By that definition, it seems the most sensible thing to do is to get a number of boxes made up with "Another delivery from Amazon.com" printed all over them and ship your items in those.
There already is a drop-in replacement for Exchange (though I forget what it's called).
I looked into it. At the time I looked into it, it had the following things which made it a problem for me:
1. Entirely proprietary. (There may have been an open version but it was severely crippled) 2. Dependent on Active Directory. 3. Poor/no support for IMAP (this has since been fixed, but IMAP support is at 1.0) 4. (This is the big killer) Per-client pricing which winds up being near enough the same price as Exchange.
That was the best alternative I could find - and the only one which didn't require installing some half-baked sucky plugin for Outlook which sort-of works and sort-of doesn't. Of course, because I'd now be running some other product than Exchange, if I hit problems there's no reason why they couldn't point the finger at Outlook and why Microsoft couldn't point the finger at them - so the support could easily be effectively pointless. Not really an acceptable business risk if it's going to cost me the same as Exchange anyway and require me to set up the same Active Directory environment if I don't already have it.
The only other option is something Web-based, such as Horde but at the end of the day, most business users don't care about the server. They just want the client they like (ie. Outlook) to work.
The whole point of virtualisation products is to make running a bunch of servers easier.
If the virtualisation product can't provide a half-decent API for scripting and a UI for day to day use, then it's running behind VMWare, which can do that. And at the end of the day, if "being able to do everything on the command line" was considered so vital to businesses, there would be no such thing as Windows Server 2003.
I was quoted around £12-1400 per machine. Which, considering it allows me to multiply the use I'll get out of a £2500 server by a factor of about 8 or 10, seems to me a good deal.
Though right now I'm using the free server product because I don't have the budget for the SAN (or even to dedicate the tin to a Linux box supporting iSCSI), and without that I don't see the benefit in the expensive product.
I've not seen standalone SAN units at £5000 in the UK - more like £7-10K. But then, US$ price conversion has never been a strong point with most IT suppliers.
As an aside, I forgot to mention that there are NO other products other than VMWare ESX that offer "live migration" of a running VM from one hardware host to another.
My understanding is that for that to work, you need both the source and destination host server to have access to the same physical disk - either through shared SCSI, fibre channel, iSCSI or similar.
I've looked into the price of VMWare ESX (or VMWare Infrastructure as they now call it). As far as I could gather, if you've got the money for a half-decent small SAN for such live migration, the price of a couple of ESX licenses isn't a huge issue.
I really don't understand the business part of that. People, sure. You probably could fit a small person up the goatse mans' backside, provided they didn't mind it being slightly claustrophobic.
You missed an important point in my post - the phrase "goes on about".
"I took my son to a firing range to learn how to use a gun" is one thing. Spending 30 minutes in front of a jury going on about how it will make him a man, eventually sounding like one of the more eccentric characters Michael Moore filmed in "Bowling for Columbine", is quite another.
For application logging, while the OS provides a logging facility through syslog, it's down to an application (such as Apache or OpenLDAP or Postfix or what have you) to actually use it - the OS doesn't force the issue. Thankfully, most Unix applications are actually pretty good at doing so therefore getting everything configured properly is seldom a big deal - you can just check what went wrong in the logs.
Windows has a logging facility as well, but it's remarkable how few things actually use it.
Washing your car's not unusual. Taking the passenger seat out in order to wash the carpet with water is.
And it's not up to the police to prove he's guilty - it's up to them to prove he's guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". This is pretty difficult to do with nothing but circumstantial evidence, but the presence of a jury could count against Reiser here.
If that article is anything to go by he needs to learn some social skills fast. A jury of ordinary people may not be too keen on someone who goes on about "playing violent videogames with his son to make him a man", and thus not set too much weight by him simply asserting that he is a lot of things but no murderer.
In particular, I draw your attention to the fourth item down: ODF Converter Add-ins for Offce - a 1.6MB plugin which allows both opening and saving ODF files in Office.
So your solution to any random problem is "run it under a debugger"?
Would it really be so hard for the software writers to, oh, I don't know, USE THE LOGGING FACILITIES THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE OPERATING SYSTEM??. Windows has a perfectly good Event Viewer and APIs for writing to it, so how come hardly any software ever logs what it's doing?
Yes. That's why machines tend to have very poor accuracy rates, and the end result always has to be checked by an expert.
That's easy to do when you're dealing with a clear-cut, small crime scene, you've narrowed the perpetrator down to a few dozen suspects and they're likely to be still alive. None of those apply to a major terrorist attack.
EVERYONE can read ODF files. They may need to install extra software to do so, but the software is free (as in speech and as in beer) and if there isn't something available for their specific platform (because they're the only person left using the Amiga), there's nothing technical preventing them from writing their own.
The same cannot be said for Windows DRM-protected media.
It can't, but it's a pain in the bloody arse because you won't have anything like the indexing facilities on the p2p system of your choice and you're assuming that the entirety of what the BBC makes available will make it there
You have a point, but you're not thinking like a government.
AFAICT, government officials - at least the ones tasked with dreaming up projects like this - don't know the first thing about technology. All they see is a magic black box that can count votes a lot more quickly and easily than a bunch of people can, so "magic black box takes votes and counts them" is about the only thing on their list of requirements.
You or I or anyone in IT knows full well that the "magic black box" that people consider their computer to be could be doing literally anything inside. If the person who programmed it wanted a specific party to win - dead easy. But the government official probably never even considered the possibility that the "magic black box" they were commissioning might not return complete and correct numbers.
Your best friend didn't build an entire faith system on the predicate that if he proves himself to exist, he denies faith and without faith he is nothing.
Though I would point out that the headline act on Saturday was Iggy and the Stooges, and on Sunday was The Who. Both of whom have been around longer than most/. readers.
By that definition, anyone who believes that concepts such as irreducable complexity prove intelligent design and thus the bible logically believes in the non-existence of God, as per the very similar argument espoused by Douglas Adams in The Hitchikers Guide...
Might be interesting to try this argument with a creationist.
At the time I was working in a pretty large company and larger companies tend to be more anal about these things for fear of legal liability - they want the liability line to be clearly drawn so there's no question whose problem it is when something like that happens.
As it stands, the keyboard they recommended (and bought) me came to a total of about £225 (same set would cost about $225 in the States - go figure). Fantastic piece of kit, and if the existing one failed I'd buy another in a heartbeat, but at the time I had no idea whether or not it would help.
Slashdot Mirror
By that definition, it seems the most sensible thing to do is to get a number of boxes made up with "Another delivery from Amazon.com" printed all over them and ship your items in those.
There already is a drop-in replacement for Exchange (though I forget what it's called).
I looked into it. At the time I looked into it, it had the following things which made it a problem for me:
1. Entirely proprietary. (There may have been an open version but it was severely crippled)
2. Dependent on Active Directory.
3. Poor/no support for IMAP (this has since been fixed, but IMAP support is at 1.0)
4. (This is the big killer) Per-client pricing which winds up being near enough the same price as Exchange.
That was the best alternative I could find - and the only one which didn't require installing some half-baked sucky plugin for Outlook which sort-of works and sort-of doesn't. Of course, because I'd now be running some other product than Exchange, if I hit problems there's no reason why they couldn't point the finger at Outlook and why Microsoft couldn't point the finger at them - so the support could easily be effectively pointless. Not really an acceptable business risk if it's going to cost me the same as Exchange anyway and require me to set up the same Active Directory environment if I don't already have it.
The only other option is something Web-based, such as Horde but at the end of the day, most business users don't care about the server. They just want the client they like (ie. Outlook) to work.
The whole point of virtualisation products is to make running a bunch of servers easier.
If the virtualisation product can't provide a half-decent API for scripting and a UI for day to day use, then it's running behind VMWare, which can do that. And at the end of the day, if "being able to do everything on the command line" was considered so vital to businesses, there would be no such thing as Windows Server 2003.
I was quoted around £12-1400 per machine. Which, considering it allows me to multiply the use I'll get out of a £2500 server by a factor of about 8 or 10, seems to me a good deal.
Though right now I'm using the free server product because I don't have the budget for the SAN (or even to dedicate the tin to a Linux box supporting iSCSI), and without that I don't see the benefit in the expensive product.
I've not seen standalone SAN units at £5000 in the UK - more like £7-10K. But then, US$ price conversion has never been a strong point with most IT suppliers.
As an aside, I forgot to mention that there are NO other products other than VMWare ESX that offer "live migration" of a running VM from one hardware host to another.
My understanding is that for that to work, you need both the source and destination host server to have access to the same physical disk - either through shared SCSI, fibre channel, iSCSI or similar.
I've looked into the price of VMWare ESX (or VMWare Infrastructure as they now call it). As far as I could gather, if you've got the money for a half-decent small SAN for such live migration, the price of a couple of ESX licenses isn't a huge issue.
Or am I wrong?
I really don't understand the business part of that. People, sure. You probably could fit a small person up the goatse mans' backside, provided they didn't mind it being slightly claustrophobic.
Only on /. could someone clearly drawing an argument on ad absurdium be described as "Interesting".
You missed an important point in my post - the phrase "goes on about".
"I took my son to a firing range to learn how to use a gun" is one thing. Spending 30 minutes in front of a jury going on about how it will make him a man, eventually sounding like one of the more eccentric characters Michael Moore filmed in "Bowling for Columbine", is quite another.
Mostly Linux.
For application logging, while the OS provides a logging facility through syslog, it's down to an application (such as Apache or OpenLDAP or Postfix or what have you) to actually use it - the OS doesn't force the issue. Thankfully, most Unix applications are actually pretty good at doing so therefore getting everything configured properly is seldom a big deal - you can just check what went wrong in the logs.
Windows has a logging facility as well, but it's remarkable how few things actually use it.
Washing your car's not unusual. Taking the passenger seat out in order to wash the carpet with water is.
And it's not up to the police to prove he's guilty - it's up to them to prove he's guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". This is pretty difficult to do with nothing but circumstantial evidence, but the presence of a jury could count against Reiser here.
If that article is anything to go by he needs to learn some social skills fast. A jury of ordinary people may not be too keen on someone who goes on about "playing violent videogames with his son to make him a man", and thus not set too much weight by him simply asserting that he is a lot of things but no murderer.
You're right insofar as he doesn't do himself any favours.
But that could be just someone with exceptionally poor social skills, even for a stereotypical geek.
Well, let's try it:
Google Search for "ODF file". Every single link appears to be relevant.
In particular, I draw your attention to the fourth item down: ODF Converter Add-ins for Offce - a 1.6MB plugin which allows both opening and saving ODF files in Office.
So your solution to any random problem is "run it under a debugger"?
Would it really be so hard for the software writers to, oh, I don't know, USE THE LOGGING FACILITIES THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE OPERATING SYSTEM??. Windows has a perfectly good Event Viewer and APIs for writing to it, so how come hardly any software ever logs what it's doing?
Now you know why I took the conscious decision to do everything in my power to avoid going anywhere near a Microsoft OS ever again.
Unfortunately it's practically impossible to make that 100% and still hold down a job in IT, but it's quite possible to get to the 80-90% point.
Isn't matching fingerprints a hard AI problem
Yes. That's why machines tend to have very poor accuracy rates, and the end result always has to be checked by an expert.
That's easy to do when you're dealing with a clear-cut, small crime scene, you've narrowed the perpetrator down to a few dozen suspects and they're likely to be still alive. None of those apply to a major terrorist attack.
what do you think dirac came from
Di..what?
(yes, I know about it - like it's made the remotest impact)
And with respect, you're missing the point.
EVERYONE can read ODF files. They may need to install extra software to do so, but the software is free (as in speech and as in beer) and if there isn't something available for their specific platform (because they're the only person left using the Amiga), there's nothing technical preventing them from writing their own.
The same cannot be said for Windows DRM-protected media.
It can't, but it's a pain in the bloody arse because you won't have anything like the indexing facilities on the p2p system of your choice and you're assuming that the entirety of what the BBC makes available will make it there
You have a point, but you're not thinking like a government.
AFAICT, government officials - at least the ones tasked with dreaming up projects like this - don't know the first thing about technology. All they see is a magic black box that can count votes a lot more quickly and easily than a bunch of people can, so "magic black box takes votes and counts them" is about the only thing on their list of requirements.
You or I or anyone in IT knows full well that the "magic black box" that people consider their computer to be could be doing literally anything inside. If the person who programmed it wanted a specific party to win - dead easy. But the government official probably never even considered the possibility that the "magic black box" they were commissioning might not return complete and correct numbers.
Marching Penguin Bladed Wing Attack! Pow!
Wasn't there something like that in one of the Street Fighter games?
Your best friend didn't build an entire faith system on the predicate that if he proves himself to exist, he denies faith and without faith he is nothing.
God, OTOH, did.
I dunno, Glastonbury was pretty good.
/. readers.
Though I would point out that the headline act on Saturday was Iggy and the Stooges, and on Sunday was The Who. Both of whom have been around longer than most
By that definition, anyone who believes that concepts such as irreducable complexity prove intelligent design and thus the bible logically believes in the non-existence of God, as per the very similar argument espoused by Douglas Adams in The Hitchikers Guide...
Might be interesting to try this argument with a creationist.
When you word it like that, it sounds like Microsoft are turning into IBM.
At the time I was working in a pretty large company and larger companies tend to be more anal about these things for fear of legal liability - they want the liability line to be clearly drawn so there's no question whose problem it is when something like that happens.
As it stands, the keyboard they recommended (and bought) me came to a total of about £225 (same set would cost about $225 in the States - go figure). Fantastic piece of kit, and if the existing one failed I'd buy another in a heartbeat, but at the time I had no idea whether or not it would help.