I administer two Openfire servers at different locations in my company. One runs on a Windows server, the other on a Linux server. One has a mysql backend, the other runs on MS SQL. Both integrate seamlessly with Active Directory, and provide SSL encrypted communications between each other and the clients. Honestly, despite the vastly differing setups between the two sites, it's amazing how easy it was to get them to work with each other. I have to admit that Spark needs quite a bit of work, but there are a million good XMPP clients out there, and all work fine with Openfire. I think this is one of the best open-source projects I've ever come across, and should be a pretty simple one word answer to the post question.
That's the beauty of the./ system, though. People are free to troll as much as they want, and the community at large is free to mod those people down so that they have less of a voice to spew their idiocy. Turn off -1 comments, and you'll miss 99% of the GNAA, Goatse or "FIRST!!" posts. Make too many of those posts, and your Karma will dictate that nobody will ever see any of your posts.
If we just started ignoring the idiots in real life, they would go away, too. Instead, we put them on the news. All you have to do is wave a Nazi flag or hang a rope from a tree, and you automatically get +5 mod points just for being a moron.
Dude, I want to believe you in the worst way. Seriously. My wife pulls that "You can't eat ice cream. It's 9:00!" all the time. However, do you have any supporting evidence other than "Steve TV?" Doesn't really carry much weight. (No pun intended)
Anyone thinking their clothing has properties outside the laws of physics is weird. Whose laws of physics? Socrates? Newton? Einstein? Do you claim to understand all there is to know about physics where you can be the sole determinant as to what lies within and without the boundaries of these laws? If you had presented some of the ideas of relativity or quantum entanglement (or even gravity for that matter) during Socrates's time, they probably would have made you eat hemlock.
The point of my post is that I have trouble believing the validity of the claims of these companies. I read the article in its entirety, and said in my post that I have personally never had any luck. Just because a company uses some extreme examples (we recovered data from a hard drive that was run over by a tank!) doesn't mean that, in fact, a user with a head crash has a high probability that they will recover data.
In my professional career, I've sent around 10 drives out for recovery, (various companies) and none of them were able to be successfully recovered. I think that most of these companies use some variation of R-Tools so that they can quote amazing statistics on their websites. (Over 99% of all data is recoverable!)
Sure, I suppose if the drive has bad electronics AND the head hasn't crashed, you might have some luck, but I never seem to get any of those cases. As far as people accidentally formatting their drives or deleting files, I can recover that stuff myself.
I second that statement. I'm not a dumb guy by most standards, and I found the install to be problematic, even using Windows and Firefox. I still haven't gotten it to work properly on my PC at work. Mind you, I haven't tried very hard. (Click here... restart browser... meh... didn't work. Oh well.)
I actually tried to get the *nix runtime working, and it's definitely not something the average user could do at this point. (Even the averate Linux user)
ZFS doesnt offer me anything as im not managing servers
Dtrace doesnt offer me anything as im not a developer
SMF doesnt offer me anything i cant do with startup
IPS doesnt seam any better than deb or rpm
Is there any reason to switch? Well, for one, Solaris (and a few other OSes) support a new key just to the left of the "enter" key called the "apostrophe" key.;)
I'm running Vista Ultimate on a dual quad-core server with 500GB of standard RAM as a disk and I can boot in under a minute and use Outlook AND Word at the same time. Wow... we're almost performing up to the level we were at in 1989.
Unfortunately, the unwashed masses don't care about privacy anymore. To them, the only people who use technologies like Tor are terrorists and child pornographers.
your firewall is still secure unless you do something stupid like use the same password on both machines You do understand that G-Archiver is supposed to be sending encrypted packets back and forth to the gmail server, don't you? There's just no way a hardware firewall would/could/should notice that it's sending passwords to a separate gmail account. There is no way for any firewall (except perhaps one owned by the NSA) to notice that the application is pwned.
Nice post. I think you just completely answered this submitter's question with one simple thought. I consider myself a spiritual person, and while I don't yet subscribe to the teachings of any organized religion, I don't think I'm unintelligent for acknowledging that there's more to the Universe than we can understand or even perceive. I make no scientific claims on my belief, and it's based on my upbringing coupled with my own personal observations of the world around me.
On the other hand, if I said "Next Friday, you're going to find the love of your life" and you don't, that's pretty solid evidence that I'm full of BS.
I have to answer this seriously, as I recently started using FreeBSD for two specific projects, and I'm loving it. First and foremost, it's great when you know EXACTLY what you need to do. I'm speaking here of FreeNAS and pfSense. Both are designed to be embedded and run on FreeBSD, and both were designed to do very specific tasks. Both will install entirely on and boot directly from any garden variety USB flash drive. Because the memory footprint is so small, they run by loading the entire OS into a RAMdrive, eliminating the need for a noisy and failure-prone hard drive. This results in a quick boot and very speedy application. The base configuration of FreeNAS (at the most recent release) is like 54MB installed and will run (literally) on a first-generation XBOX. From these measly specs, you can get a fully functional device, complete with NFS, Samba, FTP server, full Active Directory integration, iSCSI target, SMART, Software RAID, and many other file-server specific features, all of which are configured through an easy to use WebGUI. The Linux equivalent of the same file server distro is Openfiler, and having downloaded and tried that out, I can say that FreeNAS is light years ahead. Much easier, faster, smaller footprint, etc. Much of these same comparisons can be made with pfSense vs. IPCop. The Linux equivalents are generally larger, heavier and well suited for more general use, whereas the BSD versions are extremely light.
Strangely enough, I had many more hardware compatibility problems with the Linux equivalents as well, which is where I thought Linux should really shine. The BSD versions detect all hardware at bootup, and only load the specific driver modules for the hardware that they actually use. Compiling and installing additional modules, while tricky at first, is actually easier than I've ever experienced in Linux. I actually got my hardware RAID card working out of the box on FreeNAS, and after weeks of fighting, have yet to get the same card working on a separate install of CentOS for a different server. It should be said that I put absolutely no effort into choosing BSD-specific hardware. It may have just been blind luck.
Now, despite all this gushing over these apps, they are clearly designed for a specific purpose. I wouldn't want to use my FreeNAS box as an email server, or run my company knowledgebase off of pfSense. But if you want to dust off an old PC, slap a couple of hard drives in there and make a file server, you can do no better than FreeNAS.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but conversely, you could also make a nice salary supporting Linux installations, along with PostgreSQL, IPCop and thousands of other FOSS programs out there. Additionally, I could argue that the companies who employ your services would have much more money to spend on your services if they weren't paying tens of thousands of dollars for a database system. Now, I do concede the point that Microsoft's software does create wealth, but I don't think they do it by virtue of the fact that they charge for their product. I'm really just shooting down your argument above that your business couldn't make money without Microsoft. Essentially, you're saying that the choices are either Microsoft or "all paper."
I still don't really see a problem. First off, half the customers will cancel as soon as they find out they can't get Google and Yahoo. If Google really wants to go after that business, they could come up with a "safe" page, maybe by an alternate URL or maybe a filter by IP address block, that doesn't offer the option to turn off SafeSearch. Either solution would take about 15 minutes to implement because the framework is already there. Both would be equally ineffective against teenage boys looking for pr0n. Honestly, I think the idea is stupid, but let the market sort that out. The key difference here is that Utah is not mandating anything. ISP's aren't required to censor anything. Just offering ISP's the parameters by which to achieve a state-sponsored "G" rating. If I lived in Utah, I'd just avoid any ISP claiming to have the rating because 95% of the Internet would be unavailable to me.
Let them do it. I don't see why Google and Yahoo care, they're not ISP's. Let the ISP's try to create some system that won't work, then they'll be sued out of existence when they are held liable. I don't see how this is bad for anyone except for the people who choose to pay for this service. People who live in Utah and have a brain will be completely unaffected.
Look how Discovery channel etc get hyped and dramatized and facts removed to make for a more entertaining package Actually, this is a myth. I know because I saw it on Mythbusters. And it was totally busted.
Slashdot Mirror
HEY!!! I'm American, and I'm offen.... oh wait. Never mind.
I administer two Openfire servers at different locations in my company. One runs on a Windows server, the other on a Linux server. One has a mysql backend, the other runs on MS SQL. Both integrate seamlessly with Active Directory, and provide SSL encrypted communications between each other and the clients. Honestly, despite the vastly differing setups between the two sites, it's amazing how easy it was to get them to work with each other. I have to admit that Spark needs quite a bit of work, but there are a million good XMPP clients out there, and all work fine with Openfire. I think this is one of the best open-source projects I've ever come across, and should be a pretty simple one word answer to the post question.
Did you mean FTC? I think this would be more likely to fall under their umbrella than the FCC. Nothing to do with regulation of radio waves.
That's the beauty of the ./ system, though. People are free to troll as much as they want, and the community at large is free to mod those people down so that they have less of a voice to spew their idiocy. Turn off -1 comments, and you'll miss 99% of the GNAA, Goatse or "FIRST!!" posts. Make too many of those posts, and your Karma will dictate that nobody will ever see any of your posts.
If we just started ignoring the idiots in real life, they would go away, too. Instead, we put them on the news. All you have to do is wave a Nazi flag or hang a rope from a tree, and you automatically get +5 mod points just for being a moron.
Sure I do. It's sitting in my closet on top of my copy of Duke Nukem Forever.
Never mind. For anyone interested, look here and here . Both seem to be pretty reputable sources.
Dude, I want to believe you in the worst way. Seriously. My wife pulls that "You can't eat ice cream. It's 9:00!" all the time. However, do you have any supporting evidence other than "Steve TV?" Doesn't really carry much weight. (No pun intended)
The point of my post is that I have trouble believing the validity of the claims of these companies. I read the article in its entirety, and said in my post that I have personally never had any luck. Just because a company uses some extreme examples (we recovered data from a hard drive that was run over by a tank!) doesn't mean that, in fact, a user with a head crash has a high probability that they will recover data.
In my professional career, I've sent around 10 drives out for recovery, (various companies) and none of them were able to be successfully recovered. I think that most of these companies use some variation of R-Tools so that they can quote amazing statistics on their websites. (Over 99% of all data is recoverable!)
Sure, I suppose if the drive has bad electronics AND the head hasn't crashed, you might have some luck, but I never seem to get any of those cases. As far as people accidentally formatting their drives or deleting files, I can recover that stuff myself.
I second that statement. I'm not a dumb guy by most standards, and I found the install to be problematic, even using Windows and Firefox. I still haven't gotten it to work properly on my PC at work. Mind you, I haven't tried very hard. (Click here... restart browser... meh... didn't work. Oh well.)
I actually tried to get the *nix runtime working, and it's definitely not something the average user could do at this point. (Even the averate Linux user)
Dtrace doesnt offer me anything as im not a developer
SMF doesnt offer me anything i cant do with startup
IPS doesnt seam any better than deb or rpm
Is there any reason to switch? Well, for one, Solaris (and a few other OSes) support a new key just to the left of the "enter" key called the "apostrophe" key.
I find it subtly ironic that the last two links in summary of the article about data loss are broken.
Unfortunately, the unwashed masses don't care about privacy anymore. To them, the only people who use technologies like Tor are terrorists and child pornographers.
Let's see... 1,000,000 knowledgeable geeks vs a couple dozen at nVidia... Yeah, I'd say we could.
They might have more direct knowledge of the hardware, but there is strength in numbers.
Nice post. I think you just completely answered this submitter's question with one simple thought. I consider myself a spiritual person, and while I don't yet subscribe to the teachings of any organized religion, I don't think I'm unintelligent for acknowledging that there's more to the Universe than we can understand or even perceive. I make no scientific claims on my belief, and it's based on my upbringing coupled with my own personal observations of the world around me.
On the other hand, if I said "Next Friday, you're going to find the love of your life" and you don't, that's pretty solid evidence that I'm full of BS.
I have to answer this seriously, as I recently started using FreeBSD for two specific projects, and I'm loving it. First and foremost, it's great when you know EXACTLY what you need to do. I'm speaking here of FreeNAS and pfSense. Both are designed to be embedded and run on FreeBSD, and both were designed to do very specific tasks. Both will install entirely on and boot directly from any garden variety USB flash drive. Because the memory footprint is so small, they run by loading the entire OS into a RAMdrive, eliminating the need for a noisy and failure-prone hard drive. This results in a quick boot and very speedy application. The base configuration of FreeNAS (at the most recent release) is like 54MB installed and will run (literally) on a first-generation XBOX. From these measly specs, you can get a fully functional device, complete with NFS, Samba, FTP server, full Active Directory integration, iSCSI target, SMART, Software RAID, and many other file-server specific features, all of which are configured through an easy to use WebGUI. The Linux equivalent of the same file server distro is Openfiler, and having downloaded and tried that out, I can say that FreeNAS is light years ahead. Much easier, faster, smaller footprint, etc. Much of these same comparisons can be made with pfSense vs. IPCop. The Linux equivalents are generally larger, heavier and well suited for more general use, whereas the BSD versions are extremely light.
Strangely enough, I had many more hardware compatibility problems with the Linux equivalents as well, which is where I thought Linux should really shine. The BSD versions detect all hardware at bootup, and only load the specific driver modules for the hardware that they actually use. Compiling and installing additional modules, while tricky at first, is actually easier than I've ever experienced in Linux. I actually got my hardware RAID card working out of the box on FreeNAS, and after weeks of fighting, have yet to get the same card working on a separate install of CentOS for a different server. It should be said that I put absolutely no effort into choosing BSD-specific hardware. It may have just been blind luck.
Now, despite all this gushing over these apps, they are clearly designed for a specific purpose. I wouldn't want to use my FreeNAS box as an email server, or run my company knowledgebase off of pfSense. But if you want to dust off an old PC, slap a couple of hard drives in there and make a file server, you can do no better than FreeNAS.
It's pronounced NEWK-yoo-lurr honey, NEWK-yoo-lurr.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but conversely, you could also make a nice salary supporting Linux installations, along with PostgreSQL, IPCop and thousands of other FOSS programs out there. Additionally, I could argue that the companies who employ your services would have much more money to spend on your services if they weren't paying tens of thousands of dollars for a database system. Now, I do concede the point that Microsoft's software does create wealth, but I don't think they do it by virtue of the fact that they charge for their product. I'm really just shooting down your argument above that your business couldn't make money without Microsoft. Essentially, you're saying that the choices are either Microsoft or "all paper."
I still don't really see a problem. First off, half the customers will cancel as soon as they find out they can't get Google and Yahoo. If Google really wants to go after that business, they could come up with a "safe" page, maybe by an alternate URL or maybe a filter by IP address block, that doesn't offer the option to turn off SafeSearch. Either solution would take about 15 minutes to implement because the framework is already there. Both would be equally ineffective against teenage boys looking for pr0n. Honestly, I think the idea is stupid, but let the market sort that out. The key difference here is that Utah is not mandating anything. ISP's aren't required to censor anything. Just offering ISP's the parameters by which to achieve a state-sponsored "G" rating. If I lived in Utah, I'd just avoid any ISP claiming to have the rating because 95% of the Internet would be unavailable to me.
Let them do it. I don't see why Google and Yahoo care, they're not ISP's. Let the ISP's try to create some system that won't work, then they'll be sued out of existence when they are held liable. I don't see how this is bad for anyone except for the people who choose to pay for this service. People who live in Utah and have a brain will be completely unaffected.