How many businesses can afford to have a fully qualified individual on staff for every single piece of "critical" hardware and software they use?
That's why companies try to standardize on a single platform. Single out-lying systems are a liability if the only person who can support it gets another job or is hit by a bus.
Our company has been using OpenVMS for 13 years, and it works well. But we're phasing it out, even though HP is still releasing new versions, adding new features. Why? Hard to find qualified personnel. Only greybeards want to work on it, and they are either (a) retiring or (b) see the writing on the wall and have retooled their skillsets.
How about hiring a automobile mechanic full-time just in case the company car breaks? A telcom engineer just in case the boss breaks his phone? A HP and Dell and Apple guy just in case a server or desktop goes down?
Never heard of consultants per-incident charges and support contracts?
I have experience in a real company using MySQL on Debian, and I'd say that's pretty accurate. I have the benefit of building the system from scratch myself; this is not some purchased solution. I have to do the research when something goes awry. Incompetent is kind of a harsh generality, but when you break down the word, it makes sense. If something breaks and I don't know how to fix it, I am at fault/responsibility
Either this app is not critical, or management is foolish for depending on one person for a critical app.
Their ingineering/technical efforts are strongly subjugated to their marketing division. They prefer dumb sysadmins/users to technically knowledgeable ones as clients. They prefer selling their products to PHBs better than to sysadmins. These kind of practices in the IT world were first succesfully used by, and attained a master level by... Microsoft.
When were you born? 1985?
Big Blue was (is?) the Past Master at subjugating engineering to marketing and selling directly to PHBs. Field Circus always likes smart system programmers, though.
We have 10+ dedicated Exchange servers that handle mailboxes for many thousands of users
That's probably why your systems don't crash often. 4000 users served by 12 dedicated Exchange servers is 333.33 users/server. That's PATHETIC!!!!! No wonder it never crashes.
A turn of the century Unix/Linux server (server means: fast SCSI disks) can handle thousands of users with ease.
Zenith Data Systems lost a lot of money as a result of the US Air Force contract Desktop IV. In order to meet the price point for the contract, ZDS made very cheap computers with motherboards which frequently were defective out of the box and required on-site service...
All of the systems are provided with a Zero Insertion Force (ZIF) upgrade socket that permits easy installation of an additional Intel i486DX2-50 OverDrive processor.
Egads!!! The Z80 processor. Nightmares ensue! What a POS that was. It was "almost" compatible. The memories....
What a load of dung you're flinging around.
The Z80 was perfectly upward-compatible with the 8080, more efficient because it added extra registers and had a higher MHz. That's why all the manufactures dropped the 8080 and flocked to the Z80.
Sadly, yes. Many computer science curriculums don't cover assembler anymore.
I guess I'm geezer enough to remember the differences between C (high-level assembler, maps easily to PDP-6 assembly) & C++ (object-oriented abortion).
No, Computer Science just ain't appealing. There are very few things that appeal to only women in the way there are lots of things assumed to appeal to only men.
How exactly do you make CompSci appealing to women? Make it less hard? Talk about purses instead of widget? Ask students how they feel about their assignments? Don't think I'm being flippant or sexist, since I really don't know how else to feminize CompSci.
(My experience: Back in the mid-1980s at my small state Uni, CompSci classes were about 15% female, and all were really smart. Book smart. Got A's on tests but couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag. In "the real world", it's 10% female, and, like men, they run the gamut from sharp thru brick-thick.)
Your land mines would not control terrain as effectively as half a dozen of these robots on high ground defending a 500 yard choke point.
One tiny little robot with a tiny little gun to defend 83.33 yards? I call BS on that.
Now, if you upsize these puppies, slap in an M-2, 60mm mortar tube, AT4 launcher and oodles of ammunition in them plus sufficient armor to protect it from an RPG7, and program in basic tactics like cooperation and converging fields of fire, and then you've got a sentry robot to be proud of.
No, ArcherB, foreign leaders murdering thier own people is only a good thing to wring our collective hands and talk about , not to actually do anything about...
In the US, both the left wing and the right wing want the military to intervene against "bad countries". Of course, they each have different definitions of bad.
In case anyone thinks that The Left would never do such a thing, I remind them of Yugoslavia.
Republicans kept on saying
What is the US's national security interest in invading Yugoslavia?
Liberals retorted:
But it's GENOCIDE!!!!
Republicans (and Libertarians) replied:
It's Europe, let the Europeans handle their own problem.
Liberals:
They're a bunch of pussies who wouldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
Republicans:
So?
Liberals retorted:
But it's GENOCIDE!!!!
Republicans:
Oh alright. But the Muslims won't appreciate us for this either, just like they didn't appreciate the Somali relief effort.
Slashdot Mirror
The KayPro kicked the Osbourne's butt up one side and down the other.
Every? You've got to be kidding!
"Some Mac faithful" would be more like it...
But it was a darned fine desktop machine. I really liked mine.
That's why companies try to standardize on a single platform. Single out-lying systems are a liability if the only person who can support it gets another job or is hit by a bus.
Our company has been using OpenVMS for 13 years, and it works well. But we're phasing it out, even though HP is still releasing new versions, adding new features. Why? Hard to find qualified personnel. Only greybeards want to work on it, and they are either (a) retiring or (b) see the writing on the wall and have retooled their skillsets.
How about hiring a automobile mechanic full-time just in case the company car breaks? A telcom engineer just in case the boss breaks his phone? A HP and Dell and Apple guy just in case a server or desktop goes down?
Never heard of consultants per-incident charges and support contracts?
Not every computer is in a secure vault.
Either this app is not critical, or management is foolish for depending on one person for a critical app.
They prefer dumb sysadmins/users to technically knowledgeable ones as clients.
They prefer selling their products to PHBs better than to sysadmins.
These kind of practices in the IT world were first succesfully used by, and attained a master level by... Microsoft.
When were you born? 1985?
Big Blue was (is?) the Past Master at subjugating engineering to marketing and selling directly to PHBs. Field Circus always likes smart system programmers, though.
Google is your friend.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/27
No, in some facilities it's smart. Why? It prevents unauthorized personnel from booting with a live CD they bring from home.
While I'm glad you're using Pg, 16M rows is chump change. Come back when your tables hit cardinality 100M.
But that's the point. Going wooly over a wild hypothesis is idiotic. (The molecule would "eat" it's own host up.)
I might also suggest reading through the entire thread of a conversation vs. replying to the last comment.
And yes, I did read the whole thread. Up to my comment, at least.
What organisms?
MS & Novell have been talking for months.
That's probably why your systems don't crash often. 4000 users served by 12 dedicated Exchange servers is 333.33 users/server. That's PATHETIC!!!!! No wonder it never crashes.
A turn of the century Unix/Linux server (server means: fast SCSI disks) can handle thousands of users with ease.
Then why did you mention IV in a previous post?
Besides, the Desktop contracts were all MS-DOS/Win, none of them were CP/M, so where the heck does your whining about the Z-80 come from?????????
You weenie. That machine used 80486 CPUs.
http://www.chips.navy.mil/archives/93_jul/file20.
What a load of dung you're flinging around.
The Z80 was perfectly upward-compatible with the 8080, more efficient because it added extra registers and had a higher MHz. That's why all the manufactures dropped the 8080 and flocked to the Z80.
Wimps.
You're not a Real Programmer if you don't know Assembly.
I guess I'm geezer enough to remember the differences between C (high-level assembler, maps easily to PDP-6 assembly) & C++ (object-oriented abortion).
Is C++ really now considered "low level"
How exactly do you make CompSci appealing to women? Make it less hard? Talk about purses instead of widget? Ask students how they feel about their assignments? Don't think I'm being flippant or sexist, since I really don't know how else to feminize CompSci.
(My experience: Back in the mid-1980s at my small state Uni, CompSci classes were about 15% female, and all were really smart. Book smart. Got A's on tests but couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag. In "the real world", it's 10% female, and, like men, they run the gamut from sharp thru brick-thick.)
Your land mines would not control terrain as effectively as half a dozen of these robots on high ground defending a 500 yard choke point.
One tiny little robot with a tiny little gun to defend 83.33 yards? I call BS on that.
Now, if you upsize these puppies, slap in an M-2, 60mm mortar tube, AT4 launcher and oodles of ammunition in them plus sufficient armor to protect it from an RPG7, and program in basic tactics like cooperation and converging fields of fire, and then you've got a sentry robot to be proud of.
Any home-alarm IR sensor worth it's salt can discriminate between a dog and a human.
(and a human camuflaged as a crane from a crane).
Humans have a lot more mass than cranes do.
It's called work for a reason.
Take the cash, work 40 hours and then come home and write in Perl.
Maybe, even, if he wants, moonlight for the small company.
Obviously you've never written any production COBOL. I have. Lots.
When you realize that WHILE
In the US, both the left wing and the right wing want the military to intervene against "bad countries". Of course, they each have different definitions of bad.
In case anyone thinks that The Left would never do such a thing, I remind them of Yugoslavia.
Republicans kept on saying
Liberals retorted:
Republicans (and Libertarians) replied:
Liberals:
Republicans:
Liberals retorted:
Republicans: