So, let me get this straight - I buy one of those things for myself, set up a fence at some appropriate distance from my house, and it'll automatically notify my house when I'm at a certain distance away on my way home?
I'm not sure this is the best fix, after all, if the older ones are vulnerable to this and Apple won't lift a finger to assist, then what reason do we have to believe that the next incarnation of iTunes won't break the newer ones?
On the cynical side, lack of function has never seemed to deter Windows users in the past, I wonder if Apple will even feel a hiccup from this?
Which still begs the question why you haven't written/. off and found a new forum...
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but really, what is the point? Move to a different forum if these Editors are so bad. If the editors haven't changed ways by now, it seems unlikely that they will because you point it out to the forum in general.
With the current drive of the OSDL and most of the Open Source community towards pushing Linux to the desktop, why is Red Hat eschewing this drive? Don't you think that this paradigm shift needs all the major players (including RedHat) to commit to this drive in order for it to be successful?
Wait a second, the original assertion ran along the lines that slashdot was better five years ago when it was just leading tech.
That somehow precludes the current assertion that slashdot hasn't grown in six years. So, which is it, slashdot has changed or it hasn't?
I hate to say it, but it sounds like sour grapes to me./. has changed, just not the way you wanted it to.
Well, the solution isn't trashing slashdot, it's editorial crew or what have you as being evil puppets of VA Linux, or whatever else. The solution is to take your posts elsewhere.
Think of it as the right tool for the job, if/. isn't yours, there is an entire 'net out there of forumss, I'm sure one is a perfect match for you.
As for overated, hell, I'd have slapped you with a Troll. After all, with all your choices in where to post your anti-/. rhetoric, why/.?
Okay, so most/.ers do care about bugs, but Joe Six-pack doesn't seem to.
You want a desktop distro that can compete in the home OS market, for Joe Six-pack's dollar?
Well, more important than the bugs are two things:
1) The zero-oversight installer. M$ has it, users aren't going to migrate to something that starts by asking them questions they don't know how to answer.
2) The lead-Joe-by-the-nose on-line help system. This is the bigger stumbling block. What is needed is to emulate the Windows help system (about the only thing in Windows I think is worth emulation) right down to guiding the user step by step through the process.
Of the three issues, well bugs will get fixed, and quick, OSS has established that pretty well. The zero-oversight installer gets better and better with each successive try at it. It's that help system baby, not only is it a massive undertaking, it is anethma to most of OpSrc dev people. Or at least that is the most likely explanation for the state of documentation in most OpSrc projects.
I personally think OpSrc is poorly equipped to handle that task. Dev people tend to gloss over core concepts in their docs, because they are core concepts. That is a luxury you cannot expect when coding for Joe Six-pack. If folk really want Joe Six-pack using Linux at home, they're going to have to make it easy not only for Joe to install Linux, but trivial for him to learn to use it afterwards...
The single hardest task in there? Probably all those lines starting with "In Microsoft Windows..."
Really, dd is just about as good a utility as you are going to find.
I've used lots of them, and not one of them performs any more reliably than dd. Throw parted into the equation and you can re-size yon partition to fit a smaller or larger drive as necessary.
Hell, the programs are stable, dd very much so. And doesn't require anything more than a linux system with open space for the correct drive type. Works seemlessly on any drive supported by the kernel.
Lastly, you can get the dd source code, so you can modify the behaviour to obtain specific results. Try that with your pay-to-pray disk imaging software.
Five years ago what young people were interested was technology. Raise a political point on slashdot and you would get slapped down with offtopic. Today what people are interested in is politics, there is a war going on out there which matters a damn sight more than what Hilary Rosen or Bill Gates might have said.
I fail to see the problem here...
Five years ago technology should have had primacy of place. But five years after, the sociological implications of what went five years before are evident, and have gained primacy of place. This is natural and desirable.
Personally, I look at it as a growth process... If after five years, all that/. subscribers could post is more gee-golly-whiz articles about technology, then I would be disturbed.
As far as agendas go, I would presume that the skew, bias and agenda you see on/. is more due to the members than the editorial crew.
As I understand it, the majority of moderation is supplied by the users, not the editors, which further tends to indicate that/. members want to discuss the ramifications of technology on their lives, outside of the narrow scope of tech for tech's sake.
The 'netscape is very different than it was five years ago, I should hope/. discussions have evolved with it, rather than resisting change, which evidently has been the case.
Okay, I don't know about the rest of y'all, but the fine threads of the puppetmaster in Redmond are getting close to naked-eye visible now...
I can't see any sound business reason for SCO to reward organizations to migrate from Linux to Microsoft, or Sun or anything else.
Someone ought to let Darl and Co. know that dictating a grass-roots movement has been tried in the past, and it almost allways fails. The impetus for a grass-roots movement has to come from the people down in the dirt, not the ones above slinging mud at each other.
But, it's just another case of more circus, less bread. How exactly is SCO supposed to verify that a given applicant was a Linux shop? And more importantly, if they do part with any of their Microsof, er warchest, how do they intend to enforce compliance?
Besides, rather than offering cash incentives, you ought to be offering equivalent-value incentives. Just guessing, but I bet SCO could get a pretty attractive price on M$ products to offer folks as cash equivalents which would presumably cost SCO less real money, if only from the volume discount aspect. But anyone who thinks M$ wouldn't make it more lucrative for SCO to tender that kind of deal, well you know who to send your $699 linux license fee to...
No,
I never claim Debian is magical, I do assert that rather than trashing Debian for not doing every job, choose the right distro for the job, or be willing to do the work required to make Debian do the job.
Asking Debian to support all the newest drivers and features in antitheitcal to the best part of the Debian distro. Nothing is in Stable that hasn't been shown to work reliably. If I diverge from stable, wether in the install kernel or what have you, that's on my own head to handle. This is fine for me, but not for everyone. My essential point all along has been, rather than putting pressure on Debian to do something they have never claimed to do (support all the latest gee whizz stuff) pick a different distro. There are literally hundreds of distros, one of them will suit your particular purpose. So instead of wasting time and breath arguing with Debian, or their zealots, why don't you exercise the power of choice. After all, isn't that at the heart of Free software, freedom of choice. Debian has the freedom to be slow, cautious and methodical, you have the freedom to choose a different distro if that doesn't fulfill your needs.
I sincerely hope that Debian doesn't fundamentally change this aspect of the distro. But, if they do, I WILL select a different distro. I WON'T pester Debian, or it's new zealots to change back to the old way. If the decision is made to change this, oh well, I'll have to reconsider my distro.
Ultimately this is how it should be, if every distro tries to satisfy everyone all the time, each will fail. So rather than harping on the zealots, or criticizing Debian for what they don't do well, find another distro, it is that simple.
Bill Gates says 'You don't need perfect code to avoid security problems.' Instead he suggests that users acquire and properly configure firewalls and make sure that they keep their software patches up-to-date.
Yeah, well I make firewalls, and I feel that firewalls don't need perfect code to avoid security problems. Instead, I suggest users acquire and properly configure Operating Systems which aren't vulnerable to as many threats, and that they patch these operating systems regularly.
What a crock, I worked for a security company all last year. Number one problem I saw during that time? Yup, garbage that got inside the firewall because of all those laptops running imperfect code. A vulnerability inside the firewall is still a vulnerability. And as any security consultant worth the rate he's charging you will tell, defense in depth, not just at the edge.
First of all, I pointed out, no stock kernel has ever had the drivers for the hardware I use. I haven't even done an install in five years tht didn't involve passing arguments to the install kernel. In several cases I've had to build custom install media to get the job done. This is all documented on the Debian site, and I've used it succesfully.
As a Debian user, I get really tired of people bringing up this problem. It is not a problem, Debian allready supplies install CDs with various kernel images. Debian provides instructions on creating custom install images. Debian provides all the information you need to solve your problem, but it's Debian's fault if you don't use it?
But, I stated that I like Debian primarily for server installs. I haven't deployed many three year old servers this year, so I haven't had the problem which seems to be vexing you. However, I would counsel my clients against installing a three year old box as a new server, particularly in view of the trivial cost of hardware. Debian is perfectly suited for this job.
I also use Debian for one of my home boxes, and no, the install kernel didn't like my primary drive controller either, but I looked around the Debian site and got the information I needed to do the job, and I have a quite nice desktop out of the deal. But, I was willing to do the research and the work. If you aren't willing to do both of these, than you should reconsider which distribution you use.
On behalf of the Debian users who tell you to compile your own kernel, I will suggest perhaps you should be using a different distribution. Ours works just fine thanks, we all seem to get along with it, there are dozens of distributions out there, if the one I choose isn't cookie-cutter enough for you, try another. But please stop criticizing Debian for this, Debian has provided the information and tools to do the job. If you don't like how Debian does it, you have many options, the least welcome of which is crticizing Debian.
I remember DOS (shudder), the best thing M$ did with DOS is marginalize it. But they spent the last 8 years moving away from CLI, and devaluing it within the OSes. So now they put one back in and we're supposed to believe that it will be a useful tool?
IF MONISTAT, or whatever they want to call it, was a natural growth of DOS, including a relevant tool-set, I'd be mroe inclined to be charitable. But, given the track record in Redmond for getting right the first time (or the second, third etc. etc.) I think I'm not going to bother holding my breath...
...the install kernel was 2.2. All the cutting edge apt repositories in the world will not help you if you cannot get a working operating system.
Umm, so a Linux box with a 2.2 kernel isn't a working operating system?
Besides, I _NEVER_ use a stock kernel. I've been playing with Linux for almost 10 years now and the longest a stock kernel has ever run on one of my boxes (workstation or server) is certainly less than a day. For servers stock kernels are generally bloated, for my workstations, they never seem to have the drivers I need available.
Lastly, my dev box is also Debian, currently running a 2.6 kernel. You can allways download the source...
Joe user doesn't see recusrion, but the joke. Joe dev doesn't see the joke, but the recursion. Either way, I'm amused.
Incidentally it is a Robin Williams quote from Live at the Met, and is preceeded by him quoting Ronald Reagan: "Where would our country be without this great land of ours?"
Gee, and the moderator thought my original post was off-topic....
Not the same way, but a similar (and viable) mechanism is easy enough to implement.
Besides, is this really a desirable feature? This is actually part of the reason I'll call that a square wheel. The app domain is so narrow it would have been better satisfied with existing code, perhaps with a new interface to ensure compliance with the back end logic as implemented via the existing code.
You would be hard pressed to accomplish the same level of general panic today, even intentionally.
Which isn't to say that people have gotten smarter, consider virus hoaxes. The oft found phrase "Microsoft in an email advised..." is essentially the same as the disclaimer that Wells' radio program had. Interestingly enough, that phrase is as easily ignored now as it's corollary was then.
There must be something about the human condition which renders our societies vulnerable to this kind of thing. It's hard to believe that after 65 years the same basic hoax recipe works. The only thing Wells' show improved was a narrowing of the scope that these hoaxes are capable of covering.
Things like this make it hard to have any faith in your fellow man...
Given, the stuff in the stable tree, and on down is woefully out of date.
However, this is one of the things that has allways appealed to me about Debian. I use Debian for precisely that reason.
I long ago satisfied myself that Debian did at the very least a sufficient job of vetting the programs in their distro. I think of it as delegating that imprtant job. So, to a great degree, I know I can build a Debian/stable and set up a cron job to apt-get update and apt-get upgrade and be reasonably sure I'm up to date.
If Debian were to change this aspect of their opertion I would need to reconsider using that distro for the jobs I do. Principally, I use Debian for machines inside the firewall which just need to work. I don't need bleeding edge software, nor do I need to mop up the resulting pools of blood.
I know a lot of folks who make the similar complaint about Debian, and my response has allways been the same. You have literally dozens of distro's to select from. If Debian isn't giving you what you want, find another distro. Of course this is selfish, Debian does exactly what I want it to do, and I really would hate for that to change.
Specifically, rcs systems provide the same functionality, and several allready exist. So why not spend your devlopment time on an interface for Joe Six-pack, rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Especially since we'll probably find out this wheel has a remarkably squarish shape...
First question, that 100 CDs you are talking about, do you really need to back all that data up?
I suspect that figure includes a bunch of stuff you might not need to backup. Myself, other than some files under/etc, and a couple under/boot I don't bother with OS files. Waste of time, I've established that I can flatline my Debian box at home and have it rebuilt to a virtual clone in reasonable time. Ditto application files, other than a couple rare exceptions.
That's goning to be the most effective way to trim the bottom line, be selective in what you backup.
First, I think we all need to recognize that you by no means have to do this, and the fact that you are considering it, and then asking your peers for guidance, seperates you from a large number of people in your position.
As for peer advice:
I would suggest you probably want to pay out some portion of the monies directly to the employees. After all nothing says your hard work is recognized than a thickening of the wallet.
However, you probably do want to do something with part of the money to recognize the fact that this success is not only from their individual efforts alone, but their efforts as a team.
It seems really trivial, but you reward the behaviours that you want to reinforce. So, if the employees have functioned well as a team, reward them, in part as a team. What specifically, I can't say, you know your people better than the rest of us. Ultimately, you can probably get suggestions from your employees.
Whatever you decide to do, an important component of your decision is the one you have allready made, that the bonuses will be equivalent. This says to me you are recognizing that each indivdual is part of the team that made success possible. Make sure that this message carries across, no matter what specifics you eventually decide to implement.
Of course, I may be reading more into your intent than is warranted, but this seems consistent with what you have stated. But, bonuses are usually preceeded by work which is above and beyond expectations. You, as the employer want to reinforce that above and beyond work.
I'm gonna venture a guess that you are probably a pretty good person to work for, and your employees likely feel the same way. You pay them for their day-to-day work allready. If you are going to give them something above and beyond, tie it to the ways they have gone above and beyond.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that is a valid use for the device...
I'm not sure this is the best fix, after all, if the older ones are vulnerable to this and Apple won't lift a finger to assist, then what reason do we have to believe that the next incarnation of iTunes won't break the newer ones?
On the cynical side, lack of function has never seemed to deter Windows users in the past, I wonder if Apple will even feel a hiccup from this?
I'm not trying to be obtuse, but really, what is the point? Move to a different forum if these Editors are so bad. If the editors haven't changed ways by now, it seems unlikely that they will because you point it out to the forum in general.
It does however work admirably if you shorten the time frame and analyze FUD instead of speed...
With the current drive of the OSDL and most of the Open Source community towards pushing Linux to the desktop, why is Red Hat eschewing this drive? Don't you think that this paradigm shift needs all the major players (including RedHat) to commit to this drive in order for it to be successful?
That somehow precludes the current assertion that slashdot hasn't grown in six years. So, which is it, slashdot has changed or it hasn't?
I hate to say it, but it sounds like sour grapes to me. /. has changed, just not the way you wanted it to.
Well, the solution isn't trashing slashdot, it's editorial crew or what have you as being evil puppets of VA Linux, or whatever else. The solution is to take your posts elsewhere.
Think of it as the right tool for the job, if /. isn't yours, there is an entire 'net out there of forumss, I'm sure one is a perfect match for you.
As for overated, hell, I'd have slapped you with a Troll. After all, with all your choices in where to post your anti-/. rhetoric, why /.?
Okay, so most /.ers do care about bugs, but Joe Six-pack doesn't seem to.
You want a desktop distro that can compete in the home OS market, for Joe Six-pack's dollar?
Well, more important than the bugs are two things:
1) The zero-oversight installer. M$ has it, users aren't going to migrate to something that starts by asking them questions they don't know how to answer.
2) The lead-Joe-by-the-nose on-line help system. This is the bigger stumbling block. What is needed is to emulate the Windows help system (about the only thing in Windows I think is worth emulation) right down to guiding the user step by step through the process.
Of the three issues, well bugs will get fixed, and quick, OSS has established that pretty well. The zero-oversight installer gets better and better with each successive try at it. It's that help system baby, not only is it a massive undertaking, it is anethma to most of OpSrc dev people. Or at least that is the most likely explanation for the state of documentation in most OpSrc projects.
I personally think OpSrc is poorly equipped to handle that task. Dev people tend to gloss over core concepts in their docs, because they are core concepts. That is a luxury you cannot expect when coding for Joe Six-pack. If folk really want Joe Six-pack using Linux at home, they're going to have to make it easy not only for Joe to install Linux, but trivial for him to learn to use it afterwards...
The single hardest task in there? Probably all those lines starting with "In Microsoft Windows..."
I've used lots of them, and not one of them performs any more reliably than dd. Throw parted into the equation and you can re-size yon partition to fit a smaller or larger drive as necessary.
Hell, the programs are stable, dd very much so. And doesn't require anything more than a linux system with open space for the correct drive type. Works seemlessly on any drive supported by the kernel.
Lastly, you can get the dd source code, so you can modify the behaviour to obtain specific results. Try that with your pay-to-pray disk imaging software.
And M$ says OSS isn't better...I fail to see the problem here...
Five years ago technology should have had primacy of place. But five years after, the sociological implications of what went five years before are evident, and have gained primacy of place. This is natural and desirable.
Personally, I look at it as a growth process... If after five years, all that /. subscribers could post is more gee-golly-whiz articles about technology, then I would be disturbed.
As far as agendas go, I would presume that the skew, bias and agenda you see on /. is more due to the members than the editorial crew.
As I understand it, the majority of moderation is supplied by the users, not the editors, which further tends to indicate that /. members want to discuss the ramifications of technology on their lives, outside of the narrow scope of tech for tech's sake.
The 'netscape is very different than it was five years ago, I should hope /. discussions have evolved with it, rather than resisting change, which evidently has been the case.
"Excuse me Mr Stallman, but in the jargon file under recursive it says, 'see recursive'"
I can't see any sound business reason for SCO to reward organizations to migrate from Linux to Microsoft, or Sun or anything else.
Someone ought to let Darl and Co. know that dictating a grass-roots movement has been tried in the past, and it almost allways fails. The impetus for a grass-roots movement has to come from the people down in the dirt, not the ones above slinging mud at each other.
But, it's just another case of more circus, less bread. How exactly is SCO supposed to verify that a given applicant was a Linux shop? And more importantly, if they do part with any of their Microsof, er warchest, how do they intend to enforce compliance?
Besides, rather than offering cash incentives, you ought to be offering equivalent-value incentives. Just guessing, but I bet SCO could get a pretty attractive price on M$ products to offer folks as cash equivalents which would presumably cost SCO less real money, if only from the volume discount aspect. But anyone who thinks M$ wouldn't make it more lucrative for SCO to tender that kind of deal, well you know who to send your $699 linux license fee to...
All in favor of using Lindon, UT as the test range, say aye. AYE!
No, I never claim Debian is magical, I do assert that rather than trashing Debian for not doing every job, choose the right distro for the job, or be willing to do the work required to make Debian do the job. Asking Debian to support all the newest drivers and features in antitheitcal to the best part of the Debian distro. Nothing is in Stable that hasn't been shown to work reliably. If I diverge from stable, wether in the install kernel or what have you, that's on my own head to handle. This is fine for me, but not for everyone. My essential point all along has been, rather than putting pressure on Debian to do something they have never claimed to do (support all the latest gee whizz stuff) pick a different distro. There are literally hundreds of distros, one of them will suit your particular purpose. So instead of wasting time and breath arguing with Debian, or their zealots, why don't you exercise the power of choice. After all, isn't that at the heart of Free software, freedom of choice. Debian has the freedom to be slow, cautious and methodical, you have the freedom to choose a different distro if that doesn't fulfill your needs. I sincerely hope that Debian doesn't fundamentally change this aspect of the distro. But, if they do, I WILL select a different distro. I WON'T pester Debian, or it's new zealots to change back to the old way. If the decision is made to change this, oh well, I'll have to reconsider my distro. Ultimately this is how it should be, if every distro tries to satisfy everyone all the time, each will fail. So rather than harping on the zealots, or criticizing Debian for what they don't do well, find another distro, it is that simple.
Yeah, well I make firewalls, and I feel that firewalls don't need perfect code to avoid security problems. Instead, I suggest users acquire and properly configure Operating Systems which aren't vulnerable to as many threats, and that they patch these operating systems regularly.
What a crock, I worked for a security company all last year. Number one problem I saw during that time? Yup, garbage that got inside the firewall because of all those laptops running imperfect code. A vulnerability inside the firewall is still a vulnerability. And as any security consultant worth the rate he's charging you will tell, defense in depth, not just at the edge.
And people let this guy sell them software...
Well, so much for faith in your fellow man...
First of all, I pointed out, no stock kernel has ever had the drivers for the hardware I use. I haven't even done an install in five years tht didn't involve passing arguments to the install kernel. In several cases I've had to build custom install media to get the job done. This is all documented on the Debian site, and I've used it succesfully.
As a Debian user, I get really tired of people bringing up this problem. It is not a problem, Debian allready supplies install CDs with various kernel images. Debian provides instructions on creating custom install images. Debian provides all the information you need to solve your problem, but it's Debian's fault if you don't use it?
But, I stated that I like Debian primarily for server installs. I haven't deployed many three year old servers this year, so I haven't had the problem which seems to be vexing you. However, I would counsel my clients against installing a three year old box as a new server, particularly in view of the trivial cost of hardware. Debian is perfectly suited for this job.
I also use Debian for one of my home boxes, and no, the install kernel didn't like my primary drive controller either, but I looked around the Debian site and got the information I needed to do the job, and I have a quite nice desktop out of the deal. But, I was willing to do the research and the work. If you aren't willing to do both of these, than you should reconsider which distribution you use.
On behalf of the Debian users who tell you to compile your own kernel, I will suggest perhaps you should be using a different distribution. Ours works just fine thanks, we all seem to get along with it, there are dozens of distributions out there, if the one I choose isn't cookie-cutter enough for you, try another. But please stop criticizing Debian for this, Debian has provided the information and tools to do the job. If you don't like how Debian does it, you have many options, the least welcome of which is crticizing Debian.
However, I ain't jumping for joy yet...
I remember DOS (shudder), the best thing M$ did with DOS is marginalize it. But they spent the last 8 years moving away from CLI, and devaluing it within the OSes. So now they put one back in and we're supposed to believe that it will be a useful tool?
IF MONISTAT, or whatever they want to call it, was a natural growth of DOS, including a relevant tool-set, I'd be mroe inclined to be charitable. But, given the track record in Redmond for getting right the first time (or the second, third etc. etc.) I think I'm not going to bother holding my breath...
It works on so many levels...
Joe user doesn't see recusrion, but the joke. Joe dev doesn't see the joke, but the recursion. Either way, I'm amused.
Incidentally it is a Robin Williams quote from Live at the Met, and is preceeded by him quoting Ronald Reagan: "Where would our country be without this great land of ours?"
Gee, and the moderator thought my original post was off-topic....Not the same way, but a similar (and viable) mechanism is easy enough to implement. Besides, is this really a desirable feature? This is actually part of the reason I'll call that a square wheel. The app domain is so narrow it would have been better satisfied with existing code, perhaps with a new interface to ensure compliance with the back end logic as implemented via the existing code.
You would be hard pressed to accomplish the same level of general panic today, even intentionally.
Which isn't to say that people have gotten smarter, consider virus hoaxes. The oft found phrase "Microsoft in an email advised..." is essentially the same as the disclaimer that Wells' radio program had. Interestingly enough, that phrase is as easily ignored now as it's corollary was then.
There must be something about the human condition which renders our societies vulnerable to this kind of thing. It's hard to believe that after 65 years the same basic hoax recipe works. The only thing Wells' show improved was a narrowing of the scope that these hoaxes are capable of covering.
Things like this make it hard to have any faith in your fellow man...
However, this is one of the things that has allways appealed to me about Debian. I use Debian for precisely that reason.
I long ago satisfied myself that Debian did at the very least a sufficient job of vetting the programs in their distro. I think of it as delegating that imprtant job. So, to a great degree, I know I can build a Debian/stable and set up a cron job to apt-get update and apt-get upgrade and be reasonably sure I'm up to date.
If Debian were to change this aspect of their opertion I would need to reconsider using that distro for the jobs I do. Principally, I use Debian for machines inside the firewall which just need to work. I don't need bleeding edge software, nor do I need to mop up the resulting pools of blood.
I know a lot of folks who make the similar complaint about Debian, and my response has allways been the same. You have literally dozens of distro's to select from. If Debian isn't giving you what you want, find another distro. Of course this is selfish, Debian does exactly what I want it to do, and I really would hate for that to change.
Suck it up whiners, at least you don't have this particular upgrade and patch cycle...
The Art of Unix Programming
Specifically, rcs systems provide the same functionality, and several allready exist. So why not spend your devlopment time on an interface for Joe Six-pack, rather than re-inventing the wheel.
Especially since we'll probably find out this wheel has a remarkably squarish shape...
I suspect that figure includes a bunch of stuff you might not need to backup. Myself, other than some files under /etc, and a couple under /boot I don't bother with OS files. Waste of time, I've established that I can flatline my Debian box at home and have it rebuilt to a virtual clone in reasonable time. Ditto application files, other than a couple rare exceptions.
That's goning to be the most effective way to trim the bottom line, be selective in what you backup.
As for peer advice:
I would suggest you probably want to pay out some portion of the monies directly to the employees. After all nothing says your hard work is recognized than a thickening of the wallet.
However, you probably do want to do something with part of the money to recognize the fact that this success is not only from their individual efforts alone, but their efforts as a team.
It seems really trivial, but you reward the behaviours that you want to reinforce. So, if the employees have functioned well as a team, reward them, in part as a team. What specifically, I can't say, you know your people better than the rest of us. Ultimately, you can probably get suggestions from your employees.
Whatever you decide to do, an important component of your decision is the one you have allready made, that the bonuses will be equivalent. This says to me you are recognizing that each indivdual is part of the team that made success possible. Make sure that this message carries across, no matter what specifics you eventually decide to implement.
Of course, I may be reading more into your intent than is warranted, but this seems consistent with what you have stated. But, bonuses are usually preceeded by work which is above and beyond expectations. You, as the employer want to reinforce that above and beyond work.
I'm gonna venture a guess that you are probably a pretty good person to work for, and your employees likely feel the same way. You pay them for their day-to-day work allready. If you are going to give them something above and beyond, tie it to the ways they have gone above and beyond.