What do you expect when you're spending $500 for an AP or $5000 for a 48-port switch? And those prices are in-bulk, if you're paying list it's closer to $1000 for an AP and $8000 for a switch, without even buying SFP modules. It's easily half a million bucks just for switches and APs for a large high school, and if the school was cabled with lots of small closets then you're looking at another $100,000 in fiber transceivers for 10G, plus the cost to the WAN provider to link at a meaningful speed back to the main datacenter. Hell, the 10G fiber switch for the high school campus is going to come in at $50,000 and that's assuming that the local campus is just connecting to the WAN, and not directly to the Internet.
Once you've spent all of the money to build the network you don't necessarily have a lot left for the devices to use on that network.
In some ways Google was smart about ChromeOS; it has many of the support-advantages of an OS like OSX with closed hardware, but as it was something of a clean-sheet implementation as far as software support goes it didn't have to drag-in support for legacy applications unlike OSX, which had the ability (and arguably the need) to run "System" applications from pre-OSX days. Google has arguably done a better job of permissions in Chrome than other OSes have, it's a lot harder for the end user to compromise the machine by accident, and even a user that intentionally tampers with it has some pretty hard limitations to work around for some things. If you're one to tinker to learn then this is a problem, but if you need the equipment to just work and not eat itself for lunch then it's fine.
Chromebooks also have the advantage of being extraordinarily inexpensive in most cases. It's hard to argue with a machine that does what's needed for half the price of a Windows machine or 1/3 the price of an OSX or iOS machine.
For myself I wish that there was an easy way to flesh-out a ChromeOS install into a full-fledged Linux workstation without having to resort to cronut and chroot or without having to nuke-out ChromeOS entierly, but thems the breaks.
Yup. I finally found a movie on Crackle that didn't work well with commercials, the Peter Ustinov version of Death on the Nile. The commercial breaks destroyed the building suspense as various potential murderers were identified in the rising action of the second act.
Everything else I've watched on Crackle is acceptable even with intermittent commercials. I also get off the couch more and actually do things.
I like to take it a step further, I disallow all outgoing connections except to those destination ports that are legitimate Internet services that I use, and obviously unsolicited incoming traffic is dropped at the firewall. My goal is not only to try to prevent infections from being brought in to my network, but should an infection somehow end up on a node on my network, to deny it the ability to communicate with command and control servers should it try to use nonstandard ports.
Obviously if a piece of malware is using HTTP or HTTPS to a conventional port then this won't necessarily work, but so far it seems to work well enough.
Microsoft is not 100% right; they created something with this vulnerability and sold it for a very long period of time. They're patching XP for chrissakes.
Regardless of who her husband is, she achieved a degree of commercial success prior to this change, which means that she has managed to build enough audience to make transitioning to crowdfunding easier. Obviously being a signed act isn't the only way to build that audience, but it certainly has its advantages.
What's funny now, is that what started as cheap commodity motherboards bastardized into "racks" somehow evolved into these massive blade chassis systems like Cisco UCS. So now you have a machine that's the price of big-iron but has many of the same problems as using cheap commodity hardware as far as managing the whole lot goes.
It'll be interesting to see where the next direction takes us, especially if organizations get tired of paying for Smartnet.
When I look at where software has gone, I guess that I'm surprised that Intel didn't try to push this architecture wider than servers. The rate of replacement of equipment is astoundingly high these days, and a lot of software is web-delivered and requires post-download work to make it run anyway, so in many ways the base of legacy software to support has shrunk dramatically if Intel could get OS developers and the big software suite developers on-board. Microsoft was already accustomed to writing Windows for MIPS, and to writing Office for at least three architectures; where those go the rest of the market usually followed. If they were willing to price the new architecture at least somewhat affordably it probably could have found enough marketshare to work; that may require spreading paying development costs out over a longer period of time, but wouldn't that still be better than canceling a fully developed and paid-for project like this?
Myself I have always mourned that Motorola never could increase the frequency of the MC680x0 beyond 66Mhz and keep up with Intel because that architecture was a real beauty to program in assembler.
Historically that's one of the things that always boggled my mind, Intel's instruction set had no protected mode until quite late, so programmers had to do some interesting things that often resulted in problems and the computer crashing anyway (IE Windows BSOD) or had to rely on a single-tasker operating system where it didn't matter so much; Motorola's chips had Supervisor Mode that was a protected mode, but Apple chose to ignore its existence when writing "System"/MacOS, where running multiple simultaneous applications in a GUI it would have been highly beneficial.
Just never understood that, especially when Apple had left the CLI world even before they completely dropped the Apple II line.
I guess I just sort of assumed that IA-64 was dead a long time ago, and figured Intel's gaming the benchmarks was essentially retribution against AMD for the success of amd64 architecture.
Does anyone remember the reasoning for dropping native support for i386 when these processors debuted? There have always been growing-pains when a manufacturer drops or severely impacts support for their install-base, but sometimes it's beneficial or necessary if an existing architecture is a dead-end.
Except for the fact that there are real, actual improvements described in many of your line items.
Automatic transmissions are much easier to drive in hilly terrain and in stop-and-go traffic. Microwaves save a considerable amount of time reheating things and run significantly less chance of scorching them.
I want real improvement, not reinventing the wheel time and time again. If one looks at computing, for most end-users the tasks they do could've been accomplished in Windows 3.1 with multimedia extensions, with only a little more computing power than was generally contemporary with that software. Everyone seems to think that reimplementing the same thing that we already had 20 years ago is innovation when it's not. Even Windows itself has regressed, the modern UI with a special mode to launch programs from is *drumroll* Program Manager. That's right, Windows 8/10 essentially took an abandoned part from Windows 3 and reimplemented it again.
And I'm the opposite. I spend 95% of my time in Linux as SSH is my most heavily used application, probably followed by the TFTP server, and the scripting that I wrote to admin the 2700 devices I work with.
I have to go into Windows to manage certain specific domain functions, and for some specific network devices that require proprietary Windows programs to easily administer. For those latter devices in theory the manufacturer is going HTML5 in the next code release, so I'll have even less need for Windows at that point.
Get developers that are used to working with Linux-based servers accustomed to a hybrid environment, and get managers that are not exactly happy with the Linux-based approach requiring the use of brain power to evaluate to make decisions now instead have more means to present pretty graphs. Eventually people push to start running real servers this way, and then to migrate to Windows entirely.
The problem with GUI is that while it makes some tasks legitimately easier, it also gives the false impression to people that they too have what it takes to administer stuff. Unfortunately this means people who are no more technically skilled than regular users now try to admin stuff and inevitably they break it or misconfigure it because while they can navigate an easy-to-use GUI, they have no idea how it works under the surface.
I've seen people not understand that sometimes software gives back erroneous or incorrect error messages, so they spend inordinate amounts of time trying to fix the wrong problem. Most recent example I can think of was an auth error on a WIFI setup through Cisco ISE and Radius through to the Active Directory domain. The error reported by ISE and the WLC was about the wrong password, but the actual problem was with shared credentials used by numerous machines, where some weird Apple bug was causing the password to be sent wrong sometimes, so it would occasionally lock-out the credentials, but the AD->Radius->ISE->Controller->WAP path lost the true nature of the error in-translation so people spent weeks chasing down the wrong problem, when in reality the problem was solely with Apple.
Because it's so hard to use the native tools that the VM has to mount shares...
I've been using the bastard-stepchild of virtual machine software, Oracle's free-as-in-beer Virtualbox to run Windows on one of my Linux servers for those few times I need software that runs on Windows, and they made it easy to create share/mappings to connect to directories on the host file system in the guest opeating system. It was no burden to make it work.
Yep. It's like when you want to go see some obscure guest that wrote some episodes of your favorite TV series at a Comic Con; those screaming catgirls running around in the halls and fighting for seats to see Nathan Fillion are what bring in the dollars so that the convention can afford to bring in Dorothy Fontana.
Hell, I look at it that I've had a 20 year career supporting products that can't truly be fixed. Back when I worked for a small tech services company that supported mostly small businesses in a regional area, when we fixed Novell issues we had to fix them one time, and they stayed fixed, at least in the way that had been serviced. With NT domains we would have to fix the same problems over and over again.
Thank you Microsoft! Thank you for enabling me to have a fairly highly paid career that doesn't require a lot of physical labor! I wouldn't be where I am today without you!
You mean Africans who've spent 20 years clearing their own countries of landmines, such that they're experts and are now contractors sent to places like the Falkland Islands to clear Argentine landmines?
I used Altavista.digital.com back in the day, I used mapquest, I used Yahoo maps.
I switched to using Google for a search engine when Altavista's results got bad or when it closed, can't remember which at this point. I switched to Google's maps because they were easier to read than Mapquest's or Yahoo's.
Should a truly better competitor for these kinds of functions come along then I would consider them. I'm not exactly thrilled with Google/Alphabet's direction, they seem to be getting a little big for their britches.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you expect when you're spending $500 for an AP or $5000 for a 48-port switch? And those prices are in-bulk, if you're paying list it's closer to $1000 for an AP and $8000 for a switch, without even buying SFP modules. It's easily half a million bucks just for switches and APs for a large high school, and if the school was cabled with lots of small closets then you're looking at another $100,000 in fiber transceivers for 10G, plus the cost to the WAN provider to link at a meaningful speed back to the main datacenter. Hell, the 10G fiber switch for the high school campus is going to come in at $50,000 and that's assuming that the local campus is just connecting to the WAN, and not directly to the Internet.
Once you've spent all of the money to build the network you don't necessarily have a lot left for the devices to use on that network.
In some ways Google was smart about ChromeOS; it has many of the support-advantages of an OS like OSX with closed hardware, but as it was something of a clean-sheet implementation as far as software support goes it didn't have to drag-in support for legacy applications unlike OSX, which had the ability (and arguably the need) to run "System" applications from pre-OSX days. Google has arguably done a better job of permissions in Chrome than other OSes have, it's a lot harder for the end user to compromise the machine by accident, and even a user that intentionally tampers with it has some pretty hard limitations to work around for some things. If you're one to tinker to learn then this is a problem, but if you need the equipment to just work and not eat itself for lunch then it's fine.
Chromebooks also have the advantage of being extraordinarily inexpensive in most cases. It's hard to argue with a machine that does what's needed for half the price of a Windows machine or 1/3 the price of an OSX or iOS machine.
For myself I wish that there was an easy way to flesh-out a ChromeOS install into a full-fledged Linux workstation without having to resort to cronut and chroot or without having to nuke-out ChromeOS entierly, but thems the breaks.
Yup. I finally found a movie on Crackle that didn't work well with commercials, the Peter Ustinov version of Death on the Nile. The commercial breaks destroyed the building suspense as various potential murderers were identified in the rising action of the second act.
Everything else I've watched on Crackle is acceptable even with intermittent commercials. I also get off the couch more and actually do things.
I have an OTDR that is built around Windows 2000. It's more like $15,000 than $100,000 but I feel your pain.
I like to take it a step further, I disallow all outgoing connections except to those destination ports that are legitimate Internet services that I use, and obviously unsolicited incoming traffic is dropped at the firewall. My goal is not only to try to prevent infections from being brought in to my network, but should an infection somehow end up on a node on my network, to deny it the ability to communicate with command and control servers should it try to use nonstandard ports.
Obviously if a piece of malware is using HTTP or HTTPS to a conventional port then this won't necessarily work, but so far it seems to work well enough.
Microsoft is not 100% right; they created something with this vulnerability and sold it for a very long period of time. They're patching XP for chrissakes.
Regardless of who her husband is, she achieved a degree of commercial success prior to this change, which means that she has managed to build enough audience to make transitioning to crowdfunding easier. Obviously being a signed act isn't the only way to build that audience, but it certainly has its advantages.
I've heard that Google did much the same thing.
What's funny now, is that what started as cheap commodity motherboards bastardized into "racks" somehow evolved into these massive blade chassis systems like Cisco UCS. So now you have a machine that's the price of big-iron but has many of the same problems as using cheap commodity hardware as far as managing the whole lot goes.
It'll be interesting to see where the next direction takes us, especially if organizations get tired of paying for Smartnet.
When I look at where software has gone, I guess that I'm surprised that Intel didn't try to push this architecture wider than servers. The rate of replacement of equipment is astoundingly high these days, and a lot of software is web-delivered and requires post-download work to make it run anyway, so in many ways the base of legacy software to support has shrunk dramatically if Intel could get OS developers and the big software suite developers on-board. Microsoft was already accustomed to writing Windows for MIPS, and to writing Office for at least three architectures; where those go the rest of the market usually followed. If they were willing to price the new architecture at least somewhat affordably it probably could have found enough marketshare to work; that may require spreading paying development costs out over a longer period of time, but wouldn't that still be better than canceling a fully developed and paid-for project like this?
Myself I have always mourned that Motorola never could increase the frequency of the MC680x0 beyond 66Mhz and keep up with Intel because that architecture was a real beauty to program in assembler.
Historically that's one of the things that always boggled my mind, Intel's instruction set had no protected mode until quite late, so programmers had to do some interesting things that often resulted in problems and the computer crashing anyway (IE Windows BSOD) or had to rely on a single-tasker operating system where it didn't matter so much; Motorola's chips had Supervisor Mode that was a protected mode, but Apple chose to ignore its existence when writing "System"/MacOS, where running multiple simultaneous applications in a GUI it would have been highly beneficial.
Just never understood that, especially when Apple had left the CLI world even before they completely dropped the Apple II line.
I guess I just sort of assumed that IA-64 was dead a long time ago, and figured Intel's gaming the benchmarks was essentially retribution against AMD for the success of amd64 architecture.
Does anyone remember the reasoning for dropping native support for i386 when these processors debuted? There have always been growing-pains when a manufacturer drops or severely impacts support for their install-base, but sometimes it's beneficial or necessary if an existing architecture is a dead-end.
Except for the fact that there are real, actual improvements described in many of your line items.
Automatic transmissions are much easier to drive in hilly terrain and in stop-and-go traffic. Microwaves save a considerable amount of time reheating things and run significantly less chance of scorching them.
I want real improvement, not reinventing the wheel time and time again. If one looks at computing, for most end-users the tasks they do could've been accomplished in Windows 3.1 with multimedia extensions, with only a little more computing power than was generally contemporary with that software. Everyone seems to think that reimplementing the same thing that we already had 20 years ago is innovation when it's not. Even Windows itself has regressed, the modern UI with a special mode to launch programs from is *drumroll* Program Manager. That's right, Windows 8/10 essentially took an abandoned part from Windows 3 and reimplemented it again.
And I'm the opposite. I spend 95% of my time in Linux as SSH is my most heavily used application, probably followed by the TFTP server, and the scripting that I wrote to admin the 2700 devices I work with.
I have to go into Windows to manage certain specific domain functions, and for some specific network devices that require proprietary Windows programs to easily administer. For those latter devices in theory the manufacturer is going HTML5 in the next code release, so I'll have even less need for Windows at that point.
Linux on the desktop arrived a long time ago, it's called ChromeOS.
GNU/Linux is another matter.
I laughed, if it's any consolation.
You mean like installing Cygwin or MobaXterm?
This is the alternate path to that goal though.
Get developers that are used to working with Linux-based servers accustomed to a hybrid environment, and get managers that are not exactly happy with the Linux-based approach requiring the use of brain power to evaluate to make decisions now instead have more means to present pretty graphs. Eventually people push to start running real servers this way, and then to migrate to Windows entirely.
The problem with GUI is that while it makes some tasks legitimately easier, it also gives the false impression to people that they too have what it takes to administer stuff. Unfortunately this means people who are no more technically skilled than regular users now try to admin stuff and inevitably they break it or misconfigure it because while they can navigate an easy-to-use GUI, they have no idea how it works under the surface.
I've seen people not understand that sometimes software gives back erroneous or incorrect error messages, so they spend inordinate amounts of time trying to fix the wrong problem. Most recent example I can think of was an auth error on a WIFI setup through Cisco ISE and Radius through to the Active Directory domain. The error reported by ISE and the WLC was about the wrong password, but the actual problem was with shared credentials used by numerous machines, where some weird Apple bug was causing the password to be sent wrong sometimes, so it would occasionally lock-out the credentials, but the AD->Radius->ISE->Controller->WAP path lost the true nature of the error in-translation so people spent weeks chasing down the wrong problem, when in reality the problem was solely with Apple.
Because it's so hard to use the native tools that the VM has to mount shares...
I've been using the bastard-stepchild of virtual machine software, Oracle's free-as-in-beer Virtualbox to run Windows on one of my Linux servers for those few times I need software that runs on Windows, and they made it easy to create share/mappings to connect to directories on the host file system in the guest opeating system. It was no burden to make it work.
Remember how kids tend to noogie each other in the small of the back?
The inventor of that spoon might well be the first person to be happy that Microsoft has destroyed his marketshare by introducing their own product.
Yep. It's like when you want to go see some obscure guest that wrote some episodes of your favorite TV series at a Comic Con; those screaming catgirls running around in the halls and fighting for seats to see Nathan Fillion are what bring in the dollars so that the convention can afford to bring in Dorothy Fontana.
Hell, I look at it that I've had a 20 year career supporting products that can't truly be fixed. Back when I worked for a small tech services company that supported mostly small businesses in a regional area, when we fixed Novell issues we had to fix them one time, and they stayed fixed, at least in the way that had been serviced. With NT domains we would have to fix the same problems over and over again.
Thank you Microsoft! Thank you for enabling me to have a fairly highly paid career that doesn't require a lot of physical labor! I wouldn't be where I am today without you!
You mean Africans who've spent 20 years clearing their own countries of landmines, such that they're experts and are now contractors sent to places like the Falkland Islands to clear Argentine landmines?
I used Altavista.digital.com back in the day, I used mapquest, I used Yahoo maps.
I switched to using Google for a search engine when Altavista's results got bad or when it closed, can't remember which at this point. I switched to Google's maps because they were easier to read than Mapquest's or Yahoo's.
Should a truly better competitor for these kinds of functions come along then I would consider them. I'm not exactly thrilled with Google/Alphabet's direction, they seem to be getting a little big for their britches.
And how is this different than any other thread?