That's not true. ONE reason for the iPhone's dominance is that there was no competition with a similar hardware class for quite some time.
Sounds to me like you didn't know smart phones existed before you saw the iPhone.
I assure you, I owned more powerful phones before hand, the only thing the iPhone has that its predecessor didn't is accelerometers and iPhone OS, my original iPhone was actually less powerful than the WinMo phone I owned before it.
Hardware wasn't the problem. The problem is that smartphones in general suck, the iPhone happens to suck a whole lot less.
No, don't tell me about what smart phone you have and how it doesn't suck. It does, you just don't realize it, they have a long way to go before the start getting to the non-suck state. We're about at the C64 stage right now. Which many look back on fondly and talk about how great they are... from their modern, billion times faster PCs.
The problem is that people like you still have no clue why the iPhone is popular. Its not the hardware. Its not the OS. Its not the app store. Its not iTunes. Its the whole package. From start to finish its all fluid. If you say that about Android, the only response I can give you is to come back and talk to me after you've actually owned one.
People don't give a flying fuck about the processor it user, how much ram it has or who makes it. Really, they don't. They care about having a device thats enjoyable to use, across the board. As long as you keep trying to compare a product based only on specifications of the hardware or OS, you'll continue to be unable to understand why your predictions are invariably wrong. Regardless of where you want to believe it or not, style and user experience are actually what the people care about... well, normal people anyway. It either does or doesn't meet their requirements, thats all they care about tech specs. A 400mhz proc is no different than a 200mhz proc if 200mhz plays their latest downloads of survivor.
The iPhone isn't going to put up a fight because the contenders still haven't figured out that we're boxing, not playing checkers. To put it bluntly, as far as the general public is concerned, the iPhones contenders simply aren't.
I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client. Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder. Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole? Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.
Of courses the one time that actually happens, it turns out that the lawyer is getting raped unfairly as well.
The funny part is that I read the summary and the article, then came and read your comment and it was the first time I realized they were talking about MySpace and not Facebook.
Actually, the only way you can truely restrict IE is via proxy, everything else is more like a speed bump.
The proxy will block equally well for all browsers, you simply require use of the proxy in order to browse, problem solved from that respect.
HIPAA doesn't really work like that though, HIPAA says things like 'behind 3 methods of access control', which could mean anything from lock box to office door. For instance compliance with the above rule is as simple as locking things in a desk draw, in a locked office, inside a locked building. But hooking that up to the network then requires all of the above and 3 access control methods on the PC, or more common for high priority data (think databases of HIV infected people that health departments maintain) it simply can't be connected to a network. Ever, for any reason unless it has been anonymized and aggregated into oblivion to insure no one finds out any personal information about people.
HIPAA isn't nearly as good about protecting data as you think it is though, its more along the lines of keeping you in control of your data by requiring organizations to meet certain requirements to your benefit. The 'protection' parts are more based on preventing your data from being sold to someone else OR doctors selling you your medical info if you try to go to another one. Its all about preventing douche bag employes and companies from willingly doing bad things with your data, and much less about the black hatters who are trying to hack the hospital databases from Nigeria.
They are management, its their supporting staffs job to deal with their 'cluelessness'.
MS offers a better guide than their own IT people so they listen to MS. Its nice to blame it on stupid management and not take any responsibility for it yourself. Far easier to assume you know more than them and are better at their jobs than they are... even when you don't actually know what their job is or have never done it.
Their licenses are too friggin' expensive. I saved the organization several thousand dollars by going to Linux file server.
No, you saved them several thousand dollars up front in purchasing software for a file server. You're completely ignoring all future costs associated with the server as if the costs of maintaining a Windows file server and a Linux file server are equal for all time. They aren't.
Windows admins are cheaper, a dime a dozen, just about anyone who has an arm to move a mouse (and some people who don't!) can manage a windows server enough of the time to get by and can call someone for a few hundred dollars once in a blue moon to fix a serious problem that may crop up.
I hate to say it, but you ignored TCO in favor of UFC which is only intelligent if you don't plan on being around long.
Now, put 100 Linux file servers up next to the required amount of Windows servers (however many that turns out to be) to serve the same number of users and traffic and you've got another story, then the admin costs swing the other way rapidly and Linux becomes a clear winner since one admin can cover far more machines with a unix clone typically than Windows admins.
There are plenty of financial reasons to go both ways depending on the situation, rarely ever, from a business perspective is cost of licensing the software going to be the deciding factor, the cost of licenses really isn't that high when you compare it to the other costs such as salary, office space and support staff and everything else. You're looking at the world through a very tiny view port and ignoring the big picture... which is why management makes decisions on infrastructure that you don't always understand.
No, but it means that you get A say in how it's used. They are HIS tax dollars, just as they are yours and mine. I don't know why you think that we shouldn't be allowed to vote as to how they're used.
And I for one am glad he isn't making the decisions. He clearly lacks experience. My vote is with the management.
The reason I think we shouldn't be allowed to vote is because... we are not qualified. Neither is he. We (nor he) has a complete understanding of the organizations operations. Theres a lot more to it than just being a question of 'does sally run XP with Office 2007 or Ubuntu with OO.org?', but thats what he seems to think it boils down to.
You know what happens when you let all the tax payers vote directly on what happens? California, thats what happens. Do I really need to go on?
You vote by proxy for the guy who does in general what you think is right, then you leave it up to him to know the problem at hand in far more detail than you do, and for him to find the right solution taking into account his/her very domain specific knowledge about the problem.
I could build a space shuttle given enough time and money... would I vote to have nasa have me build their next space shuttle? No, cause first they'd have to figure out a way to make me live long enough to complete it, and its far far cheaper to let the guys who actually run the organization for a living do it and take advantage of their knowledge and experience covering the whole picture is far better than my domain specific knowledge of writing software. Also not sure I'd want to get into a spacecraft I built myself. I'm happy to do it with my own aircraft, but spacecraft is a little different, heh.
You need browser add-ons to correctly run your "critical" applications?
No, but broken browser addons can certainly break the browser, which then proceed to make it appear to have broken critical applications.
One of the largest points of moving business applications to web interfaces is that the interface is standardized.
No, one of the largest points of moving business applications to the web is that the data and application are centralized, making them easier to maintain, upgrade and backup properly than doing it across 50k desktops in an organization. The fact is, its not really standardized. There is a standard, but until recently the majority of users on the Internet were no where near being compliant with 'the standard' so 'the standard' wasn't what made it popular.
The browser just gave a common platform to run tradition dumb client/server applications through. When Windows had a web browser in every install than putting you app on a web site made a whole lot of sense if it was already client server based. No more upgrading client software to change a display bug, just fix it on the server, INSTANTLY upgrades all the clients./me thinks you don't really understand web apps all that well.
Nor does it have to have anything to do with a licensing agreement. Licensing agreements are only part of the deal. If I license software to you on a yearly basis with the understanding that you're going to use my software throughout the organization in exchange for a discount than you decide halfway through the year you want to run something else, then I simply don't renew you next year at the reduced rate.
This is in fact entirely legal, MS doesn't refuse to sell to you or charge you more for doing it, they just don't give you a discount and you get the same price as any other random person off the street.
They could also go after your for breech of sales contract rather than the license agreement.
License agreements are small part of the package, like a warranty on a car. Doesn't matter if you void your warranty on your car, you're still responsible for the payments. Likewise, if you're late on payments, they still have to warranty the car for repairs though it'd probably not be a bright idea to take it to them so they can call the repo man to come take it while you 'wait'.
So if they changed the license agreement it would be the first time, sure, but that would be stupid and is why they don't do it.
You're completely ignorant if you don't realize MS gives discounts like this, its fairly common at larger organizations though it rarely works 100% as there are most often business requirements that prevent it. i.e. The MRI machine is OK running Linux, but installing new desktops running it, not so much.
Welcome to 'volume' discounts. How you define 'volume discount' is up to the contract;)
The more I read the original post the more I think that slashdot has turned into a generic 'ask about your computer problems' forum than news for nerds.
This question appears to be from someone with no administration experience at all, nor does it appear that even the slightest effort has been put into finding a solution to the problem. Just for reference, telling us that you googled without actually doing it doesn't count as making an effort.
Its unacceptable that you don't know that Samba is your file server software and you're asking about how to configure it on slashdot. Yes, I know, I should be helpful and give you a bit of knowledge blah blah blah. You should also have not been so lazy as to not bother to even find out what software you are running before asking about how to configure it.
Whats more unacceptable is that douche bag let put this on the front page. I'm sure there are plenty of cluebies that send things to slashdot, but even timothy should know at this point that OS X uses samba, its not like it hasn't been discussed here multiple times before.
But finally, just so I'm not 'that guy' who's a totally useless asshole.
His mac grinds to a halt due to samba? Lower the process priority of samba on the mac serving the files.
But the better question is, if these are shared files that he's working on, why aren't they on a central server thats made to serve files. Why are they on individual machines anyway? If your network is fast enough that it can make the server mac get loaded down with disk IO than its certainly fast enough to serve the files from a central share for both users anyway.
The solution is to throttle the 'workstations' file server by turning it off and moving the files to a proper server.
The hack'd solution is to realize that you're talking about a mac serving files... which means samba... which has all the power you need to limit the user in question to a sane rate.
Great, another 'if you have physical access to the key, you can get the key' methods.
Look, 'stressing' the computer for a hundred hours while screwing with the voltage is going to get you noticed if its a key important enough for to use this method to do it. I can go to your PC and steal the contents of the entire drive without leaving a trace, but you're probably going to notice when I move you out of my way so I can put in a boot cd and external drive to copy the data to.
Practical value: 0 Research value: 1 Geek Cred: 11 Priceless, or rather, worthless.
The cost of purchasing MS software is trivial in your budget I assure you. It may seem like a lot of money, but the salaries of the people using the MS software probably eclipse your entire software budget in less than 2 weeks. The cost is nothing.
Training is not just a financial cost, this is a ignorant view point and shows very little connection with the reality that is the job of those people you support.
Open source will likely cost more overall. You'll have more difficulty integrating with proprietary systems in use, because those private systems have no urge to deal with Linux, its not worth their effort to hit a target that moves daily. Then you have to deal with all the incompatibilities of whatever other OSS supporting software you add in, like OO.org and how those documents deal with other organizations the hospital has to deal with. You'll lose more the first year in time because of people sending documents in the wrong document format (OO native instead of MS compatible) than you'll save on the price of Office.
The problem with your post is typical with the FLOSS community. The problem is the misconception that the cost of purchasing software is the expensive part. You couldnt' be more wrong. Software cost is in day to day operations and maintenance, which FLOSS offers no advantages to and several disadvantages. You can argue that 'fast patching' is an advantage, but to most IT departments its not. Its FAR more difficult to deal with breakage from randomly updated packages for your distro than once a month patch tuesdays. Any sane IT department isn't tracking patches as they come out anyway, they're going to QA them in their environment first, so they are going to establish some sort of schedule for this sort of thing thats effectively going to put them on a once a month or less often cycle anyway. FLOSS offers the promise of open access to your data, but no one cares how open it is from a technical point of view if every time they send it to someone else, the other people can't view it. It is in fact for all intents and purposes less open with OO.org in native format than DOCX as far as the normal user is concerned.
Training people to switch from Windows to Linux is not as cheap as you think, you can't just send them to a couple classes and everything will be dandy and they'll be just as productive as they always were. They won't, it will take years for them to return to that level of productivity... because... they've been using the system they already use for years. You can't replace it and expect to return to the same level of productivity any time soon. And regardless of how much you think each version of windows or office is different than the past versions, the switch to something like Linux/KDE or Gnome and OO.org are FAR FAR greater transitions than going from Office 95 to 2007, you just don't realize it because you're constantly dealing with software that is unlike the rest of the software on the system... Linux users are used to no consistency. These users work with Windows and Office everyday on their own, at home. They know how Windows works for them and the subtle differences are the ones that waste most of the time. The obvious difference people get used to quickly, the little quirks that you respond to subconsciously take YEARS to retrain yourself for.
The cost for YOU to switch to Linux from MS software may be less since you already use both. The cost for your desk workers who do not work on computers as their primary job function on the other hand is much much higher and you're ignoring it completely.
You might want to consider that those people making the choices above you might... maybe... have just a little more experience managing than you do. I realize this is hard to see from your perspective and you may think they are morons but they have a different view of the organization than you do and are privy to a lot of information to whi
Yes, and in what way do the original question sound like he was trying to recover data manually rather than do something stupid?
He's talking about writing to the drive, not just reading specific physical locations. Data recovery is not his concern.
The problem is, theres plenty of people here that can come up with every reason you'd want to write directly to a specific location, and those people also realize there is almost 0 reason anyone wants to do that except a very specific set of people which... wouldn't be asking the question.
That means more people who have less in life are free to take your job in exchange for less pay, which is still better than what they had before.
While journalists may have been able to command higher wages and standards previously, the Internet levels the playing field since journalism requires very little extra knowledge to get started. Anyone with a certain set of traits is capable of being an extremely good journalist, regardless of their educational background or social standing. There are a lot of people that fit that bill, now that the Internet is so common that people who have far less in life can provide the same information as higher paid (relatively) 'professional' or 'career' journalists, the big companies will take the cheapest they can, why shouldn't they, its simple supply and demand.
Unfortunately, for now at least, those good journalists are drown out by the sheer number of morons with blogs.
There are a lot of sites that were started by "some random blogger who's never been seen by more than 5 people before in is life" (like Fark, Slashdot, RedState, Daily Kos) and are now a big deal in both the online world and the offline one.
Yes, and for every one of those you can name, there are at least 100k that aren't worth the hard drive space they occupy or the air their authors breath.
There are exceptions to every rule, but in this case the exceptions don't need the law to be changed, and more importantly do not make up for the problems that are going to be caused when every random blogger goes and screws around where he shouldnt' be.
Lets take it further. Bloggers should get press passes at sporting events too. Guess what, the only people at sporting events will become bloggers. Doesn't matter if one or two of those people MIGHT be good reporters, its ruined by the spam from all the other idiots who aren't worth the time to read or aren't even there to be journalists, their just taking advantage of 'press pass'.
I agree, considering what an e-reader does, you're likely capable of doing it on chips in the range of one or two dollars when you buy the processor one at a time, let alone in bulk.
Lets throw out the vetting process and let any douche bag who can go to an Internet cafe and login to blogspot have a press pass, great idea.
Why not just make it so a press pass costs $5 and anyone can buy one... I mean, thats what you've done anyway.
No, traditional media isn't perfect and bias free, but regardless of all the political bullshit out there, I still have far more faith that I'm going to be able to filter out the bullshit from traditional media far easier than figuring out the agenda of some random blogger who's never been seen by more than 5 people before in is life.
The alternative is to... set no barrier to entry so Journalism turns into... Windows. Blogs are to Journalism what VB is to development. Both just let people who really have no qualifications or abilities write trash and pawn it off as though it were something useful and not full of holes.
In my IT department we had a word for people like you.
Dickheads who deserve to be fired for doing exactly the opposite of what their job is.
Your job... is to make the software work so they can use it. Your job, is to translate what users tell you into something useful. Your job, is to help the users get their jobs done.
The INSTANT you start doing ANYTHING to make them LESS efficient, even short term, your ass would be fired so fast you wouldn't realize it happened.
You don't deserve to have the job since you clearly aren't willing to do it.
Really... how do you do away with the error that occurs when the user deletes the data file your application requires to work?
You're naive at best, ignorant at worst, and don't really understand the source of many 'error messages'.
Most errors occur because... something unexpected happened, and the message is there to let every know so it can be fixed.
Please show me the bug free code you've written that needs no error messages and no, trivial 'hello world' type crap doesn't count.
What do you do in the word processor when a file can be saved do to permissions? Nothing? Get root and change the permissions cause clearly the user shouldn't see an error?
Go back to your CS class professor, you don't get the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds to me like you didn't know smart phones existed before you saw the iPhone.
I assure you, I owned more powerful phones before hand, the only thing the iPhone has that its predecessor didn't is accelerometers and iPhone OS, my original iPhone was actually less powerful than the WinMo phone I owned before it.
Hardware wasn't the problem. The problem is that smartphones in general suck, the iPhone happens to suck a whole lot less.
No, don't tell me about what smart phone you have and how it doesn't suck. It does, you just don't realize it, they have a long way to go before the start getting to the non-suck state. We're about at the C64 stage right now. Which many look back on fondly and talk about how great they are ... from their modern, billion times faster PCs.
The problem is that people like you still have no clue why the iPhone is popular. Its not the hardware. Its not the OS. Its not the app store. Its not iTunes. Its the whole package. From start to finish its all fluid. If you say that about Android, the only response I can give you is to come back and talk to me after you've actually owned one.
People don't give a flying fuck about the processor it user, how much ram it has or who makes it. Really, they don't. They care about having a device thats enjoyable to use, across the board. As long as you keep trying to compare a product based only on specifications of the hardware or OS, you'll continue to be unable to understand why your predictions are invariably wrong. Regardless of where you want to believe it or not, style and user experience are actually what the people care about ... well, normal people anyway. It either does or doesn't meet their requirements, thats all they care about tech specs. A 400mhz proc is no different than a 200mhz proc if 200mhz plays their latest downloads of survivor.
The iPhone isn't going to put up a fight because the contenders still haven't figured out that we're boxing, not playing checkers. To put it bluntly, as far as the general public is concerned, the iPhones contenders simply aren't.
Which year are you living in, Xcode doesn't seem to have a problem doing it for me.
Of course, I've had refactoring in notepad for years. Search and replace is hard.
I've long felt that lawyers should be subject to the same outcome as their client. Don't want to get electrocuted, don't represent a murder. Don't want to end up a million dollars in the hole? Don't represent a doctor who's clearly guilty of malpractice.
Of courses the one time that actually happens, it turns out that the lawyer is getting raped unfairly as well.
The funny part is that I read the summary and the article, then came and read your comment and it was the first time I realized they were talking about MySpace and not Facebook.
Funny that they are one and the same to me now.
Actually, the only way you can truely restrict IE is via proxy, everything else is more like a speed bump.
The proxy will block equally well for all browsers, you simply require use of the proxy in order to browse, problem solved from that respect.
HIPAA doesn't really work like that though, HIPAA says things like 'behind 3 methods of access control', which could mean anything from lock box to office door. For instance compliance with the above rule is as simple as locking things in a desk draw, in a locked office, inside a locked building. But hooking that up to the network then requires all of the above and 3 access control methods on the PC, or more common for high priority data (think databases of HIV infected people that health departments maintain) it simply can't be connected to a network. Ever, for any reason unless it has been anonymized and aggregated into oblivion to insure no one finds out any personal information about people.
HIPAA isn't nearly as good about protecting data as you think it is though, its more along the lines of keeping you in control of your data by requiring organizations to meet certain requirements to your benefit. The 'protection' parts are more based on preventing your data from being sold to someone else OR doctors selling you your medical info if you try to go to another one. Its all about preventing douche bag employes and companies from willingly doing bad things with your data, and much less about the black hatters who are trying to hack the hospital databases from Nigeria.
They are management, its their supporting staffs job to deal with their 'cluelessness'.
MS offers a better guide than their own IT people so they listen to MS. Its nice to blame it on stupid management and not take any responsibility for it yourself. Far easier to assume you know more than them and are better at their jobs than they are ... even when you don't actually know what their job is or have never done it.
No, you saved them several thousand dollars up front in purchasing software for a file server. You're completely ignoring all future costs associated with the server as if the costs of maintaining a Windows file server and a Linux file server are equal for all time. They aren't.
Windows admins are cheaper, a dime a dozen, just about anyone who has an arm to move a mouse (and some people who don't!) can manage a windows server enough of the time to get by and can call someone for a few hundred dollars once in a blue moon to fix a serious problem that may crop up.
I hate to say it, but you ignored TCO in favor of UFC which is only intelligent if you don't plan on being around long.
Now, put 100 Linux file servers up next to the required amount of Windows servers (however many that turns out to be) to serve the same number of users and traffic and you've got another story, then the admin costs swing the other way rapidly and Linux becomes a clear winner since one admin can cover far more machines with a unix clone typically than Windows admins.
There are plenty of financial reasons to go both ways depending on the situation, rarely ever, from a business perspective is cost of licensing the software going to be the deciding factor, the cost of licenses really isn't that high when you compare it to the other costs such as salary, office space and support staff and everything else. You're looking at the world through a very tiny view port and ignoring the big picture ... which is why management makes decisions on infrastructure that you don't always understand.
And I for one am glad he isn't making the decisions. He clearly lacks experience. My vote is with the management.
The reason I think we shouldn't be allowed to vote is because ... we are not qualified. Neither is he. We (nor he) has a complete understanding of the organizations operations. Theres a lot more to it than just being a question of 'does sally run XP with Office 2007 or Ubuntu with OO.org?', but thats what he seems to think it boils down to.
You know what happens when you let all the tax payers vote directly on what happens? California, thats what happens. Do I really need to go on?
You vote by proxy for the guy who does in general what you think is right, then you leave it up to him to know the problem at hand in far more detail than you do, and for him to find the right solution taking into account his/her very domain specific knowledge about the problem.
I could build a space shuttle given enough time and money ... would I vote to have nasa have me build their next space shuttle? No, cause first they'd have to figure out a way to make me live long enough to complete it, and its far far cheaper to let the guys who actually run the organization for a living do it and take advantage of their knowledge and experience covering the whole picture is far better than my domain specific knowledge of writing software. Also not sure I'd want to get into a spacecraft I built myself. I'm happy to do it with my own aircraft, but spacecraft is a little different, heh.
No, but broken browser addons can certainly break the browser, which then proceed to make it appear to have broken critical applications.
No, one of the largest points of moving business applications to the web is that the data and application are centralized, making them easier to maintain, upgrade and backup properly than doing it across 50k desktops in an organization. The fact is, its not really standardized. There is a standard, but until recently the majority of users on the Internet were no where near being compliant with 'the standard' so 'the standard' wasn't what made it popular.
The browser just gave a common platform to run tradition dumb client/server applications through. When Windows had a web browser in every install than putting you app on a web site made a whole lot of sense if it was already client server based. No more upgrading client software to change a display bug, just fix it on the server, INSTANTLY upgrades all the clients. /me thinks you don't really understand web apps all that well.
Nor does it have to have anything to do with a licensing agreement. Licensing agreements are only part of the deal. If I license software to you on a yearly basis with the understanding that you're going to use my software throughout the organization in exchange for a discount than you decide halfway through the year you want to run something else, then I simply don't renew you next year at the reduced rate.
This is in fact entirely legal, MS doesn't refuse to sell to you or charge you more for doing it, they just don't give you a discount and you get the same price as any other random person off the street.
They could also go after your for breech of sales contract rather than the license agreement.
License agreements are small part of the package, like a warranty on a car. Doesn't matter if you void your warranty on your car, you're still responsible for the payments. Likewise, if you're late on payments, they still have to warranty the car for repairs though it'd probably not be a bright idea to take it to them so they can call the repo man to come take it while you 'wait'.
So if they changed the license agreement it would be the first time, sure, but that would be stupid and is why they don't do it.
You're completely ignorant if you don't realize MS gives discounts like this, its fairly common at larger organizations though it rarely works 100% as there are most often business requirements that prevent it. i.e. The MRI machine is OK running Linux, but installing new desktops running it, not so much.
Welcome to 'volume' discounts. How you define 'volume discount' is up to the contract ;)
Process priorities also effect IO prioritization on OS X.
Doesn't matter if its not starving the CPU, if other higher priority tasks want IO they get it first.
Self replies are bad, yada yada ...
The more I read the original post the more I think that slashdot has turned into a generic 'ask about your computer problems' forum than news for nerds.
This question appears to be from someone with no administration experience at all, nor does it appear that even the slightest effort has been put into finding a solution to the problem. Just for reference, telling us that you googled without actually doing it doesn't count as making an effort.
Its unacceptable that you don't know that Samba is your file server software and you're asking about how to configure it on slashdot. Yes, I know, I should be helpful and give you a bit of knowledge blah blah blah. You should also have not been so lazy as to not bother to even find out what software you are running before asking about how to configure it.
Whats more unacceptable is that douche bag let put this on the front page. I'm sure there are plenty of cluebies that send things to slashdot, but even timothy should know at this point that OS X uses samba, its not like it hasn't been discussed here multiple times before.
But finally, just so I'm not 'that guy' who's a totally useless asshole.
http://us4.samba.org/samba/docs/man/Samba-HOWTO-Collection/speed.html
That guide is for making samba faster, figure it out.
His mac grinds to a halt due to samba? Lower the process priority of samba on the mac serving the files.
But the better question is, if these are shared files that he's working on, why aren't they on a central server thats made to serve files. Why are they on individual machines anyway? If your network is fast enough that it can make the server mac get loaded down with disk IO than its certainly fast enough to serve the files from a central share for both users anyway.
The solution is to throttle the 'workstations' file server by turning it off and moving the files to a proper server.
The hack'd solution is to realize that you're talking about a mac serving files ... which means samba ... which has all the power you need to limit the user in question to a sane rate.
man smb.conf and be prepared for lots of reading.
Naw, as the alt text says, you won't find a $5 wrench anymore :/
Great, another 'if you have physical access to the key, you can get the key' methods.
Look, 'stressing' the computer for a hundred hours while screwing with the voltage is going to get you noticed if its a key important enough for to use this method to do it. I can go to your PC and steal the contents of the entire drive without leaving a trace, but you're probably going to notice when I move you out of my way so I can put in a boot cd and external drive to copy the data to.
Practical value: 0
Research value: 1
Geek Cred: 11
Priceless, or rather, worthless.
The cost of purchasing MS software is trivial in your budget I assure you. It may seem like a lot of money, but the salaries of the people using the MS software probably eclipse your entire software budget in less than 2 weeks. The cost is nothing.
Training is not just a financial cost, this is a ignorant view point and shows very little connection with the reality that is the job of those people you support.
Open source will likely cost more overall. You'll have more difficulty integrating with proprietary systems in use, because those private systems have no urge to deal with Linux, its not worth their effort to hit a target that moves daily. Then you have to deal with all the incompatibilities of whatever other OSS supporting software you add in, like OO.org and how those documents deal with other organizations the hospital has to deal with. You'll lose more the first year in time because of people sending documents in the wrong document format (OO native instead of MS compatible) than you'll save on the price of Office.
The problem with your post is typical with the FLOSS community. The problem is the misconception that the cost of purchasing software is the expensive part. You couldnt' be more wrong. Software cost is in day to day operations and maintenance, which FLOSS offers no advantages to and several disadvantages. You can argue that 'fast patching' is an advantage, but to most IT departments its not. Its FAR more difficult to deal with breakage from randomly updated packages for your distro than once a month patch tuesdays. Any sane IT department isn't tracking patches as they come out anyway, they're going to QA them in their environment first, so they are going to establish some sort of schedule for this sort of thing thats effectively going to put them on a once a month or less often cycle anyway. FLOSS offers the promise of open access to your data, but no one cares how open it is from a technical point of view if every time they send it to someone else, the other people can't view it. It is in fact for all intents and purposes less open with OO.org in native format than DOCX as far as the normal user is concerned.
Training people to switch from Windows to Linux is not as cheap as you think, you can't just send them to a couple classes and everything will be dandy and they'll be just as productive as they always were. They won't, it will take years for them to return to that level of productivity ... because ... they've been using the system they already use for years. You can't replace it and expect to return to the same level of productivity any time soon. And regardless of how much you think each version of windows or office is different than the past versions, the switch to something like Linux/KDE or Gnome and OO.org are FAR FAR greater transitions than going from Office 95 to 2007, you just don't realize it because you're constantly dealing with software that is unlike the rest of the software on the system ... Linux users are used to no consistency. These users work with Windows and Office everyday on their own, at home. They know how Windows works for them and the subtle differences are the ones that waste most of the time. The obvious difference people get used to quickly, the little quirks that you respond to subconsciously take YEARS to retrain yourself for.
The cost for YOU to switch to Linux from MS software may be less since you already use both. The cost for your desk workers who do not work on computers as their primary job function on the other hand is much much higher and you're ignoring it completely.
You might want to consider that those people making the choices above you might ... maybe ... have just a little more experience managing than you do. I realize this is hard to see from your perspective and you may think they are morons but they have a different view of the organization than you do and are privy to a lot of information to whi
Yes, and in what way do the original question sound like he was trying to recover data manually rather than do something stupid?
He's talking about writing to the drive, not just reading specific physical locations. Data recovery is not his concern.
The problem is, theres plenty of people here that can come up with every reason you'd want to write directly to a specific location, and those people also realize there is almost 0 reason anyone wants to do that except a very specific set of people which ... wouldn't be asking the question.
The Internet brings more freedom.
That means more people who have less in life are free to take your job in exchange for less pay, which is still better than what they had before.
While journalists may have been able to command higher wages and standards previously, the Internet levels the playing field since journalism requires very little extra knowledge to get started. Anyone with a certain set of traits is capable of being an extremely good journalist, regardless of their educational background or social standing. There are a lot of people that fit that bill, now that the Internet is so common that people who have far less in life can provide the same information as higher paid (relatively) 'professional' or 'career' journalists, the big companies will take the cheapest they can, why shouldn't they, its simple supply and demand.
Unfortunately, for now at least, those good journalists are drown out by the sheer number of morons with blogs.
Yes, and for every one of those you can name, there are at least 100k that aren't worth the hard drive space they occupy or the air their authors breath.
There are exceptions to every rule, but in this case the exceptions don't need the law to be changed, and more importantly do not make up for the problems that are going to be caused when every random blogger goes and screws around where he shouldnt' be.
Lets take it further. Bloggers should get press passes at sporting events too. Guess what, the only people at sporting events will become bloggers. Doesn't matter if one or two of those people MIGHT be good reporters, its ruined by the spam from all the other idiots who aren't worth the time to read or aren't even there to be journalists, their just taking advantage of 'press pass'.
I agree, considering what an e-reader does, you're likely capable of doing it on chips in the range of one or two dollars when you buy the processor one at a time, let alone in bulk.
Lets throw out the vetting process and let any douche bag who can go to an Internet cafe and login to blogspot have a press pass, great idea.
Why not just make it so a press pass costs $5 and anyone can buy one ... I mean, thats what you've done anyway.
No, traditional media isn't perfect and bias free, but regardless of all the political bullshit out there, I still have far more faith that I'm going to be able to filter out the bullshit from traditional media far easier than figuring out the agenda of some random blogger who's never been seen by more than 5 people before in is life.
Welcome to reality there bud.
The alternative is to ... set no barrier to entry so Journalism turns into ... Windows. Blogs are to Journalism what VB is to development. Both just let people who really have no qualifications or abilities write trash and pawn it off as though it were something useful and not full of holes.
In my IT department we had a word for people like you.
Dickheads who deserve to be fired for doing exactly the opposite of what their job is.
Your job ... is to make the software work so they can use it. Your job, is to translate what users tell you into something useful. Your job, is to help the users get their jobs done.
The INSTANT you start doing ANYTHING to make them LESS efficient, even short term, your ass would be fired so fast you wouldn't realize it happened.
You don't deserve to have the job since you clearly aren't willing to do it.
Really ... how do you do away with the error that occurs when the user deletes the data file your application requires to work?
You're naive at best, ignorant at worst, and don't really understand the source of many 'error messages'.
Most errors occur because ... something unexpected happened, and the message is there to let every know so it can be fixed.
Please show me the bug free code you've written that needs no error messages and no, trivial 'hello world' type crap doesn't count.
What do you do in the word processor when a file can be saved do to permissions? Nothing? Get root and change the permissions cause clearly the user shouldn't see an error?
Go back to your CS class professor, you don't get the real world.
The proper phrase was 'HEY EVERYBODY, I'm LOOKING AT GAY PORNO'
And yes, its happened to me in a meeting on the laptop.
Fortunately, it was after clicking on a link sent to me by the boss asking for a way to block that particular URL at the proxies.
Interestingly enough, I could still feel my face turning red when it came out of the speakers even though everyone there knew what was going on.