the ability for 'virii' to be anything more than a nuisance. Of course I could be completely wrong here... I doubt it, but what the heck. Lets entertain this thought -- lets say that *nix becomes the mainstream desktop OS of choice... let the virus writters of the world go nuts... what you'll find is that even the best quickly give up because of the inherent strengths of *nix OS's. Basic user vs admin rights, the standard setups that don't allow rm -rf/*... the best a virus writer will be able to do is *MAYBE* delete a file or two from the users own account... but the OS itself will always remain intact. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that MS has dumbed down the OS so much, that people no longer understand the difference between user and admin accounts. A generic install of 98/se/ME/2k/2kpro/xp/home/etc. and you immediately have an account that is the equivalent of always loging into a linux box as root. So... here's one difference between *nix and M$ is that at least *nix installs create user accounts and do not mix user and admin privileges on first installing the OS.
I agree with some of the folks on this list... Some people have too much time on their hands... This ranks right up there on the 'gibberish-scale' with "Klingon" as a language, or Ebonics, or folks that want to turn Jedi into a religion, or even that those mythical people who persist in thinking that Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. Monica Lewinski.
As a Network Manager, you should know that the more you secure the system, the less likely it is to be secure. Clearing the bios is a simple matter of dip switchs, and unlike you, I appreciate folks that take the incentive to learn an OS that you can't seem to appreciate. Despite your bravado, and beating your chest at your own sense of self importance, the reality is that if I was in your organization, I would install linux first, lock you out, and then when you attempted a reformat, would have to you terminated. The reality is that some folks are much higher in the 'pecking' order than you. It would behoove you 'to learn your place', and mind that you don't step on the toes of someone with the ability to end your career. Just a thought of course...
I agree with your post... almost... What you actually should have stated in the end was:
The average office user also doesn't need Windows, because Windows doesn't offer them anythig that Linux doesn't already provide, and have already improved upon. Period.
well... first off, I'm SO embarassed for you. Seriously... that's the dumbest load of crap I've ever seen in response to a comment... I imagine that you're a 30 year old dork who still plays with his d&d dolls and is a member of that moronic society that goes out and practices sword fighting...... simply embarrassing...
Uh... actually it's very simple to find out how many linux box you have in an organization... Use a software package like SARA and restrict the ip searches to the domain/subnet of the company... you'll be able to get a full listing of each system in the subnet and a generic idea of what OS is being run... from that point... do the math.
Actually, the real issue with having users installing boxes, is that statistically, the majority of hacking/cracking doesn't come from outside sources, but from within an organization. I know this may sound arrogant to some, but I've found that 90% of the SA's I've met are little more than MSCE's running around touting their rubber stamp cert as professional qualifications -- or to put it more bluntly, they're morons; and frankly when it comes down to it, I can secure my own system better than any SA I've met, on top of that, since I'm the only user, and I'm constantly on there, that I will be the one to notice when things go screwy...
well... heh... I actually haven't stumbled over any installations of Linux... when I was first hired on, there was no linux... So I helped... er... "introduce" linux to a couple of useless windows boxes. Actually I've been very active in encouraging the switching over from Windows to Linux within our organization, and am happy to say that it's giving the 'MS certified - legit' SA's of the organization fits. Funniest thing is watching their faces when the users tell them they don't want Windows re'installed... Windows Purchase = $300, Hardware Purchase = $3000, Looks on SA's faces when told their jobs are going to go away because the users like Linux = Priceless.
Basically to sum up the other comment... Hiring a Windows person to handle *nix/nux boxes would be hiring someone underqualified. But never the opposite. Face this fact... an MSCE doesn't mean a blasted thing. You can do all the studying you want, read all the literature you want, and waste as much of your money as you want on M$ based certs. What the public absolutely knows to be true is that MS certs are rubber stamps which don't imply that you know anything about dealing with the systems. A *nix/nux certification on the other hand implies by it's very nature that the person with the cert has had REAL world experience and hands on training. Why do Windows folks refuse to understand this? Why is it that I'm constantly having to correct the problems that our MS certified SA's are unable to handle on their own systems? What is it that MS people aren't getting about this? What more has to happen to make you folks understand that despite all your bravado of "Windows is a real OS and is very difficult to use properly", that the OS really isn't? After awhile you get tired of seeing people defending Windows... Look if you've ever had a friend who was fired from a job, you'll know that it's never the friends fault. The jobs manager was mean, the job didn't fit, they didn't like the pay, etc., etc., etc.,.. if the friend loses their job once you tend to listen to what they have to say... if they lose their job twice, and have the same set of excuses, you listen and believe them, but wonder... If they continue in this trend, you start to realize that maybe, just maybe, it's not the job, or the managers, or anything else other than the person... Well the same analogy applies here with MSCE's and *nix/nux folks. Invariably when you put 10 MS people up against a *nix/nux person, a manager will tend to hire the *nix/nux... put 1 and 1 together already...
The problem that most "Windows is God" people face, is that despite their best arguements, *nix/nux folks can work competently in a point and click environement (which isn't to say it's all point and click; obviously you have to push the little on button every now and then, or even the reset on occassion). Windows is really a very dumb overall OS. This is not meant as a derogatory statement, but actually speaks very well of the OS, considering it's main target is not server applications, but the average desktop environment (to circumvent all those really witty folks who will think this is a flame, yes, there are server capabilities, but the main target of Windows is not server based, but DESKTOP). In light of the OS being targeted towards desktop folks, and realizing that the average desktop user has the computational awareness of a rock, they've built a really dumbed down 'let me walk you through everything' OS. On the other hand, *nix/nux systems are meant for a much more broad set of applications and uses, and is targeted more towards server based environements (also, yes there are desktop versions, and yes it can be made JUST as dumb as Windows... so please no flames, not today... these are generalized statements, and we all know that there are exceptions to everything, so save the witty "i know so much more than you and here's the list of crap that proves *nix/nux is better than Windows", and vv)... back to the main point... basically *nix/nux folks are used to working on systems and understanding them at a level that isn't required by Windows folks, therefore the transition from *nix/nux to Windows has always been easier. But watching a Windows person move to *nix/nux is incredibly painful and generally met with pure frustration, anger, resentment, and eventually the statement that Windows is obviously superior because it's easier to use, and "it doesn't make me think".....
First off... this is my own opinion only, and does not reflect the attitude or thoughts of my employer.... with that said: I'm not sure whether to be pleased that someone actually took the time to locate a report that's been out for almost three months, or irritated that they (space.com) are completely misleading the public as to the cause and who's to blame for the defect (or that somehow they're privy to information that's available to everyone) which resulted in NASA having to terminate the Launch and Research Vehicle (X43A). On top of that, it's rediculous to post it to a forum like this. Reality check folks... This is a proven technology (hypersonic ram/scramjet engines) which has a large application base, and WILL provide faster, cheaper and cleaner access to space. I appreciate (not really) the folks that seem to get off on putting down NASA's achievments, or summing the work NASA does up to the moon landing (...and depending on who you listen to apparently we made that up too... -- that's sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on it.) If anyone of you has a moment to actually read the MIB report... and more over has the intellectual capacity to understand it (Lord knows no one's displayed that capability here, or at space.com), then you should understand where blame should be placed. The main portion of NASA's work was with the X-43A VEHICLE, and the subcontractor ORBITAL was supposed to provide a delivery system which would get NASA's RESEARCH VEHICLE to the test range. For those of you who can't quite put it all together,...come on... you can do it... put 1 and 1 together... NASA straps their research vehicle to the nose of Orbitals delivery system -- the launch vehicle... OH, is the light dawning yet?... what does the report indicate is the problem? was it the hypersonic vehicle that failed?? NO MORONS, it DOESN'T say that... the VEHICLE never got to the test range!! NASA never got to TEST the friggin vehicle in the first place.
...but like always... you never hear about NASA's THOUSANDS of achievements... I'm willing to bet that most of you can't name a single thing that NASA has contributed to the US technological community...why is that? maybe it's because those achievements never get air time. Achievements aren't juicy enough for the media... Media gets more attention when it focus's on NASA's failures... When was the last time you heard a news organization extolling the virtues of NASA?
All this criticism of NASA as "incapable", or "no longer with it"... to you folks I say PISS OFF... you have no clue what you're talking about. The X-43 folks are anything but sloppy at the research they do; the managment is outstanding, and the technical expertise is the best in the world.
To folks that think that NASA is just a big bureaucracy; you're absolutely right. They are, just like any other organization that does bleeding edge research and provides outstanding technical work to the US government. Any organization that does the kind of experimental research that NASA does (look around, there aren't any) has to have a legitimate infrastructure in place to handle the costs and managment structure that large experiments have. There is NO way around this, and anyone who thinks there is, is a fool.
To those of you who doubt that the X-43A vehicle will fly... PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NEWS IN OCTOBER!
Slashdot Mirror
As an alumn, I am irritated with the decision. As a cluster developer of 5 years, I'm highly irritated with the rational of the G5. It's one thing to develop a system for the intention of doing research, it's another to base a decision on "..delivered by Oct. 1..". The question you should be asking is, which is more important - getting on the list? or doing the research? Seems to me that there is a more cost effective solution, that provides higher capacity, greater throughput, and more overall compute capability at lower cost... I'd personally suggest VT slow down, rethink the cluster, and buy something that fits the needs of the school and research programs-therein.
Side Note: While Tech has a great football team, the football program is (other than special discounts to students, and using the VT name) completely independent of the school. The football program is a business venture that does not interact with or require school permission, nor is it governed by the school boards that Steger answers to.
Use Linux!
sentiments of Plato on democracy...
The fallicy of democracy is that it's always dumbed down to the lowest common denominator.
I deffinately third that... also from experience.
Yeah... you're still in the honeymoon phase of working at NASA... don't worry, it will wear off in time, and then you'll hit phase 2 -- pure frustration at not being able to do your job. Finally after a couple years you'll hit phase 3, and give up banging your head against a wall... what's odd is how long you've stayed in phase 1... you didn't by any chance ride the short bus to school did you? (only kidding)
100% agreement with you... while it wouldn't be a good thing to have no organization, the current layers are horrible on maintaining even a moiety of proficiency in relevant areas.
Might be a more interesting statistic to post the number of fatalaties per single end to end voyage. Meaning, how many cars travel from home to work, how many fatalities based on the total number of trips made. Then compare how many shuttle missions have there been. It doesn't matter if you travel 10 billion miles... it only takes one mile to kill people... so the real question is how many trips vs fatalities.
Read my other comments on this subject... I've got a lot to say to folks. There are problems within NASA, but there are just as many truly dedicated civil servants and contractors trying desperately to do the best job they can in spite of the never ending red tape and mgmt morons who get in the way. Keep this in mind when you think about NASA. There are mgmt folks who are interested in only increasing their own 'domain of control' at NASA, these are the sharks that once in power negatively effect NASA. There are contractors mgmt, who are only inteseted in their personnel being their to continue to bring in revenue from NASA (i.e. -- no care at all for how work gets done, or if it even gets done, just so long as they keep getting paid). And then there is a core group of folks, the engineers, and scientists, who are dedicated to doing the very best job they can. They're dedicated to their research, and without being dramatic to the idea of NASA and what NASA stands for. Those core folks take most of the heat when things go wrong, but they get no major part in the decision making process. It's my opinion that the NASA mgmt system and heirarchy is thoroughly screwed up, and that the sentiments of another poster are correct -- machine gun the mgmt and let the engineers do their job.
No, this is the kind of response I would expect from NASA mgmt. The reality is that those people who want 'oversight' generally lack the competence to make decisions properly. Your arguement is bullshit at best, and the engineers and scientists at NASA are anything but sloppy... Keep that crap to yourself, because it's the oversight that's the biggest problem. The reality is that the scientists should be making the decisions... not you mgmt jackasses...
... read some of my other comments on this subject... because right now I'm '...just the guy "crying wolf"'... banging my head against the walls of mgmt hurts... I can only take so much of it before giving up.
I'd love to meet you and shake your hand.
Unfortunately I'm well on my way to becoming one of the brainwashed... it happens once you get past the honeymoon phase (about 6 months), and then past the pure frustration phase (about 2 years of trying to fight the good fight and get your job done)... after that... there's only one phase left... you say screw it all, and do what's in your own best interest. After awhile even the best of us get tired of banging our heads against the walls of mgmt.
The answer to your question is no. The reality is that there was no way the engineers could have known ahead of time that this would happen. On top of that what is often found at NASA is that people who try to rock the boat because of concerns, are often shot down, both in their own fields and professions. What NASA more than likely did to those folks that thought there might be a mishap, is reject them on the basis that the supposed or potential mishap wouldn't occur using all the previous shuttle liftoffs as evidence. Or to put it more bluntly, if I were to start screaming that something isn't right, I'd be told to shutup because I don't have the experience that others do. To base your entire career on what you think "MIGHT" happen, when it hasn't happened before, is purely stupid. About the equivalent of saying that my car MIGHT explode, and then requiring that no one go near it simply because it has a gas tank and igniters... (a little off topic I know...)
The biggest bitch about working with/for NASA is the politics. Often times the experts are only experts in a small area, and generally they are not allowed complete control over their own area of expertise. This is ingrained early on in most civil servants and contractors, and eventually causes people to give up trying 'to fight the good fight'. It's sad, but also the truth.
There are a lot of really good scientists out there working very hard to do the best job they can. More often than not, the biggest problem is that instead of the scientists and engineers leading the decision making process, we have beurocrats and people who should not be in a position to make decisions effecting the decision making process. What's worse is when you know the person making a decision is not competent in the field, but has the support of officials above you. (equivalent to you knowing more than your boss, but your boss making all the decisions without consulting you)... This happens ALL the time in the NASA heirarchy... This is also sad, but the truth.
So the question we're left with is, what can you do about the problem? To put this as bluntly as possible, nothing. There is nothing that civil servants or contractors can do about this. For contractors more so than civil servants, their hands are almost literally tied behind their backs... At NASA there is a saying. We got to the moon in spite of NASA.
I don't know about the quantity decreasing... but I deffinately have to say that the quality has decreased... I'm getting more and more emails about buying things, and less and less about pr0n. I mean really... "sally want's you" and "you make me so hot" emails keep me going and knowing someone out there loves me! What would I do without all that positive reinforcement in my life?? ;-)
Unfortunately, the biggest problem with your statement is this: "If 10 years from now linux becomes mainstream (yeah right), you'll soon see a rise in virii written for the audience that uses the most popular OS. Not to mention the fact that most virii rely on users stupidity (Moms, grandmothers, suit types etc etc etc) to click an attachment. This is something a well informed user would never do."
/*... the best a virus writer will be able to do is *MAYBE* delete a file or two from the users own account... but the OS itself will always remain intact. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that MS has dumbed down the OS so much, that people no longer understand the difference between user and admin accounts. A generic install of 98/se/ME/2k/2kpro/xp/home/etc. and you immediately have an account that is the equivalent of always loging into a linux box as root. So... here's one difference between *nix and M$ is that at least *nix installs create user accounts and do not mix user and admin privileges on first installing the OS.
The rational of that statement is that users can effect the system. A properly setup system (as is the case for a standard *nix install) provides users with a baseline environment to work in, in addition steps have already been taken to negate the ability for 'virii' to be anything more than a nuisance. Of course I could be completely wrong here... I doubt it, but what the heck. Lets entertain this thought -- lets say that *nix becomes the mainstream desktop OS of choice... let the virus writters of the world go nuts... what you'll find is that even the best quickly give up because of the inherent strengths of *nix OS's. Basic user vs admin rights, the standard setups that don't allow rm -rf
Laughed so hard when I read your post, I almost wet myself!
I agree with some of the folks on this list... Some people have too much time on their hands... This ranks right up there on the 'gibberish-scale' with "Klingon" as a language, or Ebonics, or folks that want to turn Jedi into a religion, or even that those mythical people who persist in thinking that Bill Clinton did not have sex with that woman. Monica Lewinski.
As a Network Manager, you should know that the more you secure the system, the less likely it is to be secure. Clearing the bios is a simple matter of dip switchs, and unlike you, I appreciate folks that take the incentive to learn an OS that you can't seem to appreciate. Despite your bravado, and beating your chest at your own sense of self importance, the reality is that if I was in your organization, I would install linux first, lock you out, and then when you attempted a reformat, would have to you terminated. The reality is that some folks are much higher in the 'pecking' order than you. It would behoove you 'to learn your place', and mind that you don't step on the toes of someone with the ability to end your career. Just a thought of course...
I agree with your post ... almost... What you actually should have stated in the end was:
The average office user also doesn't need Windows, because Windows doesn't offer them anythig that Linux doesn't already provide, and have already improved upon. Period.
well... first off, I'm SO embarassed for you. Seriously... that's the dumbest load of crap I've ever seen in response to a comment... I imagine that you're a 30 year old dork who still plays with his d&d dolls and is a member of that moronic society that goes out and practices sword fighting... ... simply embarrassing...
Uh... actually it's very simple to find out how many linux box you have in an organization... Use a software package like SARA and restrict the ip searches to the domain/subnet of the company... you'll be able to get a full listing of each system in the subnet and a generic idea of what OS is being run... from that point... do the math.
Actually, the real issue with having users installing boxes, is that statistically, the majority of hacking/cracking doesn't come from outside sources, but from within an organization. I know this may sound arrogant to some, but I've found that 90% of the SA's I've met are little more than MSCE's running around touting their rubber stamp cert as professional qualifications -- or to put it more bluntly, they're morons; and frankly when it comes down to it, I can secure my own system better than any SA I've met, on top of that, since I'm the only user, and I'm constantly on there, that I will be the one to notice when things go screwy...
well... heh... I actually haven't stumbled over any installations of Linux... when I was first hired on, there was no linux... So I helped ... er... "introduce" linux to a couple of useless windows boxes. Actually I've been very active in encouraging the switching over from Windows to Linux within our organization, and am happy to say that it's giving the 'MS certified - legit' SA's of the organization fits. Funniest thing is watching their faces when the users tell them they don't want Windows re'installed... Windows Purchase = $300, Hardware Purchase = $3000, Looks on SA's faces when told their jobs are going to go away because the users like Linux = Priceless.
Basically to sum up the other comment... Hiring a Windows person to handle *nix/nux boxes would be hiring someone underqualified. But never the opposite. Face this fact... an MSCE doesn't mean a blasted thing. You can do all the studying you want, read all the literature you want, and waste as much of your money as you want on M$ based certs. What the public absolutely knows to be true is that MS certs are rubber stamps which don't imply that you know anything about dealing with the systems. A *nix/nux certification on the other hand implies by it's very nature that the person with the cert has had REAL world experience and hands on training. Why do Windows folks refuse to understand this? Why is it that I'm constantly having to correct the problems that our MS certified SA's are unable to handle on their own systems? What is it that MS people aren't getting about this? What more has to happen to make you folks understand that despite all your bravado of "Windows is a real OS and is very difficult to use properly", that the OS really isn't? After awhile you get tired of seeing people defending Windows... Look if you've ever had a friend who was fired from a job, you'll know that it's never the friends fault. The jobs manager was mean, the job didn't fit, they didn't like the pay, etc., etc., etc.,.. if the friend loses their job once you tend to listen to what they have to say... if they lose their job twice, and have the same set of excuses, you listen and believe them, but wonder... If they continue in this trend, you start to realize that maybe, just maybe, it's not the job, or the managers, or anything else other than the person... Well the same analogy applies here with MSCE's and *nix/nux folks. Invariably when you put 10 MS people up against a *nix/nux person, a manager will tend to hire the *nix/nux... put 1 and 1 together already...
The problem that most "Windows is God" people face, is that despite their best arguements, *nix/nux folks can work competently in a point and click environement (which isn't to say it's all point and click; obviously you have to push the little on button every now and then, or even the reset on occassion). Windows is really a very dumb overall OS. This is not meant as a derogatory statement, but actually speaks very well of the OS, considering it's main target is not server applications, but the average desktop environment (to circumvent all those really witty folks who will think this is a flame, yes, there are server capabilities, but the main target of Windows is not server based, but DESKTOP). In light of the OS being targeted towards desktop folks, and realizing that the average desktop user has the computational awareness of a rock, they've built a really dumbed down 'let me walk you through everything' OS. On the other hand, *nix/nux systems are meant for a much more broad set of applications and uses, and is targeted more towards server based environements (also, yes there are desktop versions, and yes it can be made JUST as dumb as Windows... so please no flames, not today... these are generalized statements, and we all know that there are exceptions to everything, so save the witty "i know so much more than you and here's the list of crap that proves *nix/nux is better than Windows", and vv) ... back to the main point... basically *nix/nux folks are used to working on systems and understanding them at a level that isn't required by Windows folks, therefore the transition from *nix/nux to Windows has always been easier. But watching a Windows person move to *nix/nux is incredibly painful and generally met with pure frustration, anger, resentment, and eventually the statement that Windows is obviously superior because it's easier to use, and "it doesn't make me think".....
I laughed my 'arse' off when I read your post! That's the funniest analogy I've heard in a long time.
First off... this is my own opinion only, and does not reflect the attitude or thoughts of my employer.... with that said: ...come on... you can do it... put 1 and 1 together... NASA straps their research vehicle to the nose of Orbitals delivery system -- the launch vehicle... OH, is the light dawning yet?... what does the report indicate is the problem? was it the hypersonic vehicle that failed?? NO MORONS, it DOESN'T say that... the VEHICLE never got to the test range!! NASA never got to TEST the friggin vehicle in the first place.
...but like always... you never hear about NASA's THOUSANDS of achievements... I'm willing to bet that most of you can't name a single thing that NASA has contributed to the US technological community...why is that? maybe it's because those achievements never get air time. Achievements aren't juicy enough for the media... Media gets more attention when it focus's on NASA's failures... When was the last time you heard a news organization extolling the virtues of NASA?
I'm not sure whether to be pleased that someone actually took the time to locate a report that's been out for almost three months, or irritated that they (space.com) are completely misleading the public as to the cause and who's to blame for the defect (or that somehow they're privy to information that's available to everyone) which resulted in NASA having to terminate the Launch and Research Vehicle (X43A). On top of that, it's rediculous to post it to a forum like this. Reality check folks... This is a proven technology (hypersonic ram/scramjet engines) which has a large application base, and WILL provide faster, cheaper and cleaner access to space. I appreciate (not really) the folks that seem to get off on putting down NASA's achievments, or summing the work NASA does up to the moon landing (...and depending on who you listen to apparently we made that up too... -- that's sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on it.) If anyone of you has a moment to actually read the MIB report... and more over has the intellectual capacity to understand it (Lord knows no one's displayed that capability here, or at space.com), then you should understand where blame should be placed. The main portion of NASA's work was with the X-43A VEHICLE, and the subcontractor ORBITAL was supposed to provide a delivery system which would get NASA's RESEARCH VEHICLE to the test range. For those of you who can't quite put it all together,
All this criticism of NASA as "incapable", or "no longer with it"... to you folks I say PISS OFF... you have no clue what you're talking about. The X-43 folks are anything but sloppy at the research they do; the managment is outstanding, and the technical expertise is the best in the world.
To folks that think that NASA is just a big bureaucracy; you're absolutely right. They are, just like any other organization that does bleeding edge research and provides outstanding technical work to the US government. Any organization that does the kind of experimental research that NASA does (look around, there aren't any) has to have a legitimate infrastructure in place to handle the costs and managment structure that large experiments have. There is NO way around this, and anyone who thinks there is, is a fool.
To those of you who doubt that the X-43A vehicle will fly... PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HAPPENS IN THE NEWS IN OCTOBER!