Except that when Gore was VP one of his recommendations was a no-fly list that went ignored by the FAA. There's an article on CNN on TWA 800 today, which shows they were the first to think it was terrorism, and started looking into how to deal with it.
I also would point out that the article is wrong when it says that it's illegal to sell used music. It is perfectly legal and quite commonplace. Caselaw and 17 USC 109 make it noninfringing to do so.
FWIW, she said selling COPIES of your music collection is illegal.
It was comments I read in passing, nothing I recorded. Perhaps you should try google? OTOH, you never quote any sources that say 64 bit windows is a joke either... so STFU.
It used to be quite the opposite. It's the exception now because DOS [and most of windows] was single-user and became so damn wide spread. If the IBM-PC shipped with UNIX instead of MS-DOS we'd be telling a different story today.
Wow, you can see the future as it would have happened? Pretty impressive.
Most people don't even KNOW they can run multiple users at a time on their computer let alone are motivated enough to do it. This is because Windows culture breeds contempt for choice and ignorance all around. It's apparently "better" to be naive and controlled then knowledgeable and decisive.
Or most people don't know why they'd need to buy a $400 dumb terminal when they have have a full blown computer for the same price. Most people don't care if their computer can support multiple users because they only have one keyboard, mouse and monitor. Oh, and there's the chance you can keep working if the network goes down.
Again people just don't know the power of it.
Bull, most people don't care, for the reasons I've already given. What are you going to say when Johnny wants to play Doom 3 but isn't at the console?
You'll never know unless they actually try. I think it would be sellable and there would be enough of a market.
No, that's not true at all. You see, there are a lot of products when never get manufactured because research shows there simply isn't an interest. Given the attitude of the Linux crowd here, how many do you think would actualy buy VS2005 for Linux? I'm sure there will be some, but not many. Especially given that most people here hate MS just to hate MS.
It hinders their ability to take their independent products and branch them out. VS shouldn't exist to prop windows up, it should exist to make software development easier.
But if VS can do both (foster the creation of windows only applications) AND make software development easier, then it seems the logical choice to keep VS Windows only. Those facts, combined with the small market for VS on Linux, means it doesn't make sense to port VS.
Re:Help me ! - with my work situation and IE
on
Firefox Usage Climbing
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
If they were truely worried about HIPA , then they would not be on Windows in the first place.
Please, enough of the mindless, baseless bashing of MS. There are valid complaints about them, but this statement just makes you look foolish.
Serious question: in what ways do you find it deficient?
Well the documentation told me how to void a transaction, but the option simply wasn't there. GNUCash came with the distro, one of the last Mandrake 10.x releases, or perhaps Madriva 2005.
{Transaction > Void Transaction} menu from the register. This is new-in-2.0.
Funny, voiding a transaction was documented as being in the 1.8.x versions. Seriously.
The datafile itself is pretty straightforward XML, but you're right -- this would be nice.
It wasn't immediately obvious when I looked at it, XML or not. At any rate, a normal user isn't going to know what to do with the XML. Sadly, the one Java program I found which claimed to use the Xml to create a QIF would always bomb.. Don't know why.
Reports > Income & Expense > Expense Piechart Reports > Income & Expense > Income/Expense Chart, Expense Barchart
Those sound new, but I don't recall anyway to customize the report. For example, if I only wanted Auto and Health categories in those reports, I don't remember any options to do that.. the report just appeared.
New in 2.0.
Didn't help me 6 months ago though.. and I didn't know when 2.0 would be coming out. Development to me seemed pretty slow.
Any but the datafile itself can be removed. But I agree, the backup system is confusing and annoying. There's a preference to clean them after a time-window.
I never knew which one to delete.. what about the.log files? It seems like those needed to be kept too, especially when sometimes it seems that a new.xac and.log were created and were significately smaller than the last 'big' file. I don't recall such a preference, is that new as well?
Hmm. The business features were actually a late addition. It's pretty much set up for personal accounting primarily. We'd love suggestions on how to tailor it better to that application... well, to both, actually.
Well, I got the impression because I noticed a lot of options for payroll taxes, and some other things I don't recall at the moment, but didn't seem helpful to me as a home user. Maybe an option that askes if you're using it for home fiance or business accounting, and hiding options, and also relabeling some controls so that they make more sense to home users.
One big annoyance for me was setting up a recurring transaction; initially, the columns were labled as Funds In and Funds Out, but as soon as I entered ANYTHING it changed to Debit / Credit. Now, I did take an accounting course in HS, did well and remembered much of it, but for some reason I still get confused on Debit vs. Credit.
That said, I did like GNUCash; it did for the most part do what I wanted it, but there were alot of parts I didn't need. The biggest reason I left it behind though was because I decided to move back to Windows after giving up on Linux on the desktop. I wish I could remember more examples to better answer your questions, but its been about six months since I moved to MS Money.
You're kidding right? How about having one computer service the applications? Why should I install and run Office on my laptop when my overpowered, underutilized 300Wh desktop can run it [twice no less] without blinking an eye.
Because unless you're on the same network there is considerable lag for remote controlling system (Windows or Linux). You say your desktop is overpowered an underutilized, but if you turn your laptop into a dumb terminal, than you're laptop will be overpowered and underutilized, will it not? The fact is that most people don't WANT anyone else use the computer at the same time they are. Remember, you are the EXCEPTION not the rule.
Or how about you're on the computer and I gotta get a file or something off it.
That's what the quick user switch is for; I'm using it, I press Windows+L, you click your user and login, copy the file, logout and then I go back to what I was doing. Or there is this thing called filesharing, which doesn't require you to login to a console session.
Or how about the other myriad of multi-user tasks [remote shells anyone?]
Again, you're an exception case here. 99% of home user's DON'T CARE about remote shells.
Quite a few actually. when I say "VS" I mean the IDE and RAD tools and not the compiler. Look at kdevelop, it's largely attempting to clone VS. Seems there is enough draw for it.
I agree, quite a few probably, but probably not enough to make it economically viable; that is, sales wouldn't cover the cost to port, test, maintain and support the Linux version. I'm not sure how kdevelop is a clone of VS, as it didn't seem to function anything like VS. Kdevelop was one of those frustrations I talked about in another story.
You'd be wrong. When another user remotely logs in, it logs anyone sitting at the terminal off.
Logs them off or supsends their session, which can be gotten back later? I seem to remember the latter, although 99% of my experience is with pro. Pro does this if not a domain member; your apps stay running but you can let someone else use the computer (they have to be at the console though). I have to say though, I agree with MS's decision. What use is there in letting someone else login to my workstation at work, and running programs which slow down my work? What reason is there at home (beyond letting someone else use the computer for a bit) for 2 users to simulatiously use the computer?
Really? What is it? I thought the VS teams job was to promote the use [and purchase] of VS and not prop up Windows sales.
One of the reasons is that MS does want you to develop on their platform. Another is that they don't see a good economic reason to develop.Net for Linux (although I happen to disagree, and would love an MS supported.Net framework + studio on linux). Finally, how many Linux users would develop on VS on linux? Probably not nearly enough to make it worth their while economically.
Good point. However, to say that Win64 is better than Win32 would require you to say Linux is better too than win32 [for basically the same reasons].
I don't know how much hardware is supported on Win64 vs. Linux. And its not just about drivers, availablity of software is an issue. As it is, VS2005 supports.Net development for x64 platforms and the.Net runtime is there too. Also, I've never used Win64; I've read other peoples comments that they thought it was better than WinXP32 (it sounded like there were features in WinXP64 not in 32, but I don't know one way or the other). The point is though that 64-bit windows isn't as much of a joke as you make it out to be.
As for the "costs". It creeps up. When you need site licenses for Windows, Office, VS, etc, etc, etc you end up paying millions of dollars a year.
Who said you need site licenses? You have to be careful when buying, to make sure you get the right licensing terms that fit your companies needs. Sometimes that's open licensing, sometimes select, sometimes its just buying retail. Its not millions of dollars a year as you say; if that were true, no company could afford to run MS software. Clearly lots of companies build their networks and software on MS servers, so this statement simply isn't true.
God I hate Microsoft licensing. You're right, you can use Web edition of Windows Server. I've been searching this for hours.
On this point, I will agree with you whole-heartedly. I will give them this though; it appears they are trying to make licensing clearer.. obviously they still have a ways to go, however.
Bullshit. You underestimate how long factories stay exactly the same. The same software can work for decades, it doesn't need updating just because some flash salesman turns up trying to flog all the latest bells and whistles.
Wow, you just want to believe what you want, and no one will tell you differently will they? Nevermind that I've been hired on by two companies and worked for another company which acted as consultates that wrote this kind of software. Here's a hint; I worked for a journal printer and am working for a medical equipment manufacturer. They decided to do this before they ever heard of me, otherwise there would not have been a job application for which I could apply.
If your software could count how many widgets were coming off a production like in 1990, it can do it until 2090 with no changes at all.
No one is arguing that. But when they want the software to automatically update inventory, and have their order processing software update inventory, there needs to be some changes, since it doesn't currently do that, does it?
Many companies are STILL just now moving away from paper processes; others moved away, but are left with a bunch of seperate applications which can't integrate to provide the seamless information management the companies want. Why you fail to believe this is beyond me, I can only assume you have no real world experience.
Windows is not a true multi-user OS unless you get the Pro editions. Other editions let you have users but not all logged in at the same time [even though the kernel would support it].
I was fairly certain the Home edition of XP lets more than one user log in at a time. It would seem odd that only Pro supports it, since usually Pro is part of a domain (and when it is, doesn't let more than one user at a time login.. but this makes sense).
As for VS2005... why doesn't it work in Linux?
Are you asking why MS doesn't port it to Linux? I'd think the answer to that is fairly obvious.
As for SMB... um use NFS in Linux. It's a single line to setup [on either side] and handled natively in the kernel.
I did use NFS for filesharing in Linux; but that doesn't help when you also have Windows clients, does it? And its more than a one line configuration. I was using SMB as a full domain controller as well, not just for filesharing. It wasn't easy to manage windows workstations using SMB as the domain controller.
As for win64... if you have 64-bit drivers. Many proprietary [the standard for Windows] drivers are not yet ported to win64. The win32 thunking layer is barely functional.
How is this different to poor driver support with Linux? Doesn't the blame go to the hardware manufacturers? Isn't that who's always blamed when Linux doesn't support X device? This claim doesn't back up the '64bit windows is a joke' theory.
If you ever have to re-install a copy of Windows [from the CD] you will likely have to call India to get a new product key. At least that's been my experience.
For home users yes this is an issue. but in the business world, you typically have volume license keys, which don't require activation. Also, you're usually NOT restoring from the cd that windows ships on, you're much more likely restoring from your last system backup.
As for ghosting, yeah I never said you can't ghost in Windows, I said you had to pay for it. In OSS world you can just rsync your disk to filestore somewhere else. Free tools that are work perfectly... hmm...
rsync, you actually use that gaping security hole of a progam? I have to ask, when all is said and done, who cares if you have to pay for ghosting software? Really? Some poor college kid might, but I think for businesses ghosting software is the least of the cost of running.
See my previous post about authenticating users, as opposed to Anonymous.
It doesn't matter when using Web edition if the users need to be authenticated or not. Sql Server processor licenses also don't matter when authenticating users.
Secondly, I said Sql 2005 Workgroup 1 Processor. Please show me a link to a Authorized Reseller of SQL 2005 Standard 1 Processor for $2999.
I don't have a link, because like most companies, we have a representive at CDW that quotes us. I do have the order printed and sitting on my desk though, so I do know how much we paid (since I was involved in helping spec out what we need).
You wouldn't use CAL model for unlimited connections to SQL unless of course you have unlimited CALs. That's why you use the Processor license model.
We did use the processor license model.
Check your facts before chewing me out.
Again, I have the order confirmation sitting on my desk.
From MS: Client access licenses (CALs) do not apply to Windows Server 2003 Web Edition. However, Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, can be used as the scale-out front end for applications such as Windows SharePoint Services and Windows Rights Management Services. In these scale-out configurations, Windows Server CALs and/or Exchange CALs may still be required.
And Organizations cannot use Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, to deploy Microsoft SQL Server, other than SQL Server 2005 Express Edition.
Even if that was true I'd still rather have a proper UNIX environment anyways. Not to mention a real multi-user OS without shelling out huge dollars. Oh and the development tools and...
Sorry, but with modern windows, what exactly is missing that dis-qualifies it from being a real multi-user OS? And FWIW, I've found VS2005 to be much better than any development studio I've tried for linux.
If you buy Windows to run AMP servers... you're wasting your money.
So you think its better to have servers which don't integrate with your corporate network? $400 for Web edition isn't a whole lot to anyone running web farms.
Linux and BSD are more efficient to work with in server contexts
Your opinion, there's no fact to that. I replace my linux server at home with SBS 2003 because its easier to manage the network using SBS2003 than it was with Linux + SMB.
work better with 64-bit processors [Win64 is a huge compatibility joke atm]
I've heard quite differently; indeed, some people claim XP64 is the best desktop OS, even better than 32bit XP. I don't think the 64 bit servers are suffering huge problems either.
don't require you to call India each time your HD breaks and you need a re-install.
A bunch of FUD here; mearly replacing an HD doesn't require calling anyone, and alot of shops image the drives every night so that if there is a failure, they slap on the saved image and are up and running again in no time.
Heck, in BSD/Linux doing a ghost of your system is as simple as burning a tarball to a DVD.
You can easily save an image of a Windows installtion as well.
No need for 3rd party ghosting tools and praying that Windows lets you "get away with" using your OS...
Go ahead and spend hours and hours tarballing your server; the fact is that it would be faster to just create an image of the HD and burn that to a DVD. There's no praying involved; my former employer had great success doing such restores. And putting down a new image is faster than un-tarring a file to disk again.
Better documentation, transaction voiding (its supposedly tehre, but I could never find it), export to QIF (or any other widely used format so that if you chose to leave GC, you can), home user reports (i.e., pie graph of spending per category, category spending per month, etc etc). I don't recall any budgeting features. Also, I'm not sure, but I don't think I could download transactions directly from my credit union (without opening a file which is downloaded in some format). The last one... overright the same file. It seems as if on every save, I'd have 2 or 3 new files with some timestamp added to the filename itself.. so it was Myaccounts_200501234_20050123420050123420050123420 0501234_200501234.xac. How do I know which ones I need or didn't need? Oh, and get it running on Windows. None of those things would have kept me from keeping GNUCash for a bit longer, but when I wanted to go to windows, I had no choice but to abandon it.
I"m sure its great if you're using it for business accounting, but it seemed to be aimed much more at that use than home banking.
If you're supposed to be a windows expert, quit now. You are clueless.
First, you'd be the Web Edition of server 2003 for your webserver, no connector needed.
Second, your costs for Sql are not acuate; we are what you'd consider a small business, and Sql 2005 Standard cost us $2,999. Opps, wrong again. (FWIW, the server hardware cost $7,000)
Finally, please cite your refence that you can't use Sql Express for 'unlimted connections in a production environment.' I've failed to find such a statement from MS.
Because I don't feel like paying $1500 per machine for Windows 2003 server on every server in my web farm. Shit, that's twice as much as the servers I'd run it on! Grid computing and server farms are very poorly suited to a commercial operating system.
Ugh, what a load of FUD if I ever heard it. Mod this ignorant moron down, as anyone setting up a Windows web farm would buy Windows Server 2003, Web Edition for $400. Its likely cheaper with volume licensing.
Classic ASP is a horror from hell and I think soured many from using MS web solutions.
Ugh, I couldn't agree more. Classic ASP should have been replaced long ago. Once you do Asp.Net, the thought of having to work in classic Asp is enough to make you weep.
What difference does it make to the testing? You can't change the IP stack, OS bottlenecks or the scripting engine itself. That leaves the app as the only thing you really want to have a hand in coding.
Its funny how everyone here points out 'poor research' if the research favors MS, but when it favors Linux, mostly everyone goes 'see! told ya so!!!'
Slashdot Mirror
Except that when Gore was VP one of his recommendations was a no-fly list that went ignored by the FAA. There's an article on CNN on TWA 800 today, which shows they were the first to think it was terrorism, and started looking into how to deal with it.
Very nice fanboy, turning a Debian server compromise into a Mircosoft bash.
Thank god; I thought I was going to be the only one posting this.
Although i only have three monster manuals.
No no no.. BOTH are evil, blue just shoots lightning from its mouth.
I think you mean gold and sliver are good...
I also would point out that the article is wrong when it says that it's illegal to sell used music. It is perfectly legal and quite commonplace. Caselaw and 17
USC 109 make it noninfringing to do so.
FWIW, she said selling COPIES of your music collection is illegal.
It was comments I read in passing, nothing I recorded. Perhaps you should try google? OTOH, you never quote any sources that say 64 bit windows is a joke either... so STFU.
I believe that OOo will strive to maintain compatibility, while M$FT really will not bother.
Actually if the plugin doesn't maintain compatibility, you'll only have open source coders to blame.
It used to be quite the opposite. It's the exception now because DOS [and most of windows] was single-user and became so damn wide spread. If the IBM-PC shipped with UNIX instead of MS-DOS we'd be telling a different story today.
Wow, you can see the future as it would have happened? Pretty impressive.
Most people don't even KNOW they can run multiple users at a time on their computer let alone are motivated enough to do it. This is because Windows culture breeds contempt for choice and ignorance all around. It's apparently "better" to be naive and controlled then knowledgeable and decisive.
Or most people don't know why they'd need to buy a $400 dumb terminal when they have have a full blown computer for the same price. Most people don't care if their computer can support multiple users because they only have one keyboard, mouse and monitor. Oh, and there's the chance you can keep working if the network goes down.
Again people just don't know the power of it.
Bull, most people don't care, for the reasons I've already given. What are you going to say when Johnny wants to play Doom 3 but isn't at the console?
You'll never know unless they actually try. I think it would be sellable and there would be enough of a market.
No, that's not true at all. You see, there are a lot of products when never get manufactured because research shows there simply isn't an interest. Given the attitude of the Linux crowd here, how many do you think would actualy buy VS2005 for Linux? I'm sure there will be some, but not many. Especially given that most people here hate MS just to hate MS.
It hinders their ability to take their independent products and branch them out. VS shouldn't exist to prop windows up, it should exist to make software development easier.
But if VS can do both (foster the creation of windows only applications) AND make software development easier, then it seems the logical choice to keep VS Windows only. Those facts, combined with the small market for VS on Linux, means it doesn't make sense to port VS.
If they were truely worried about HIPA , then they would not be on Windows in the first place.
Please, enough of the mindless, baseless bashing of MS. There are valid complaints about them, but this statement just makes you look foolish.
Serious question: in what ways do you find it deficient?
.log files? It seems like those needed to be kept too, especially when sometimes it seems that a new .xac and .log were created and were significately smaller than the last 'big' file. I don't recall such a preference, is that new as well?
... well, to both, actually.
Well the documentation told me how to void a transaction, but the option simply wasn't there. GNUCash came with the distro, one of the last Mandrake 10.x releases, or perhaps Madriva 2005.
{Transaction > Void Transaction} menu from the register. This is new-in-2.0.
Funny, voiding a transaction was documented as being in the 1.8.x versions. Seriously.
The datafile itself is pretty straightforward XML, but you're right -- this would be nice.
It wasn't immediately obvious when I looked at it, XML or not. At any rate, a normal user isn't going to know what to do with the XML. Sadly, the one Java program I found which claimed to use the Xml to create a QIF would always bomb.. Don't know why.
Reports > Income & Expense > Expense Piechart
Reports > Income & Expense > Income/Expense Chart, Expense Barchart
Those sound new, but I don't recall anyway to customize the report. For example, if I only wanted Auto and Health categories in those reports, I don't remember any options to do that.. the report just appeared.
New in 2.0.
Didn't help me 6 months ago though.. and I didn't know when 2.0 would be coming out. Development to me seemed pretty slow.
Any but the datafile itself can be removed. But I agree, the backup system is confusing and annoying. There's a preference to clean them after a time-window.
I never knew which one to delete.. what about the
Hmm. The business features were actually a late addition. It's pretty much set up for personal accounting primarily. We'd love suggestions on how to tailor it better to that application
Well, I got the impression because I noticed a lot of options for payroll taxes, and some other things I don't recall at the moment, but didn't seem helpful to me as a home user. Maybe an option that askes if you're using it for home fiance or business accounting, and hiding options, and also relabeling some controls so that they make more sense to home users.
One big annoyance for me was setting up a recurring transaction; initially, the columns were labled as Funds In and Funds Out, but as soon as I entered ANYTHING it changed to Debit / Credit. Now, I did take an accounting course in HS, did well and remembered much of it, but for some reason I still get confused on Debit vs. Credit.
That said, I did like GNUCash; it did for the most part do what I wanted it, but there were alot of parts I didn't need. The biggest reason I left it behind though was because I decided to move back to Windows after giving up on Linux on the desktop. I wish I could remember more examples to better answer your questions, but its been about six months since I moved to MS Money.
Doesn't exactly help your argument, does it?
Obviously, because you can't trust anyone, you must experience everything for yourself.
On that note, off to Iraq so that I can do my own news gathering.
You're kidding right? How about having one computer service the applications? Why should I install and run Office on my laptop when my overpowered, underutilized 300Wh desktop can run it [twice no less] without blinking an eye.
Because unless you're on the same network there is considerable lag for remote controlling system (Windows or Linux). You say your desktop is overpowered an underutilized, but if you turn your laptop into a dumb terminal, than you're laptop will be overpowered and underutilized, will it not? The fact is that most people don't WANT anyone else use the computer at the same time they are. Remember, you are the EXCEPTION not the rule.
Or how about you're on the computer and I gotta get a file or something off it.
That's what the quick user switch is for; I'm using it, I press Windows+L, you click your user and login, copy the file, logout and then I go back to what I was doing. Or there is this thing called filesharing, which doesn't require you to login to a console session.
Or how about the other myriad of multi-user tasks [remote shells anyone?]
Again, you're an exception case here. 99% of home user's DON'T CARE about remote shells.
Quite a few actually. when I say "VS" I mean the IDE and RAD tools and not the compiler. Look at kdevelop, it's largely attempting to clone VS. Seems there is enough draw for it.
I agree, quite a few probably, but probably not enough to make it economically viable; that is, sales wouldn't cover the cost to port, test, maintain and support the Linux version. I'm not sure how kdevelop is a clone of VS, as it didn't seem to function anything like VS. Kdevelop was one of those frustrations I talked about in another story.
You'd be wrong. When another user remotely logs in, it logs anyone sitting at the terminal off.
.Net for Linux (although I happen to disagree, and would love an MS supported .Net framework + studio on linux). Finally, how many Linux users would develop on VS on linux? Probably not nearly enough to make it worth their while economically.
.Net development for x64 platforms and the .Net runtime is there too. Also, I've never used Win64; I've read other peoples comments that they thought it was better than WinXP32 (it sounded like there were features in WinXP64 not in 32, but I don't know one way or the other). The point is though that 64-bit windows isn't as much of a joke as you make it out to be.
Logs them off or supsends their session, which can be gotten back later? I seem to remember the latter, although 99% of my experience is with pro. Pro does this if not a domain member; your apps stay running but you can let someone else use the computer (they have to be at the console though). I have to say though, I agree with MS's decision. What use is there in letting someone else login to my workstation at work, and running programs which slow down my work? What reason is there at home (beyond letting someone else use the computer for a bit) for 2 users to simulatiously use the computer?
Really? What is it? I thought the VS teams job was to promote the use [and purchase] of VS and not prop up Windows sales.
One of the reasons is that MS does want you to develop on their platform. Another is that they don't see a good economic reason to develop
Good point. However, to say that Win64 is better than Win32 would require you to say Linux is better too than win32 [for basically the same reasons].
I don't know how much hardware is supported on Win64 vs. Linux. And its not just about drivers, availablity of software is an issue. As it is, VS2005 supports
As for the "costs". It creeps up. When you need site licenses for Windows, Office, VS, etc, etc, etc you end up paying millions of dollars a year.
Who said you need site licenses? You have to be careful when buying, to make sure you get the right licensing terms that fit your companies needs. Sometimes that's open licensing, sometimes select, sometimes its just buying retail. Its not millions of dollars a year as you say; if that were true, no company could afford to run MS software. Clearly lots of companies build their networks and software on MS servers, so this statement simply isn't true.
God I hate Microsoft licensing. You're right, you can use Web edition of Windows Server. I've been searching this for hours.
On this point, I will agree with you whole-heartedly. I will give them this though; it appears they are trying to make licensing clearer.. obviously they still have a ways to go, however.
Its not far off for me, I'll have fiber to the home by end of this year, give or take a few weeks.
No, not from the crappy telco or cable company, from the city itself. I for one welcome my city own fiber optic networking overlords.
Bullshit. You underestimate how long factories stay exactly the same. The same software can work for decades, it doesn't need updating just because some flash salesman turns up trying to flog all the latest bells and whistles.
Wow, you just want to believe what you want, and no one will tell you differently will they? Nevermind that I've been hired on by two companies and worked for another company which acted as consultates that wrote this kind of software. Here's a hint; I worked for a journal printer and am working for a medical equipment manufacturer. They decided to do this before they ever heard of me, otherwise there would not have been a job application for which I could apply.
If your software could count how many widgets were coming off a production like in 1990, it can do it until 2090 with no changes at all.
No one is arguing that. But when they want the software to automatically update inventory, and have their order processing software update inventory, there needs to be some changes, since it doesn't currently do that, does it?
Many companies are STILL just now moving away from paper processes; others moved away, but are left with a bunch of seperate applications which can't integrate to provide the seamless information management the companies want. Why you fail to believe this is beyond me, I can only assume you have no real world experience.
Windows is not a true multi-user OS unless you get the Pro editions. Other editions let you have users but not all logged in at the same time [even though the kernel would support it].
... why doesn't it work in Linux?
... um use NFS in Linux. It's a single line to setup [on either side] and handled natively in the kernel.
... if you have 64-bit drivers. Many proprietary [the standard for Windows] drivers are not yet ported to win64. The win32 thunking layer is barely functional.
... hmm ...
I was fairly certain the Home edition of XP lets more than one user log in at a time. It would seem odd that only Pro supports it, since usually Pro is part of a domain (and when it is, doesn't let more than one user at a time login.. but this makes sense).
As for VS2005
Are you asking why MS doesn't port it to Linux? I'd think the answer to that is fairly obvious.
As for SMB
I did use NFS for filesharing in Linux; but that doesn't help when you also have Windows clients, does it? And its more than a one line configuration. I was using SMB as a full domain controller as well, not just for filesharing. It wasn't easy to manage windows workstations using SMB as the domain controller.
As for win64
How is this different to poor driver support with Linux? Doesn't the blame go to the hardware manufacturers? Isn't that who's always blamed when Linux doesn't support X device? This claim doesn't back up the '64bit windows is a joke' theory.
If you ever have to re-install a copy of Windows [from the CD] you will likely have to call India to get a new product key. At least that's been my experience.
For home users yes this is an issue. but in the business world, you typically have volume license keys, which don't require activation. Also, you're usually NOT restoring from the cd that windows ships on, you're much more likely restoring from your last system backup.
As for ghosting, yeah I never said you can't ghost in Windows, I said you had to pay for it. In OSS world you can just rsync your disk to filestore somewhere else. Free tools that are work perfectly
rsync, you actually use that gaping security hole of a progam? I have to ask, when all is said and done, who cares if you have to pay for ghosting software? Really? Some poor college kid might, but I think for businesses ghosting software is the least of the cost of running.
See my previous post about authenticating users, as opposed to Anonymous.
It doesn't matter when using Web edition if the users need to be authenticated or not. Sql Server processor licenses also don't matter when authenticating users.
Secondly, I said Sql 2005 Workgroup 1 Processor. Please show me a link to a Authorized Reseller of SQL 2005 Standard 1 Processor for $2999.
I don't have a link, because like most companies, we have a representive at CDW that quotes us. I do have the order printed and sitting on my desk though, so I do know how much we paid (since I was involved in helping spec out what we need).
You wouldn't use CAL model for unlimited connections to SQL unless of course you have unlimited CALs. That's why you use the Processor license model.
We did use the processor license model.
Check your facts before chewing me out.
Again, I have the order confirmation sitting on my desk.
From MS:
Client access licenses (CALs) do not apply to Windows Server 2003 Web Edition. However, Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, can be used as the scale-out front end for applications such as Windows SharePoint Services and Windows Rights Management Services. In these scale-out configurations, Windows Server CALs and/or Exchange CALs may still be required.
And Organizations cannot use Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, to deploy Microsoft SQL Server, other than SQL Server 2005 Express Edition.
Please tell me which facts I got wrong.
Even if that was true I'd still rather have a proper UNIX environment anyways. Not to mention a real multi-user OS without shelling out huge dollars. Oh and the development tools and ...
... you're wasting your money.
Sorry, but with modern windows, what exactly is missing that dis-qualifies it from being a real multi-user OS? And FWIW, I've found VS2005 to be much better than any development studio I've tried for linux.
If you buy Windows to run AMP servers
So you think its better to have servers which don't integrate with your corporate network? $400 for Web edition isn't a whole lot to anyone running web farms.
Linux and BSD are more efficient to work with in server contexts
Your opinion, there's no fact to that. I replace my linux server at home with SBS 2003 because its easier to manage the network using SBS2003 than it was with Linux + SMB.
work better with 64-bit processors [Win64 is a huge compatibility joke atm]
I've heard quite differently; indeed, some people claim XP64 is the best desktop OS, even better than 32bit XP. I don't think the 64 bit servers are suffering huge problems either.
don't require you to call India each time your HD breaks and you need a re-install.
A bunch of FUD here; mearly replacing an HD doesn't require calling anyone, and alot of shops image the drives every night so that if there is a failure, they slap on the saved image and are up and running again in no time.
Heck, in BSD/Linux doing a ghost of your system is as simple as burning a tarball to a DVD.
You can easily save an image of a Windows installtion as well.
No need for 3rd party ghosting tools and praying that Windows lets you "get away with" using your OS...
Go ahead and spend hours and hours tarballing your server; the fact is that it would be faster to just create an image of the HD and burn that to a DVD. There's no praying involved; my former employer had great success doing such restores. And putting down a new image is faster than un-tarring a file to disk again.
Better documentation, transaction voiding (its supposedly tehre, but I could never find it), export to QIF (or any other widely used format so that if you chose to leave GC, you can), home user reports (i.e., pie graph of spending per category, category spending per month, etc etc). I don't recall any budgeting features. Also, I'm not sure, but I don't think I could download transactions directly from my credit union (without opening a file which is downloaded in some format). The last one... overright the same file. It seems as if on every save, I'd have 2 or 3 new files with some timestamp added to the filename itself.. so it was Myaccounts_200501234_20050123420050123420050123420 0501234_200501234.xac. How do I know which ones I need or didn't need? Oh, and get it running on Windows. None of those things would have kept me from keeping GNUCash for a bit longer, but when I wanted to go to windows, I had no choice but to abandon it.
I"m sure its great if you're using it for business accounting, but it seemed to be aimed much more at that use than home banking.
If you're supposed to be a windows expert, quit now. You are clueless.
First, you'd be the Web Edition of server 2003 for your webserver, no connector needed.
Second, your costs for Sql are not acuate; we are what you'd consider a small business, and Sql 2005 Standard cost us $2,999. Opps, wrong again. (FWIW, the server hardware cost $7,000)
Finally, please cite your refence that you can't use Sql Express for 'unlimted connections in a production environment.' I've failed to find such a statement from MS.
Because I don't feel like paying $1500 per machine for Windows 2003 server on every server in my web farm. Shit, that's twice as much as the servers I'd run it on! Grid computing and server farms are very poorly suited to a commercial operating system.
Ugh, what a load of FUD if I ever heard it. Mod this ignorant moron down, as anyone setting up a Windows web farm would buy Windows Server 2003, Web Edition for $400. Its likely cheaper with volume licensing.
Classic ASP is a horror from hell and I think soured many from using MS web solutions.
Ugh, I couldn't agree more. Classic ASP should have been replaced long ago. Once you do Asp.Net, the thought of having to work in classic Asp is enough to make you weep.
Go directly to .Net 2.0 if you can. There are HUGE improvements for ASP.Net in 2.0 (and in the framework itself).
What difference does it make to the testing? You can't change the IP stack, OS bottlenecks or the scripting engine itself. That leaves the app as the only thing you really want to have a hand in coding.
Its funny how everyone here points out 'poor research' if the research favors MS, but when it favors Linux, mostly everyone goes 'see! told ya so!!!'