I do as well.
We've been able to save TONS by purchasing off-lease systems at 10 cents on the dollar WITH 3 year warranties.
The bigger issue is that the wrong person is selecting and specifying technology purchases. Talk to the Supt or CBO. And yes try to make them look good, if you can.
All computer, networking, AND software purchase should have to pass through the IT dept for evaluation. To not do so is foolish at best.
The cloud is the new shiny hotness. Has a very low barrier to entry, it's relatively easy to get started. And the powers that be get a nice shiny new bit of jargon to toss about at meetings.
Now for the negatives. While there's a low barrier to entry, there's a very high barrier to exit. If the service starts to have issues, what's the exit strategy? What recourse do you have if they raise their prices, change the EULA/SLA? Can you get your data out and easily move to another provider or move it in-house? Does it play nice with your internal environment (LDAP, Single Sign-on)? What if the service goes down? There are some serious business continuity issues that rarely get addressed.
These are questions the check writers seem to fail to ask. Instant gratification, but potentially long term pain. They just want to solve an immediate problem without taking long-term consideration. Human nature.
"Here you go! We bought this this new shiny cloudy thingy... now make it work."
On the bright side, if the cloud drops a deuce, kinda not our problem. We tried to warn you, but you did it anyway, and it negatively impacted business.
Now an internal cloud... That's cool.
After going through the hell that is deploying adobe software (Acrobat Pro), no fecking way. They appear to be operating under the delusion that we all have unlimited disk space, RAM, and bandwidth. 1.5gb? Seriously???? And their patching "strategy" (msp fiels ina very specific order. Have to start back at the.0 rev and patch your way forward) is one of the biggest clusterfucks I've come across in recent memory. There are far better alternatives out there, more efficient, less expensive.
Schools, like it or not, are having to assume responsibility, or have it forced upon them, by the kid's parents who AREN'T taking responsibility along with socienty at large. Lots of responsibility, minimal authority. So they go all risk-management over stuff like this, weld the baby to the bathwater, and over the side it goes. All about image, and the school board (or their counsel) likely is afraid of being accused of doing nothing. Interestingly, the school is not at all mentioned in the video. They definitely stepped over a line here.
And you don't want to have to compete on SERVICE, only features. Much harder to compete if the protocol is open, and consumers have actual CHOICE. In the end openness could make for a better product, but only if Skype is up to the task.
Obviously Android IS Linux, but it's not a full blow Linux distro, and that is what you were talking about. Even standard, non-rooted Android doesn't dictate what you can or can not run on it though. Your complaints all seem to be iPhone complaints, maybe you should give Android a try before deciding you wouldn't want it on a tablet.
Actually I would prefer android over iPhone. But the freedom to install software that may not be approved by the vendor or service provider is critical, and if I choose to install a full distro I want to be able to do that.
I don't want to pay for the privilege of being stuck in someone's restrictive silo.
Actually, if I spent the money for a tablet what I would want to do with it is run applications that were designed to work properly with a tablet. So no, a full blown Linux distro wouldn't let me do that. OTOH, a regular rooted Android install would fit the bill nicely.
1) Android IS Linux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)
2) Doesn't mean you cannot run tablet apps.
I for one do not want to have the vendor or service provider able to dictate to me what I can or cannot run on the device that I paid for, or how I chose to do so. I have an iPhone. It's ok, but requiring a computer program to manage it that is not cross-platform. There'd be no windows version if Steve thought he wouldn't lose revenue.
Every app has to pass through the apple sphincter.
"Checking the numbers" only works on those whose minds are open enough to step outside the comforting, narrative-supporting cocoon of Fox News and question the notion that everything that challenges your assumptions is part of the conspiracy. And even well-educated, otherwise mentally-capable people can be imprisoned by that narrative, because it's comforting.
I'm just kinda glad you don't have an agenda or anything.
So they're going to be taught rote skills, ie how to use MS Word, as opposed to how use a "word processor", so if they're asked by their employer to use something besides Word, they're screwed?...Awesome
Of course you don't. You don't "need" it in Windows, either. But having it is a lot more convenient for people like the submitter than not having it, and if Linux wants to get more copies in the enterprise, they should figure out some standardized way of emulating it.
What I was getting at is that all the tools are already there. For people who need "point and click and shiny", yes I would agree, but there's so much more flexibility and control with the tools that do exist in *nix, that at least IMO emulating windows technology is just going to be too restrictive. Once one is willing to explore just a little bit, the power in unix is quite breathtaking, esp when compared to what you get with windows. Yeah, there's a learning curve, but it's not too bad.
From a practical perspective, a spreadsheet is a database. Just not a relational one.
okay, technically speaking, that's true. let me put it another way. Like windows, spreadsheets have a shallow learning curve, but do not scale very well. To do anything serious, you will quickly abandon the former for the latter.
If you don't even KNOW what group policy is, why are you posting here? Get a knowledge injection of how NT and AD works, then come back.
No, not everything group policy does can be done in Linux.
In *nix, you don't *need* Group Policy.
And there's no smells-of-ass, cluster-fuck registry "technology" to deal with. AD started out life as a stunted, dumbed down LDAP server. A poor copy of Novell's NDS. Granted it's gotten better, but it's still more restrictive than it needs to be.
Applying windows technology in this case is like calling a spreadsheet a database.
Tasty pig parts smoked w/pecan and applewood. low and sloooooooow. The plume should be visible from space.
Now will just have to see if anyone from NASA shows up for dinner...
NAT also cuts their traffic costs because it keeps customers from running servers.
Aside from TOS issues, running servers (at least web servers) is no big deal. I've run a web server for years on dynamic IP addresses, thanks to dyndns.org.
I beg to differ. What this does is make possible the running of full-blown desktop apps in a browser, and makes the thick client and all it's attendant management issues less relevant. You can do that w/citrix, but it costs. windows cals + citrix licenses + network overhead. Beyond that, it also means that the OS you're accessing it with is less relevant, and this instance, no draconian licensing issues. The load time is a bit slow, but hopefully they'll get that ironed out.
In an enterprise environment, this is hot shit. The trick on your control issues is FOSS. Install the back-end on your own server (assuming of course this will be possible) and you lose none of your independence, and gain a ton of management leverage.
The problem here is that it is much easier to teach a series of clicks than to teach a concept. If you can use word, for example, how fast can you learn another word processor? Can you find out how to perform common tasks like paragraph formatting, header and footer configuration? Do you know how to leverage paragraph tags. You would not believe the resistance to abandoning hand-editing individual paragraphs. It's almost as bad as getting users to quit hitting enter at the end of each line, and having to strip out hard returns when they change their margins and the paragraph formatting goes wacky-bobo. Haven't had to do that in a long time, but you get the picture.
If you understand basic concepts, you can easily learn any application that uses them. If you learn a particular app or os without understanding core concepts, you're hosed when faced with a different app or os, or at the very least you start at a lower point on the learning curve. And lest you thing the status-quo is going to be the standard forever, I would ask to see all the cp/m and wordstar installations still in use. Or wordperfect (which is sorely missed by people who really know word processing, but have been forced to switch to adhere to the de-facto standard, which is really no standard at all, even within it's own product line).
I have found a great deal of functional improvement in microsoft's products lately (vista notwithstanding), but one reason I avoid them much of the time is that their products encourage this rote learning approach. They also tend to have a level of built-in incompatability with previously PUBLISHED standards, and appear to do so for the sake of limiting your choices to THEIR silo of products. At to that their byzantine licensing, not to mention outright arrogance, and you no longer control your IT environment. The VENDOR does. So, I avoid their stuff when I can, and use it when I have to.
Has anyone at microsoft ever considered using somthing along the lines of PAM (Pluggable Authentication Modules)? It would go a long way towards allowing windows to "play nice with others", as well as allow third parties to innovate new methods of authentication. Hopefully without the usual onerous licensing requirements. Perhaps something along the lines of PGINA?
http://pgina.xpasystems.com/
Slashdot Mirror
I do as well. We've been able to save TONS by purchasing off-lease systems at 10 cents on the dollar WITH 3 year warranties. The bigger issue is that the wrong person is selecting and specifying technology purchases. Talk to the Supt or CBO. And yes try to make them look good, if you can. All computer, networking, AND software purchase should have to pass through the IT dept for evaluation. To not do so is foolish at best.
The cloud is the new shiny hotness. Has a very low barrier to entry, it's relatively easy to get started. And the powers that be get a nice shiny new bit of jargon to toss about at meetings. Now for the negatives. While there's a low barrier to entry, there's a very high barrier to exit. If the service starts to have issues, what's the exit strategy? What recourse do you have if they raise their prices, change the EULA/SLA? Can you get your data out and easily move to another provider or move it in-house? Does it play nice with your internal environment (LDAP, Single Sign-on)? What if the service goes down? There are some serious business continuity issues that rarely get addressed. These are questions the check writers seem to fail to ask. Instant gratification, but potentially long term pain. They just want to solve an immediate problem without taking long-term consideration. Human nature. "Here you go! We bought this this new shiny cloudy thingy... now make it work." On the bright side, if the cloud drops a deuce, kinda not our problem. We tried to warn you, but you did it anyway, and it negatively impacted business. Now an internal cloud... That's cool.
After going through the hell that is deploying adobe software (Acrobat Pro), no fecking way. They appear to be operating under the delusion that we all have unlimited disk space, RAM, and bandwidth. 1.5gb? Seriously???? And their patching "strategy" (msp fiels ina very specific order. Have to start back at the .0 rev and patch your way forward) is one of the biggest clusterfucks I've come across in recent memory. There are far better alternatives out there, more efficient, less expensive.
Schools, like it or not, are having to assume responsibility, or have it forced upon them, by the kid's parents who AREN'T taking responsibility along with socienty at large. Lots of responsibility, minimal authority. So they go all risk-management over stuff like this, weld the baby to the bathwater, and over the side it goes. All about image, and the school board (or their counsel) likely is afraid of being accused of doing nothing. Interestingly, the school is not at all mentioned in the video. They definitely stepped over a line here.
And you don't want to have to compete on SERVICE, only features. Much harder to compete if the protocol is open, and consumers have actual CHOICE. In the end openness could make for a better product, but only if Skype is up to the task.
The BLUE SCREEN OF DEATH.
Obviously Android IS Linux, but it's not a full blow Linux distro, and that is what you were talking about. Even standard, non-rooted Android doesn't dictate what you can or can not run on it though. Your complaints all seem to be iPhone complaints, maybe you should give Android a try before deciding you wouldn't want it on a tablet.
Actually I would prefer android over iPhone. But the freedom to install software that may not be approved by the vendor or service provider is critical, and if I choose to install a full distro I want to be able to do that. I don't want to pay for the privilege of being stuck in someone's restrictive silo.
Actually, if I spent the money for a tablet what I would want to do with it is run applications that were designed to work properly with a tablet. So no, a full blown Linux distro wouldn't let me do that. OTOH, a regular rooted Android install would fit the bill nicely.
1) Android IS Linux. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system) 2) Doesn't mean you cannot run tablet apps. I for one do not want to have the vendor or service provider able to dictate to me what I can or cannot run on the device that I paid for, or how I chose to do so. I have an iPhone. It's ok, but requiring a computer program to manage it that is not cross-platform. There'd be no windows version if Steve thought he wouldn't lose revenue. Every app has to pass through the apple sphincter.
Why would you want a full blown linux install? non of the apps will be tailored for a touch screen interface.
Because THEN you can do what you want with it, not just what the fecking vendor/service provider says you can do.
That's the problem with FOSS. It seems to slip through most everybody's fingers.....
It's not a problem. It's a feature to keep it available to everyone.
...so it doesn't NEED malware protection. wait. that's CRAZY talk.
Funny, didn't see one thing about how well it works on Mac/*nix/mobile devices. Did I miss something?
So they're going to be taught rote skills, ie how to use MS Word, as opposed to how use a "word processor", so if they're asked by their employer to use something besides Word, they're screwed? ...Awesome
Of course you don't. You don't "need" it in Windows, either. But having it is a lot more convenient for people like the submitter than not having it, and if Linux wants to get more copies in the enterprise, they should figure out some standardized way of emulating it.
What I was getting at is that all the tools are already there. For people who need "point and click and shiny", yes I would agree, but there's so much more flexibility and control with the tools that do exist in *nix, that at least IMO emulating windows technology is just going to be too restrictive. Once one is willing to explore just a little bit, the power in unix is quite breathtaking, esp when compared to what you get with windows. Yeah, there's a learning curve, but it's not too bad.
From a practical perspective, a spreadsheet is a database. Just not a relational one.
okay, technically speaking, that's true. let me put it another way. Like windows, spreadsheets have a shallow learning curve, but do not scale very well. To do anything serious, you will quickly abandon the former for the latter.
If you don't even KNOW what group policy is, why are you posting here? Get a knowledge injection of how NT and AD works, then come back.
No, not everything group policy does can be done in Linux.
In *nix, you don't *need* Group Policy. And there's no smells-of-ass, cluster-fuck registry "technology" to deal with. AD started out life as a stunted, dumbed down LDAP server. A poor copy of Novell's NDS. Granted it's gotten better, but it's still more restrictive than it needs to be. Applying windows technology in this case is like calling a spreadsheet a database.
Tasty pig parts smoked w/pecan and applewood. low and sloooooooow. The plume should be visible from space. Now will just have to see if anyone from NASA shows up for dinner...
NAT also cuts their traffic costs because it keeps customers from running servers.
Aside from TOS issues, running servers (at least web servers) is no big deal. I've run a web server for years on dynamic IP addresses, thanks to dyndns.org.
Admiral Grace Hopper (Invented COBOL)
I beg to differ. What this does is make possible the running of full-blown desktop apps in a browser, and makes the thick client and all it's attendant management issues less relevant. You can do that w/citrix, but it costs. windows cals + citrix licenses + network overhead. Beyond that, it also means that the OS you're accessing it with is less relevant, and this instance, no draconian licensing issues. The load time is a bit slow, but hopefully they'll get that ironed out. In an enterprise environment, this is hot shit. The trick on your control issues is FOSS. Install the back-end on your own server (assuming of course this will be possible) and you lose none of your independence, and gain a ton of management leverage.
The problem here is that it is much easier to teach a series of clicks than to teach a concept. If you can use word, for example, how fast can you learn another word processor? Can you find out how to perform common tasks like paragraph formatting, header and footer configuration? Do you know how to leverage paragraph tags. You would not believe the resistance to abandoning hand-editing individual paragraphs. It's almost as bad as getting users to quit hitting enter at the end of each line, and having to strip out hard returns when they change their margins and the paragraph formatting goes wacky-bobo. Haven't had to do that in a long time, but you get the picture. If you understand basic concepts, you can easily learn any application that uses them. If you learn a particular app or os without understanding core concepts, you're hosed when faced with a different app or os, or at the very least you start at a lower point on the learning curve. And lest you thing the status-quo is going to be the standard forever, I would ask to see all the cp/m and wordstar installations still in use. Or wordperfect (which is sorely missed by people who really know word processing, but have been forced to switch to adhere to the de-facto standard, which is really no standard at all, even within it's own product line). I have found a great deal of functional improvement in microsoft's products lately (vista notwithstanding), but one reason I avoid them much of the time is that their products encourage this rote learning approach. They also tend to have a level of built-in incompatability with previously PUBLISHED standards, and appear to do so for the sake of limiting your choices to THEIR silo of products. At to that their byzantine licensing, not to mention outright arrogance, and you no longer control your IT environment. The VENDOR does. So, I avoid their stuff when I can, and use it when I have to.
Has anyone at microsoft ever considered using somthing along the lines of PAM (Pluggable Authentication Modules)? It would go a long way towards allowing windows to "play nice with others", as well as allow third parties to innovate new methods of authentication. Hopefully without the usual onerous licensing requirements. Perhaps something along the lines of PGINA? http://pgina.xpasystems.com/
Partimage'll do the imaging. So will landesk, plus landesk can also manage configs. But, landesk is expensive. Cross-platform, but expensive.