Honestly, every time I've seen someone say 'the average user will never need more than this', they've looked incredibly foolish only a few years later.
The average user will never need more than a hundred yottabytes of disk capacity.
The fact a major, respected, industry leader has predicted an upstart new technology will not surpass the incumbent technology is an indication it is almost certainly false.
An industry leader who runs a company that has sold off all the other parts of the company over the years and now produces nothing but hard drives.
Let's be honest, he's hardly going to say "Disks are dead within 5 years. Unfortunately, we'd need to put in 6 years of R&D to catch up with everyone else in the solid state storage arena."
Because when their computer is completely hosed and borderline unusable as a direct result, the chances are the OP or someone in a similar role will have to pick up the pieces. This gets really old really fast.
Myself, I think there may be something to be said for the endpoint security products that combine centrally managed antivirus, firewall and antispyware features.
Nokia's here in the UK are almost entirely still circular jacks, mostly 3.5mm jacks with a smattering of 2mm jacks. I found a lovely charger that's a 3.5mm with a 3.5-2mm adaptor and I'm making do with it. Still, if the fragile 2mm pin breaks like my last one, I'll definitely be craving a standardised USB one.
Funny, I was under the impression they'd been moving away from the larger jacks for some years. My last Nokia also had a micro USB port but it couldn't charge from it for some odd reason.
IIRC, the bluray specs mandate that each individual player has its own license key which is unique to that player. In other words, if they revoke one key they have bricked the grand total of one player.
DRM would fail in a truly free market because all producers can do is revoke keys. First, when a bluray key for a player becomes known, they can revoke that key, but that also disables all the legit players with that key.
DRM is not a problem if it's not protected by law. There's not a scheme that's been devised yet that cannot be cracked. The problem with DRM is that it is illegal to circumvent it and it has been mandated for some devices. Remove that legal protection and the content providers can add it all they like.
No, but blu-ray by design can have cracked keys revoked so any BDs published after a key is known to be cracked can't be played with that key.
In theory they could have done the same with DVD but that became rather academic pretty quickly as the encryption was so weak as to make bruteforcing it with an ordinary PC perfectly feasible.
Pretty sure it's just the standard POSIX ldap schema, IIRC I didn't set up a special schema at all.
Note that if you have end users logging directly into Unix/Linux authenticating via LDAP, they must be trained not to use passwd but instead smbpasswd otherwise the password synchronisation will be lost. I've no idea how you'd deal with that on a Mac.
Thing is, artists of any sort fall in and out of favour over the years.
Examples abound of people saying similar things to your own comment that "neither Marlowe or Kyd can hold a candle to Shakespeare" about musicians, playwrights and artists many years ago - and in the meantime, the artist being ridiculed has become most famous and the one being revered has fallen into obscurity.
I can't help but think that while people who are genuinely interested in the history of the Bible might find it fascinating, there's a certain amount of "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". Particularly among any that are interested in the history of the Bible because of their own religious beliefs rather than just an academic interest in a very old book.
Well, seeing as Shakespeare insists on remaining dead (and has indeed done so for almost four hundred years), I would venture to suggest that it's unlikely you're ever going to get a 100% guaranteed dead-cert answer to the question from a primary source.
Do you know if it's possible to simulate open directory on linux(etc)?
I work in a mixed environment too, with a Samba domain server for the PCs and no directory services for the Macs. Would like to unify the two if I could.
Have Samba use LDAP as the backend if it's not already, configure it to synchronise Unix and Samba passwords and you can have your macs authenticate directly against LDAP.
The difference is that with online document editing you increase your risks and likely your costs as well, while failing to gain anything.
Unless I am missing something? What exactly is there to gain from online document editing? From google docs or ms office 2010?
My employer's migrated email to Google - on my own recommendation and I'm the sysadmin. With, I must be honest, a strong aversion to outsourcing IT services in general.
The cost is lower than, er, using Courier IMAP and Postfix as we were before. We did have a backup MX at a co-lo, we won't need that any more. Google costs slightly less per month than the co-lo.
With the added bonus that if our Internet connection at head office fails, it doesn't result in the entire company being unable to receive their email. The obvious alternative: A second Internet link from an alternate ISP along with BGP support is a hell of a lot more expensive, and still wouldn't protect us against a power outage of more than a few minutes or a disaster.
This is before you add the cost of managing our own backup, providing reliable server capacity (half-decent servers with as many redundant components as possible and a 4-hour response warranty are about 4-5 times dearer than your average desktop PC and they need to be replaced every 3-5 years regardless of need because you won't get the support from the manufacturer after that).
When you get Google for Domains, you don't just get email. You also get calendar, contacts, documents - the works. So when we migrated email to google, we got all of this. The word processor they give you is nowhere near as sophisticated as even OpenOffice, but it's good enough for basic documents and you get the collaboration features similar to Sharepoint (essentially, you can be notified when a document is updated, manage permissions easily and it's all web-based so it's easy to share with others)
There are severe issues with reliability, availability, security and accountability
Thousands - if not millions - of companies already outsource significant chunks of their operating requirements (complete with some very confidential information) and are quite happy with the results. I don't see how document creation, editing and management is any different.
Your example is wrong. It's *expected behaviour* that documents printed on different computer+printer combinations will look different. What's important - and what Word is designed to do - is make the hard output look like the screen. WYSIWYG means What You See Is What You Get, not What You See Is What They Get.
A large part of this is that as part of the printing API, Windows allows applications to find out what printers are capable of. Word in particular takes full advantage of this, and renders documents according to what the default printer can do.
The Unix way, OTOH, expects the application to produce Postscript and it's the driver/printers' problem to render this appropriately on the page. Which, arguably, is the whole damn point of a printer driver
AFAICT, the main reason sharepoint is popular is because it doesn't require people to make particularly great changes to the way they work.
For years people collaborated on documents by emailing them around. Some people took this to its logical extreme and never actually wrote any emails - they wrote everything they wanted to say in Word and emailed that as an attachment.
Then it was pointed out that a lot of space would be saved by emailing a link to the document and you wouldn't be left wondering who had the most recent version.
Sharepoint doesn't require a particularly great change to this - once a document is in sharepoint, Office will open and save it directly so you don't have to mess around with storing it locally, working on it and finally remembering to upload it separately through some sort of web interface. A wiki, while it's a perfectly good solution - particularly for things which are never likely to require either printing or sending to an outside organisation - does require the end user to get used to a totally different way of working, which is never an easy sale.
It doesn't really work properly unless you integrate it with Active directory, Microsoft Office, Infopath, and ideally MS Exchange. Vendor lockin for the win!
Similar thing is true for most Microsoft server products. Exchange requires AD, in which case you may as well set up a domain and join all your PCs to it.
Most vendors encourage you to use entirely their own products where possible. However, I don't know of any others that go to such extreme lengths to try and sell you the idea of "use all our products or use none of them".
There was some article on/. only a couple of weeks back about how communication is important in the real world and the general tone of many replies was "No it isn't".
The fun bit is (and I'm sure it was unintentional), you've just proven the point beautifully. For example:
The GNOME developers in particular have been told on numerous occasions what an abomination their baby is, yet they continue to insist on defending it,
If the criticism is being levelled in those terms (and my own experience suggests it probably is), I'm not surprised. How many times in the whole of history has criticism in those sort of terms ever resulted in the person you're criticising looking back over their work and saying "You know what? You're right."? This is basic animal instinct - the natural response to an attack is defence. It sure as hell isn't a natural response to consider the attackers' perspective and think maybe they have a point.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, every time I've seen someone say 'the average user will never need more than this', they've looked incredibly foolish only a few years later.
The average user will never need more than a hundred yottabytes of disk capacity.
The fact a major, respected, industry leader has predicted an upstart new technology will not surpass the incumbent technology is an indication it is almost certainly false.
An industry leader who runs a company that has sold off all the other parts of the company over the years and now produces nothing but hard drives.
Let's be honest, he's hardly going to say "Disks are dead within 5 years. Unfortunately, we'd need to put in 6 years of R&D to catch up with everyone else in the solid state storage arena."
Because when their computer is completely hosed and borderline unusable as a direct result, the chances are the OP or someone in a similar role will have to pick up the pieces. This gets really old really fast.
Myself, I think there may be something to be said for the endpoint security products that combine centrally managed antivirus, firewall and antispyware features.
Nokia's here in the UK are almost entirely still circular jacks, mostly 3.5mm jacks with a smattering of 2mm jacks. I found a lovely charger that's a 3.5mm with a 3.5-2mm adaptor and I'm making do with it. Still, if the fragile 2mm pin breaks like my last one, I'll definitely be craving a standardised USB one.
Funny, I was under the impression they'd been moving away from the larger jacks for some years. My last Nokia also had a micro USB port but it couldn't charge from it for some odd reason.
When they finally mailed it out to us, 6 months after billing my company / me thousands of dollars for it,
Is your company in the habit of paying bills for items you haven't received yet?
I call bs. If you'd said he'd shot up the place and fled, I'd have believed you.
Koala: noun. A large bear, found in China. Eats, shoots, and leaves.
What the Hell is a Koala doing in China?
Maybe I should have made that clearer.
IIRC, the bluray specs mandate that each individual player has its own license key which is unique to that player. In other words, if they revoke one key they have bricked the grand total of one player.
DRM would fail in a truly free market because all producers can do is revoke keys. First, when a bluray key for a player becomes known, they can revoke that key, but that also disables all the legit players with that key.
Of which, IIRC, there will be only one.
some careful Googling on the "Engineering Windows 7" blog would do the trick.
So the OS might be OK but they still can't write a search engine for toffee.
With Win95 and 98, minimum meant Windows may be slower if the user was doing processor intensive. More memory would definitely fix it
So, how did you get on with running Windows '95 on a 16Mhz 386DX with 4MB RAM and a 100MB hard disk?
DRM is not a problem if it's not protected by law. There's not a scheme that's been devised yet that cannot be cracked. The problem with DRM is that it is illegal to circumvent it and it has been mandated for some devices. Remove that legal protection and the content providers can add it all they like.
No, but blu-ray by design can have cracked keys revoked so any BDs published after a key is known to be cracked can't be played with that key.
In theory they could have done the same with DVD but that became rather academic pretty quickly as the encryption was so weak as to make bruteforcing it with an ordinary PC perfectly feasible.
Pretty sure it's just the standard POSIX ldap schema, IIRC I didn't set up a special schema at all.
Note that if you have end users logging directly into Unix/Linux authenticating via LDAP, they must be trained not to use passwd but instead smbpasswd otherwise the password synchronisation will be lost. I've no idea how you'd deal with that on a Mac.
CFO: "Fuck that. I don't have time to waste. You said Excel will open in? Get that installed on here NOW!"
IT: No can do, I'm afraid. You used the money that we saved - that you mandated we save - on Office licenses to buy a new ivory back scratcher.
Thing is, artists of any sort fall in and out of favour over the years.
Examples abound of people saying similar things to your own comment that "neither Marlowe or Kyd can hold a candle to Shakespeare" about musicians, playwrights and artists many years ago - and in the meantime, the artist being ridiculed has become most famous and the one being revered has fallen into obscurity.
I can't help but think that while people who are genuinely interested in the history of the Bible might find it fascinating, there's a certain amount of "be careful what you ask for, you just might get it". Particularly among any that are interested in the history of the Bible because of their own religious beliefs rather than just an academic interest in a very old book.
Well, seeing as Shakespeare insists on remaining dead (and has indeed done so for almost four hundred years), I would venture to suggest that it's unlikely you're ever going to get a 100% guaranteed dead-cert answer to the question from a primary source.
Do you know if it's possible to simulate open directory on linux(etc)?
I work in a mixed environment too, with a Samba domain server for the PCs and no directory services for the Macs. Would like to unify the two if I could.
Have Samba use LDAP as the backend if it's not already, configure it to synchronise Unix and Samba passwords and you can have your macs authenticate directly against LDAP.
The difference is that with online document editing you increase your risks and likely your costs as well, while failing to gain anything.
Unless I am missing something? What exactly is there to gain from online document editing? From google docs or ms office 2010?
My employer's migrated email to Google - on my own recommendation and I'm the sysadmin. With, I must be honest, a strong aversion to outsourcing IT services in general.
The cost is lower than, er, using Courier IMAP and Postfix as we were before. We did have a backup MX at a co-lo, we won't need that any more. Google costs slightly less per month than the co-lo.
With the added bonus that if our Internet connection at head office fails, it doesn't result in the entire company being unable to receive their email. The obvious alternative: A second Internet link from an alternate ISP along with BGP support is a hell of a lot more expensive, and still wouldn't protect us against a power outage of more than a few minutes or a disaster.
This is before you add the cost of managing our own backup, providing reliable server capacity (half-decent servers with as many redundant components as possible and a 4-hour response warranty are about 4-5 times dearer than your average desktop PC and they need to be replaced every 3-5 years regardless of need because you won't get the support from the manufacturer after that).
When you get Google for Domains, you don't just get email. You also get calendar, contacts, documents - the works. So when we migrated email to google, we got all of this. The word processor they give you is nowhere near as sophisticated as even OpenOffice, but it's good enough for basic documents and you get the collaboration features similar to Sharepoint (essentially, you can be notified when a document is updated, manage permissions easily and it's all web-based so it's easy to share with others)
There are severe issues with reliability, availability, security and accountability
Thousands - if not millions - of companies already outsource significant chunks of their operating requirements (complete with some very confidential information) and are quite happy with the results. I don't see how document creation, editing and management is any different.
Your example is wrong. It's *expected behaviour* that documents printed on different computer+printer combinations will look different. What's important - and what Word is designed to do - is make the hard output look like the screen. WYSIWYG means What You See Is What You Get, not What You See Is What They Get.
A large part of this is that as part of the printing API, Windows allows applications to find out what printers are capable of. Word in particular takes full advantage of this, and renders documents according to what the default printer can do.
The Unix way, OTOH, expects the application to produce Postscript and it's the driver/printers' problem to render this appropriately on the page. Which, arguably, is the whole damn point of a printer driver
AFAICT, the main reason sharepoint is popular is because it doesn't require people to make particularly great changes to the way they work.
For years people collaborated on documents by emailing them around. Some people took this to its logical extreme and never actually wrote any emails - they wrote everything they wanted to say in Word and emailed that as an attachment.
Then it was pointed out that a lot of space would be saved by emailing a link to the document and you wouldn't be left wondering who had the most recent version.
Sharepoint doesn't require a particularly great change to this - once a document is in sharepoint, Office will open and save it directly so you don't have to mess around with storing it locally, working on it and finally remembering to upload it separately through some sort of web interface. A wiki, while it's a perfectly good solution - particularly for things which are never likely to require either printing or sending to an outside organisation - does require the end user to get used to a totally different way of working, which is never an easy sale.
It doesn't really work properly unless you integrate it with Active directory, Microsoft Office, Infopath, and ideally MS Exchange. Vendor lockin for the win!
Similar thing is true for most Microsoft server products. Exchange requires AD, in which case you may as well set up a domain and join all your PCs to it.
Most vendors encourage you to use entirely their own products where possible. However, I don't know of any others that go to such extreme lengths to try and sell you the idea of "use all our products or use none of them".
What does Free the United Kingdom from Drugs have to do with this?
There was some article on /. only a couple of weeks back about how communication is important in the real world and the general tone of many replies was "No it isn't".
The fun bit is (and I'm sure it was unintentional), you've just proven the point beautifully. For example:
The GNOME developers in particular have been told on numerous occasions what an abomination their baby is, yet they continue to insist on defending it,
If the criticism is being levelled in those terms (and my own experience suggests it probably is), I'm not surprised. How many times in the whole of history has criticism in those sort of terms ever resulted in the person you're criticising looking back over their work and saying "You know what? You're right."? This is basic animal instinct - the natural response to an attack is defence. It sure as hell isn't a natural response to consider the attackers' perspective and think maybe they have a point.
Underwater basket weaving majors have income?
Of course they do! You don't think those people you say "I'll have a big mac and fries, please" to are doing it out of the goodness of their heart?