As someone who had something similar happen to me, it changes things, but not by much.
You create a rant thread on your guild forums, or your blog (see above). You then have to explain it to everyone on your friends list, and in guild chat, you get a little bit of a ribbing (like calling you your new game name in vent), and life goes on.
My name got nerfed in Early-Jan. I found it funny since I had a form of this nick since I was playing Descent and Warcraft on Kali, and used it on all games since then, including all Blizzard games on Battle.net.
They gave me a random generated name, haven't changed it since, even though I had the option (couldn't think of a good nick, I have always been PPGMD). Thus I am Morna a Night Elf Hunter, at least in WoW.
I also found it funny, that the GMs were so worried about a name, but all they do is reply with form letters can any real problems with WoW. Not much I can do, and I have fun playing with my friends in game.
Actually for DCs you don't require CALs. You just have to get a copy of Windows, which is not that expensive. Also you can create offline backup servers without needing to buy extra copies, because it is only brought online if the original goes down.
Microsoft licensing isn't that complicated, there are only 5 cases that you need CALs (the most expensive part) for a windows server, when an authenticated user is accessing:
File Services
Printing Services
Remote Access Services (VPNs and the such)
Terminal Services (now has a separate CAL)
Exchange (has it's own CAL)
Also Microsoft has released a cheaper way to bring external authenticated users on the server, called the External connector, I haven't had any clients that needed this, so I am not quite as savvy on the details.
And you don't need to get 200 CALs on every server, if only 15 people are accessing the server, you only need 15 plus overflow. This is one of the most common flaws that I see when going over quotes from other consultants. You will be surprised how many misconceptions server are about when you need CALs and when you don't.
Also the biggest thing, is that the OS is a tool, from the sound of it, Check Point was having a problem with the extra traffic, solution was to put another firewall in front of it, IPCHAINs has always seemed to be able to handle traffic quite well, I think that Check Point may have had the same problem if it was running on the same hardware using a Unix system.
Very few companies sell direct, most companies go through at least one other company before their products reach the end user. And even within the same company and even the same division the amount of layers is different.
For example for I sell a couple of Windows XP, as a reseller that sells to end users I have to purchase from a distributor who purchases them from Microsoft. OTOH if I want to sell a copy of Solomon Standard (a ERP package sold by Microsoft), I buy it direct from Microsoft, and sell it to my client.
And thats how most companies sell their products, it's a small minority of companies that sell direct, even to governements.
First you rarely need to accelerate to escape velocity, you only need to hit escape velocity if you plan launch directly out of the earths gravity field completely. Most manned NASA missions will always orbit the earth first to do a quick shakedown to the space craft before leaving.
The reentry methods used by Spaceship 1 aren't meant for orbital flight, and would unlikely work for orbital flights because the increased velocities required, and higher heat output by the reentering space craft.
Years when the US air-force was trumpeting the stealth fighter as unstoppable, the Russians said there is nothing that takes in air and dissipates heat that cannot be detected. This was proven when one of our fighters was downed in the Balkan's war. The air-force attributed the downing to a technical fault. Of course this was not correct.
*sigh* This is what the second time that I have corrected this myth on Slashdot.
The F-117 and B-2 are not invincible, they are designed for low observability. They use multiple attack route, surprise, the vastly lower detectability to achieve their mission.
With that being said what allowed the F-117 to be shot down was simple human stupidity. On normal missions the F-117 fly at over 10,000 ft AGL because that is the limit of ground based IR guided missiles, and AAA. It also doesn't normally fly below the clouds because it would stick out like a sore thumb. On top of that it never flies the same route twice.
During the war in Bosnia they violated all three of those rules, thanks to "wonderful" European weather the F-117's were forced to fly below the clouds to hit their targets (GPS guided JDAMs were not in use then, they were using the laser guided Paveway III's which are not useable through most cloud layers). That forced them below 10,000 ft into the range of AAA. They also flew over the same route 3 times before the shoot down, so the Serbians were able to position AAA along the route and shoot the F-117 down, guided by the Mark I eyeball.
The technology isn't at fault, when you fly outside it's envelope of protection. It would be like me blaming Linux because my computer failed, when I threw it in the pool.
I have watched and participated in restoration of Russian aircraft. First it's mostly only early Migs and L-29's (which aren't quite Russian but most people think they are). Second the amount of work that the aircraft require is astounding, and you get to see excellent examples of Soviet Craftsmen ship, but at the same time you will see examples of times where they couldn't reproduce two pieces of steel in the same size.
Also the 30 minutes of maximum flight is a fact. In order to maintain Mach 2.83 the engines must be red lined with afterburners on. You red line any engine and you aren't going to get more then 30 minutes of flight out of the aircraft.
I simply said SR-71 type bombers, since I forgot the codename of the XB-70. Both aircraft were designed for a mission, but to hold up the Mig-25 and say that it's better then the SR-71 because it's cheaper, was simply what I was attempting to disprove.
In fact like many Skunkworks aircraft it was cheap for the capabilities that it delivered.
No they built something to intercept the SR-71 type bombers. It can only sustain about 30 minutes of flight at it's maximum speed, both because of the engine overhaul needed and short range, even then, it was never as good as he SR-71.
The SR-71 can maintain Mach 3 (the aircraft can fly Mach 3.3 what limitations in the handbook has yet to be declassified) while the Mig-25 can only fly at 2.83 for limited amounts of time. The SR-71 has a range of 2,900 miles unrefueled, while the Mig-25 has 537 miles in the same conditions. The SR-71 routinely flew at 80,000ft, while the Mig-25 had a maximum service altitude of just over 67,000ft.
How much the Mig-25 actually cost to develop and produce is unknown, just going by the cost per an aircraft is not a accurate measure because the Russian Air Force already ate the cost of the aircraft development, while when you talk about cost per an aircraft in US circles, we talk about total cost of the project divided by the number of aircraft produced. Which is why many aircraft top a billion per an aircraft.
Except the Mig-25 needs a complete overhaul if the does a flight near it's maximum speed (which is mach 2.83) for more then 30 minutes.
Since the end of the Cold War many have over estimated how good, the simple reliable Russian system were. They had some good designs, but they have had alot of utter crap.
I smell BS, either that or someone that thinks he knows what hes doing but doesn't.
In fact, in the recommended settings, Windows Update will randomly interrupt you while you're working and force you to reboot.
Actually no it doesn't, it will prompt you first to set a time for updates to be automatically applied, until you do it will also download the updates, and prompt you to install them.
You also to to remember that your experience is based on a crappy OEM install. My average Windows install consists of:
Installing Windows
Installing drivers (Reboot)
Installing Applications, with Security Applications last (reboot)
Application and Microsoft Updates (Reboot)
Ready to use
With proper Slipstreaming and OPK you can eliminate all but one or two of the reboots for the user. If the system builder knows what they are doing.
Also just because you know how to run a Linux system, doesn't mean that you are a Windows Administrator or even a Windows power user, just as I would never claim to be a Linux guru despite the fact I can administrate Postfix, sendmail and Apache.
A user has to realize their limitations and seek help, a *nix administrator should not feel embarrassed that they have to bring into a seasoned Windows administrator, just because it has a GUI doesn't mean that it's easy.
EULAs aren't such a bad thing, in many cases it's the usual pages of legalese that is required on all Commercial products. I disagree with GPL in many regards (I like the freedom of the BSD license when I want to give stuff away), that doesn't mean that I instantly slam any product that is distributed under GPL.
Not sure how this will be modded, nor do I care, I am personally get sick of OSS zealots slamming products just because they don't like it, many of which haven't used it for years.
Have you ever tried managing 1000 machines with 1000 average users? Please folks, having a PC at home does not make you an IT specialist.
I have it's actually pretty easy with the right tools. Now the tools themselves, are a royal pain in the butt to setup correctly so they run well without any issues.
With the proper security policy, regular updates via SMS, and standarizing the hardware, most help desk calls are limited to people wanting to install Application X, or how do I get Powerpoint to do a swirl like Company X did in their presentation last week.
With roaming profiles desktop machines can be swapped out with ease. Now mobile laptop users are another story.
With 22 years in the industry as a so called expert you would think he would know the simple steps needed to secure a Windows machine. It's not that hard, even with staying with IE.
Step 1: Avoid Fishy Sites.
This is 90% of the problem people assume that the internet is safe, and routinely surf the web, allow ActiveX controls to run unfettered, install Gator because it allows them to remember all their passwords. The internet is not a safe place, whether you are on a Windows, Mac, or Linux. It is a safe place for BSD users, because BSD is dead, so no one writes anything for it.:)
Step 2: Get updates every couple of months
Windows update, and apt-get make this process easier. Even Linux when it's not updated can get compromised (though not as easily nor as quickly as Windows).
Step 3: Use a Firewall of some sort.
99% of exploits require direct access to the machine, even the most basic firewall will prevent that access.
These are very basic tips that I think even Joe Blow on the street can learn if he is willing to listen. Sometimes that listening takes 2-3 times of his machine getting compromised and reloaded at $105 a pop.
We are not talking about on back bone providers, instead on the consumer ISP level.
It also makes sense for the ISPs, these zombies are already loading up their internal networks, why would you want to pay for them loading up your external connection, the one that you have to pay for to others?
Except they don't force it on you. If you have automatic updates on, it downloads the service pack for you, but you must agree to the EULA before the install process even starts.
Also updates are being cut off for users of Windows XP, anyone with Windows XP SP1, SP1a, or SP2, will still be allowed to get updates. It's been almost 2 years since SP1 was released, anyone that isn't on SP1 isn't going to upgrade anytime soon either, so there has to be some push to upgrade.
Also it's only the cut off of the Windows Update site and automatic updates, they can still download updates the old fashion way. They will simply not be eligible for content updates such as Windows Media Player 10, and the Windows Photo Album, which I doubt many of/. would care about.
If the photographer is taking the time to set the white balance from a grey card, he probably wants that data used.
And if the photographer takes the time, he can also use the Free (with the Camera) Photoshop plugin, or he can pay Nikon another $149 for the better RAW processor (or he can get a third party one that is even better.)
And before you say, "$150 in addition to the $5,000 camera is BS." Many photographers spend $150 is lens filters everytime they buy a new lens.
How do you figure this? Dreamweaver seems to have a far better reputation among web designers than GoLive ever has, and the user base appears to be many times larger for Dreamweaver.
They are going to do the same thing to Dreamweaver that G4 did to TechTV. At least that's what I think. Adobe is IMO a crappy company, that puts out a couple of good products.
What you are also forgetting is that there are other factors to consider. Some people are die hard Nikonians. Someone people like the feel of one camera over the other. Some people like the way that one camera puts out pictures over the other.
And finally you are also forgetting that this is a non-issue. Adobe is simply saying that they are not supported the Nikon raw format natively. Nikon is providing (it comes on the disc with the camera, unless you got ripped off by one of those places that make you buy the stuff that normally comes in the box) their own plug in for Photoshop.
Now if you don't have the camera, and want to use the plug in, you do have to buy it.
Personally though I keep the raw images on DVD, I rarely work with them, I prefer to convert them to tiff, and work with them from there.
Anyways whoever related the Canon vs Nikon debate to Linux vs Windows, is pretty much spot on, though I would prefer Mac vs Windows, because we are talking about a lot of money here.
I would still be with Nikon, because Canon switched lens systems a while back, making many of the older lens that were in my price range unusable for my current bodies. Thus cheap bodies, and lens that will work with their modern cameras aren't available.
While with Nikon, for $150 a lens, I can get them chipped so they more more completely with modern bodies. Canon, OTOH you can't even attach the olders lens to their modern bodies.
What happens if this year's round of people buying NEW professional cameras don't buy a Nikon?
Very few people just jump into the professional camera market. Most are like me, who moved up from a second hand camera, upto a consumer camera, to a second hand professional, to finally a professional grade camera.
During those steps I have acquired lens after lens. Which aren't cheap, in my camera bag I carry about $3,000 in lens, and speedlights, and those aren't even the top end lens, nor are they the heavy telephoto lens that I keep at home.
Moving systems isn't cheap. And the folks that just jump into $5,000 cameras are few and far between (and we often say, have more money than brains). And unlike Nvidia vs ATI, people rarely jump ship unless something significant happens.
And the good burgers from Nikon intend to prevent direct access to crucial parts of the raw data of my images?
I think I buy a Canon!
It's not that simply for a majority of folks that are in the market for cameras like D2X. Most of them already have $10,000 or more invested into Nikon before you even factor the camera body in.
Now they could sell all their Nikon stuff on Ebay for say $5,000, then spend another $10,000 buy the same things for Canon (even assuming that some of the older lens are available, you know the ones that we chipped to get working with the newer cameras).
Sorry that may make sense on/., but it doesn't make sense to real photographers. A few may make that leap, but many will simply stay with their D1's (or even F5's with Provia, and Velvia), until Nikon and Adobe works things out, or someone makes a plug in that hacks it for them.
People interested in the D2X/H cameras are going to be shopping around looking for the one that best fits their needs and aren't going to be impulse buying a $5000 camera.
The people that buy cameras like the D2 series are professional photographers for the most part. Many are already invested in one camera system or the other. For most the body is a small investment (though not quite as small as it use to be). Many photographers have invested $10,000 or more in lens($$$), filters($), and speed lights($$).
Someone just up and changing system is a big deal. Will this feature cost Nikon sales, probably, will it be a significant amount of money, unlikely.
It's already easy to run software at higher permission levels, you right click an executable, and select Run As, there is also a command line version of it as well.
The ability is already there in XP to run at lower permission levels for most applications, it's just that few developers have properly coded for it, as they assume the user will be administrator. I would say that 20-30% of this problem is the developers fault, because the tools are there.
Slashdot Mirror
You create a rant thread on your guild forums, or your blog (see above). You then have to explain it to everyone on your friends list, and in guild chat, you get a little bit of a ribbing (like calling you your new game name in vent), and life goes on.
They gave me a random generated name, haven't changed it since, even though I had the option (couldn't think of a good nick, I have always been PPGMD). Thus I am Morna a Night Elf Hunter, at least in WoW.
I also found it funny, that the GMs were so worried about a name, but all they do is reply with form letters can any real problems with WoW. Not much I can do, and I have fun playing with my friends in game.
Cya in the Core.
Microsoft licensing isn't that complicated, there are only 5 cases that you need CALs (the most expensive part) for a windows server, when an authenticated user is accessing:
File Services
Printing Services
Remote Access Services (VPNs and the such)
Terminal Services (now has a separate CAL)
Exchange (has it's own CAL)
Also Microsoft has released a cheaper way to bring external authenticated users on the server, called the External connector, I haven't had any clients that needed this, so I am not quite as savvy on the details.
And you don't need to get 200 CALs on every server, if only 15 people are accessing the server, you only need 15 plus overflow. This is one of the most common flaws that I see when going over quotes from other consultants. You will be surprised how many misconceptions server are about when you need CALs and when you don't.
Also the biggest thing, is that the OS is a tool, from the sound of it, Check Point was having a problem with the extra traffic, solution was to put another firewall in front of it, IPCHAINs has always seemed to be able to handle traffic quite well, I think that Check Point may have had the same problem if it was running on the same hardware using a Unix system.
For example for I sell a couple of Windows XP, as a reseller that sells to end users I have to purchase from a distributor who purchases them from Microsoft. OTOH if I want to sell a copy of Solomon Standard (a ERP package sold by Microsoft), I buy it direct from Microsoft, and sell it to my client.
And thats how most companies sell their products, it's a small minority of companies that sell direct, even to governements.
The reentry methods used by Spaceship 1 aren't meant for orbital flight, and would unlikely work for orbital flights because the increased velocities required, and higher heat output by the reentering space craft.
*sigh* This is what the second time that I have corrected this myth on Slashdot. The F-117 and B-2 are not invincible, they are designed for low observability. They use multiple attack route, surprise, the vastly lower detectability to achieve their mission.
With that being said what allowed the F-117 to be shot down was simple human stupidity. On normal missions the F-117 fly at over 10,000 ft AGL because that is the limit of ground based IR guided missiles, and AAA. It also doesn't normally fly below the clouds because it would stick out like a sore thumb. On top of that it never flies the same route twice.
During the war in Bosnia they violated all three of those rules, thanks to "wonderful" European weather the F-117's were forced to fly below the clouds to hit their targets (GPS guided JDAMs were not in use then, they were using the laser guided Paveway III's which are not useable through most cloud layers). That forced them below 10,000 ft into the range of AAA. They also flew over the same route 3 times before the shoot down, so the Serbians were able to position AAA along the route and shoot the F-117 down, guided by the Mark I eyeball.
The technology isn't at fault, when you fly outside it's envelope of protection. It would be like me blaming Linux because my computer failed, when I threw it in the pool.
Also the 30 minutes of maximum flight is a fact. In order to maintain Mach 2.83 the engines must be red lined with afterburners on. You red line any engine and you aren't going to get more then 30 minutes of flight out of the aircraft.
In fact like many Skunkworks aircraft it was cheap for the capabilities that it delivered.
The SR-71 can maintain Mach 3 (the aircraft can fly Mach 3.3 what limitations in the handbook has yet to be declassified) while the Mig-25 can only fly at 2.83 for limited amounts of time. The SR-71 has a range of 2,900 miles unrefueled, while the Mig-25 has 537 miles in the same conditions. The SR-71 routinely flew at 80,000ft, while the Mig-25 had a maximum service altitude of just over 67,000ft.
How much the Mig-25 actually cost to develop and produce is unknown, just going by the cost per an aircraft is not a accurate measure because the Russian Air Force already ate the cost of the aircraft development, while when you talk about cost per an aircraft in US circles, we talk about total cost of the project divided by the number of aircraft produced. Which is why many aircraft top a billion per an aircraft.
Since the end of the Cold War many have over estimated how good, the simple reliable Russian system were. They had some good designs, but they have had alot of utter crap.
In fact, in the recommended settings, Windows Update will randomly interrupt you while you're working and force you to reboot.
Actually no it doesn't, it will prompt you first to set a time for updates to be automatically applied, until you do it will also download the updates, and prompt you to install them.
You also to to remember that your experience is based on a crappy OEM install. My average Windows install consists of:
Installing Windows
Installing drivers (Reboot)
Installing Applications, with Security Applications last (reboot)
Application and Microsoft Updates (Reboot)
Ready to use
With proper Slipstreaming and OPK you can eliminate all but one or two of the reboots for the user. If the system builder knows what they are doing.
Also just because you know how to run a Linux system, doesn't mean that you are a Windows Administrator or even a Windows power user, just as I would never claim to be a Linux guru despite the fact I can administrate Postfix, sendmail and Apache.
A user has to realize their limitations and seek help, a *nix administrator should not feel embarrassed that they have to bring into a seasoned Windows administrator, just because it has a GUI doesn't mean that it's easy.
EULAs aren't such a bad thing, in many cases it's the usual pages of legalese that is required on all Commercial products. I disagree with GPL in many regards (I like the freedom of the BSD license when I want to give stuff away), that doesn't mean that I instantly slam any product that is distributed under GPL.
Not sure how this will be modded, nor do I care, I am personally get sick of OSS zealots slamming products just because they don't like it, many of which haven't used it for years.
I have it's actually pretty easy with the right tools. Now the tools themselves, are a royal pain in the butt to setup correctly so they run well without any issues.
With the proper security policy, regular updates via SMS, and standarizing the hardware, most help desk calls are limited to people wanting to install Application X, or how do I get Powerpoint to do a swirl like Company X did in their presentation last week.
With roaming profiles desktop machines can be swapped out with ease. Now mobile laptop users are another story.
Step 1: Avoid Fishy Sites. :)
This is 90% of the problem people assume that the internet is safe, and routinely surf the web, allow ActiveX controls to run unfettered, install Gator because it allows them to remember all their passwords. The internet is not a safe place, whether you are on a Windows, Mac, or Linux. It is a safe place for BSD users, because BSD is dead, so no one writes anything for it.
Step 2: Get updates every couple of months
Windows update, and apt-get make this process easier. Even Linux when it's not updated can get compromised (though not as easily nor as quickly as Windows).
Step 3: Use a Firewall of some sort.
99% of exploits require direct access to the machine, even the most basic firewall will prevent that access.
These are very basic tips that I think even Joe Blow on the street can learn if he is willing to listen. Sometimes that listening takes 2-3 times of his machine getting compromised and reloaded at $105 a pop.
It also makes sense for the ISPs, these zombies are already loading up their internal networks, why would you want to pay for them loading up your external connection, the one that you have to pay for to others?
Also updates are being cut off for users of Windows XP, anyone with Windows XP SP1, SP1a, or SP2, will still be allowed to get updates. It's been almost 2 years since SP1 was released, anyone that isn't on SP1 isn't going to upgrade anytime soon either, so there has to be some push to upgrade.
Also it's only the cut off of the Windows Update site and automatic updates, they can still download updates the old fashion way. They will simply not be eligible for content updates such as Windows Media Player 10, and the Windows Photo Album, which I doubt many of /. would care about.
Actually the plugin is free with the camera. It's the more advanced batch version of the software that is $100.
And if the photographer takes the time, he can also use the Free (with the Camera) Photoshop plugin, or he can pay Nikon another $149 for the better RAW processor (or he can get a third party one that is even better.)
And before you say, "$150 in addition to the $5,000 camera is BS." Many photographers spend $150 is lens filters everytime they buy a new lens.
They are going to do the same thing to Dreamweaver that G4 did to TechTV. At least that's what I think. Adobe is IMO a crappy company, that puts out a couple of good products.
And finally you are also forgetting that this is a non-issue. Adobe is simply saying that they are not supported the Nikon raw format natively. Nikon is providing (it comes on the disc with the camera, unless you got ripped off by one of those places that make you buy the stuff that normally comes in the box) their own plug in for Photoshop.
Now if you don't have the camera, and want to use the plug in, you do have to buy it.
Personally though I keep the raw images on DVD, I rarely work with them, I prefer to convert them to tiff, and work with them from there.
Anyways whoever related the Canon vs Nikon debate to Linux vs Windows, is pretty much spot on, though I would prefer Mac vs Windows, because we are talking about a lot of money here.
While with Nikon, for $150 a lens, I can get them chipped so they more more completely with modern bodies. Canon, OTOH you can't even attach the olders lens to their modern bodies.
Very few people just jump into the professional camera market. Most are like me, who moved up from a second hand camera, upto a consumer camera, to a second hand professional, to finally a professional grade camera.
During those steps I have acquired lens after lens. Which aren't cheap, in my camera bag I carry about $3,000 in lens, and speedlights, and those aren't even the top end lens, nor are they the heavy telephoto lens that I keep at home.
Moving systems isn't cheap. And the folks that just jump into $5,000 cameras are few and far between (and we often say, have more money than brains). And unlike Nvidia vs ATI, people rarely jump ship unless something significant happens.
I think I buy a Canon!
It's not that simply for a majority of folks that are in the market for cameras like D2X. Most of them already have $10,000 or more invested into Nikon before you even factor the camera body in.
Now they could sell all their Nikon stuff on Ebay for say $5,000, then spend another $10,000 buy the same things for Canon (even assuming that some of the older lens are available, you know the ones that we chipped to get working with the newer cameras).
Sorry that may make sense on /., but it doesn't make sense to real photographers. A few may make that leap, but many will simply stay with their D1's (or even F5's with Provia, and Velvia), until Nikon and Adobe works things out, or someone makes a plug in that hacks it for them.
The people that buy cameras like the D2 series are professional photographers for the most part. Many are already invested in one camera system or the other. For most the body is a small investment (though not quite as small as it use to be). Many photographers have invested $10,000 or more in lens($$$), filters($), and speed lights($$).
Someone just up and changing system is a big deal. Will this feature cost Nikon sales, probably, will it be a significant amount of money, unlikely.
There was another post exactly like this one posted in the past. I believe it was attached to something related to the office standards.
The ability is already there in XP to run at lower permission levels for most applications, it's just that few developers have properly coded for it, as they assume the user will be administrator. I would say that 20-30% of this problem is the developers fault, because the tools are there.