I knew there was a reason I was on slashdot, haha... I was worried that there was 1.5 servers for every person in the company here but now you've made me feel better about my situation.
Course my problem is that we play transformers with our servers twice a year shipping half of them across the country and dynamically creating a new site where all the employees expect to be able to just plug in like they were back at home with no need to reconfigure everything. It's taken me three years but I've got a system that works now, of course it takes twice as many servers as would otherwise be required.
The paging is something that can be controlled in Windows, it may swap out too early for you but for that vast majority of people out there the default works just fine. For those like you, myself included, we modify the registry to change the swapping behavior.
I would like to see better file system support for Windows but I don't think that's going to happen. As for the scheduler, that behavior can be controlled as well. If I have an app that I know is going to be intensive then I just change it's priority and away I go. Even easier multiple cores and multiple processors as you can set affinity
Scheduling on the Linux end of things has definitely been improving faster than on the Windows end. I'd say after more than 10 years of course the kernel and the big distributions are going to pull ahead in some ways and stay behind in others. It's the nature of competition and the reason my next laptop will have a Linux distro on it with Windows inside a VM.
The thing that kills me is that "liberals" and "conservatives" have this entire issue backwards. You start by the basic principle that the climate of the Earth can, is, and does change and that staying our current course only speeds up the climate change. So if conservatives want things to stay the same, shouldn't they be FOR green laws to reduce our emissions to slow the process of change?
Given all the reasons to go green it baffles me that people are against it. I think slow change is better than fast change when it comes to the world at large. I have been called crazy in my time though.
I really should have added to my text to include the fact that the constitution only applies to what the government can do to the people. The constitution is not what makes it a bad decision to let scientists make decisions, it's the accountability involved in a publicly elected official that makes it the right person to make the hopefully informed decision.
Of course your statement is quite correct and it was entirely my fault for being unclear.
huh? We're in the U.S. we're all equally bound by the constitution whether janitor or senator. It really matters not, scientists shouldn't be making decisions about public policy but they certainly should be making their recommendations unaltered by publicly elected officials.
I see no reason to change how this works as that's pretty much how it exists today. Unfortunately that means the publicly elected officials invariably listen to corporate wants more than what is best for the most people. It's the price we pay as we can elect somebody else if our representative is bad enough to warrant a change. Of course with political parties mucking up the whole thing the issue gets more complicated with seniority and affiliation affecting appointments to committees.
I think we agree on this issue though in that scientists are not the right people to be making decisions about public policy but their voice is certainly worth hearing along with the people adversely affected by the proposed changes. Change is hard, and in my mind, it should be.
I think the millions of people on Youtube might beg to differ with your point of view there. A lot of those videos are edited with basic tools like Windows Movie Maker or the apps that come with any old HP laptop/desktop these days. Video editing is becoming a bigger and bigger deal although you can argue that current computers are more than capable of this kind of editing already and they won't care that they save a few minutes by upgrading and I'd be inclined to agree.
Your response is quite impressive because you leap to conclusions and ignore every point I made. You seem to have reading comprehension problems since I didn't say firewalling Microsoft was THE answer and I indeed said it was a bad move for Microsoft to make. Your blind hatred of MS speaks volumes as you only read what you want to read.
There are no DRM restrictions on Vista for media that isn't protected by DRM. That means I have complete control over my current and future media since I don't buy DRM laden music. No one has ever given a compelling or even semi-compelling reason to hate Vista because it honors a few standards out there. Curse Windows and Linux for honoring QoS policies, curse them for allowing 802.1X authentication, curse them all for doing anything that might restrict the end-user from doing whatever the hell they want.
Like it or not businesses have asked for these features and MS has obliged. You can argue with the merits of individual DRM implementations and the legitimacy of DRM in general but Vista supporting it in no way harms the user since it's supported, not forced.
Honestly I don't know why I'm bothering to respond since you only half read everything I wrote. I'm sure this post is already too long for you. I was not sugarcoating Vista and it's confounding that you accuse me of doing so given the number of valid negatives I stated about it in the same post. I even said the virtualization policy was not the best move and here you are accusing me of fanboism. You clearly don't even understand the implementation details of Vista since remote activation really isn't a problem. There is a reason that thousands hate Vista and a reason that some rather large organizations love it. The business versions give them everything they've been asking for and despite what you seem to think, you don't have to run another server separate from existing servers. It's easy to run right alongside your SMS server or any other server you like. It's just a service that doesn't even take up a lot of memory or cpu. You seem to be proponent of VMs, then it's even easier. You also neglect the phone option still exists allowing you to call your central office for a valid key instead of Microsoft. Although I only know of a few small companies which deploy machines remotely as that requires dedicated labor on-site. It makes more sense to deploy centrally and then ship the machines where you like. I do this for SUSE,Debian, and Windows because it means that I alone can deploy hundreds of desktops, maintain them all, monitor and maintain 30 servers and still have time to post on Slashdot.
That last bit might sound like bragging although the reality is that it's not impressive and that's my whole point. MS has only made Windows easier to deploy for businesses at the admitted expense of home users. Most people using Virtual Machines are not MAC or Linux users so your argument about forcing them to pay additional licensing is simply stupid or uninformed. I hope it's uninformed since that can change. Large companies by site licensing so whatever edition of Vista they have can be deployed in VM without any trouble. The problems as I already mentioned in my previous note certainly do outweigh the benefits for a good number of people but no one is suggesting or even encouraging everyone to go to Vista so I don't see why you have such paranoid ideas about MS being out to get those cursed Mac users.
MS has done a lot of bad stuff over the years, that does not mean that spreading FUD is a good idea as that only helps bolster their position since people will read what you spew and then ignore Linux or OS X because such stances are clearly not in the realm of reality.
The mere fact that you brushed off deactivating a machine automatically when it leaves the network is enough for me come to a lot of conclusions since you completely missed the whole point. If you've got sensitive information on a computer, you encrypt it! If the machine gets deactivated it doesn't get the keys to decrypt the
With Corp editions you authorize it yourself using your authorization server. You don't need Microsoft's permission. Only with personal/retail versions do you need to activate through Microsoft.
I can respect the decision to not support such behavior but it's certainly not more of an inconvenience then existing setups since you can authorize everything through SMS and group policy.
Of course that also means you can remove authorization from a machine if for instance it goes off-site without permission. The policy is tied to the machine so you would need to bring it back to get functionality restored which would happen automatically. Of course the thief could get around this by wiping the machine and installing their OS of choice on it.
You make a fine point but in addition opinions and controls over Google today don't have to be the same tomorrow. If they turn evil then we have some measured control we can exert. How effectively we exert it is a different question but theoretically they couldn't start dumping toxic waste into Seaworld so there is no point in fearing the impending apocalypse which involves my porn viewing habits being leaked to the press because I opposed legislation that Google later wanted. So far they seem to want to play nice. I say encourage this corporate attitude, embrace it! Ben and Jerry's was quite successful while holding onto corporate ethics, I see no reason why Google couldn't do the same thing.
The particular language Google wants added seems counter to their interests but creates a free market where you compete on quality of service which sounds good to me and sounds good for them given the nature of their products. It adds risk to the process but Google is acting as if it has nothing to fear from a little friendly competition and in reality, they don't. If only the big telecoms of the world would see this as a good thing. Unlike Sprint buying sprectrum and not even using it thus preventing others from using it.
Your posts interests me for some reason. Perhaps it's the blatant use of trolledness.
What draconian DRM are you referring to? I place a CD in my Vista box and it plays just fine, I can rip it to whatever format I like with nothing in my way. Now if I bought a CD with DRM on it then Vista will honor it. This makes sense to me given that consumers that don't care about DRM would then be allowed to do what they want and those of us that do care will choose not to buy DRM media. The added crap only runs if you're using DRM media so there's no problems if you're not.
Activation is indeed a problem although it's interesting that you explicitly state corp editions when it's a complete non-issue for corp editions and is only a problem for home users. For corp uses you have a central authorization server which you probably already have in the form of SMS. That's a complete non-issue a corp edition of Vista are not tied to the machines which is the whole reason business buy those licenses instead of retail.
Spyware, finally, something that at least has a hint of reality although easily filtered through an ISA server or most any proxy. If the proxy is transparent then the end-user won't even notice. A bad move and in my mind a sound reason for disliking Vista. That is definitely something MS should not have added to the OS.
I'm not sure what other cruft you're referring to or what you're particular problems are with the EULA. You are unlikely to want to virtualize the home versions or any of the light versions of Vista since the majority of Vista users out there are using more expensive premium versions. It's a stupid caveat for MS to have added and only serves to cut out the cheapskates from becoming customers but perhaps MS doesn't want cheapskate customers anymore perhaps because a lot of them are moving to Linux already.
Lastly, depending on the size and nature of the business just because users are happy with an OS doesn't mean that a newer OS won't give you the administrator a better ability to give users a unified desktop keeping users familiar with their surroundings and making it easier to deploy en masse. Plus there are other advanced shadow copy services which integrate with DPM natively to allow for versioning on your file server of whatever documents you wish whether they be ODF or xlsx.
Now of course not everyone needs to upgrades and most of course not everyone benefits from it. You however don't seem to be well educated in what Vista offers business users. Of course you might have perhaps just wanted a short post with a few quick jabs here and there. There are lots of reasons to dislike Vista just like lots of reasons to dislike any OS. You might want to pick things that are actually problems though. Memory management, footprint, processing power, broken legacy applications. Those are real reasons to dislike Vista. Of course per-user computer settings in group policy is mighty nice along with an image based install making hardware independent install images a snap are two reasons off the top of my head to like it. Of course there is also the improved shadow copy services, advanced auditing abilities, ease of compliance certification, complete administrative control over the desktop environment are just a few others.
I won't be deploying Vista anytime soon largely because of the hardware requirements. During the next lease refresh I'll surely consider it though weighing the good and bad for the company I work for and deciding accordingly. That probably won't be until next year though.
I dunno, the problem with analogies is that they are always wrong.
You're good mechanic may have diabetes causing his hands to shake. If he uses a manual screwdriver it will take him all day to finish a project. Give him the electric and he's done in seconds. Sounds to me like a good thing.
You're right that the tool is no replacement for a qualified professional but the tools can enable the person to do more in less time without having to worry about the small stuff they can move forward and start worrying about the bigger stuff. Why spend time messing with memory management if you don't have to?
There are times when you need the low level languages and they will always exist and it's good for people to know them but the majority of projects out there can be done using tools which are safer.
You wouldn't by any chance have tried to deploy Navision have you? hahaha... your post actually made me laugh. I had to inherent a Navision deployment, imagine my surprise when I wanted to replicate the data to another server so I could have an online backup. Whoops, the GUID column getting added stops the Navision client from being able to do anything!
Actually it does make it less efficient. The U.S. has lost 4000 soldiers in the years it's been since invading Iraq. That lost is significant but by no means leads to a win. It's only been used to continue our presence there. 4000 dead with several hundred thousand in reserve does not a good tactic make.
How many civilians and true enemy combatants have been killed against the 4000 soldiers that have been lost? I would say the fighting strategy is extremely both ineffectual and inefficient against the U.S.
Guerrilla fighting simply doesn't work. Best case scenario it causes the U.S. to say it's not worth it to prevent further civil war so we leave and cut off all economic ties and impose sanctions so no other country will trade and then the country starves because they can't or perhaps simply won't be peaceful. Of course it's hard when all sides have committed wrongs. Of course with all the oil involved it's going to take a long while before we agree enough that it's simply not worth it to leave all-together. More likely it we stop fighting and create a base and protect that one region instead of many. Overtime that region prospers while their neighbors continue to die. Perhaps in an optimal situation civil war wouldn't break out and the sides would come together without U.S. interference and then the secure region will prosper and the rest of the country will prosper and then the whole deal can be reintegrated.
In either case the problem is less of a technological problem. This technology will have little impact on who gets killed but it does reduce our own risk which will only prolong our resolve so you could say this will prolong the war.
Microsoft already did this with the OO-XML format that is used in Office 2007. It is a ratified standard or at least I recall them trying to get it ratified. Of course who in their right mind would want to work with Microsoft given the amount of control they like to exert. At least they aren't so blatantly acting against it these days. It would be nice if MS new office formats would be more open but I don't see it happening.
I would tend to think that a GPS tracking system for cars would be land based like what ships and boats use out at sea. Doesn't require the same level of transmission gear and is pretty damned reliable. You could certainly track cars as I believe that is what onStar does here in the U.S. already. Of course I suppose nothing stops car manufacturers from putting the required gear to transmit to a satellite or five.
You don't think removing someone's fear would lead to the exact same conditions? Some people are stupid no matter what drugs they take, and most have raging hormones against whether or not drugs/alcohol are involved. The drug will not change stupid or horny. If it does then no one will take it because our lives would become boring. "Stupid risks are what makes life worth living!"
This is intriguing though, I imagine it would help with a few personality disorders in addition to PTSD.
You've pretty much described the concept behind Cisco WAAS - Wide Area Acceleration Service. It caches locally to reduce transmissions over the wire intercepting packets as necessary. If you lose your connection to HQ then WAAS will continue to function as a replacement server responding to common packets as it did when everything was online. In this mode the data is read-only but still accessible. It's interesting technology to say the least. Cisco is not the only manufacturer with technology like this although its the only implementation I've personally seen in action.
The MAK proxy contains far more options than you seem to indicate as it can be built into an SMS package and deployed universally or individually or in groups depending on licensing. Then of course there are the 6 different pricing structures which reduce individual cost. Then of course there is still site licensing for even more choice. I would call that a number of options, even a myriad of options although I will grant that was probably a poor word choice.
It sounds like you've never been involved with the purchase of software assurance. Few companies pay it all up front and actually minimize the cash layout by spreading the payments out over three years. So 180k in MS software will result in 36k the first year, 50k the second year, and the remainder in the third year. Of course it all depends on how your company arranges the terms ahead of time.
With that said you have a point about software assurance being a bad idea but the ability to upgrade and down grade on the fly as well as lifting the hardware restrictions does make things more interesting. Of course you plan on assurance depending on the cost. Normally assurance saves a company money if they are planning on upgrading within three years. If you don't upgrade sooner then it's pointless and you might as well just pay the upgrade pricing when its time. Of course if you're licensing Windows this allows you transfer OEM licensing and role them into VL so you buy new machines you can use your Windows licenses on the next batch of computers. Lots and lots of options, definitely more complicated than it needs to be in my opinion.
I'm not sure, is this a troll? If so, well done sir!
If not you clearly don't know how Microsoft licensing works. You don't keep or maintain proof you own anything. It's all registered through Elicensing on Microsoft's own site. If you buy from vendor A they put in the paperwork with Microsoft and send you a copy so that you can authenticate through the licensing site. From there you can download any licensed product and you have a full inventory of all licensing you have purchased all in one place, serialized, and even commented.
Also, if you're a VL purchaser then you aren't activating Windows anyway as VL Windows XP at least doesn't require activation. With Vista there are a whole myriad of other options available even if they are more of a pain than with XP but don't kid yourself, there are a lot of options.
As for compliance checking, that is easily accomplished with an on-sight database. Hell, make it a Debian box running mysql. A simple login script can query all the installed applications and write all the information into a central inventory. Alternatively you can use Microsoft products for compliance monitoring such as Operations Manager and Systems Management Server if you have the money for such products.
Naturally there are plenty of open source compliance systems out there as well that make it perfectly easy to make sure you're not only in compliance with Microsoft but also Adobe and any other big software maker out there.
I would be curious about the number of businesses the BSA has investigated that have an existing VL agreement with Microsoft. I don't think it's ever happened although I recognize that it could happen so I guess it doesn't make any difference.
At any rate, genuine media is only a problem with Microsoft's retail products. OEM and VL products have different keys are difficult and/or pointless to fake in the case of a VL product since you can download the media yourself from the Eopen site.
The problem with that is that it makes sense to us. Most people would see that cell phone companies raising the rates of their voice service though. They had a general trend of reducing the cost of voice calls before data arrived on the spot. Now that data is here it's being treated as a separate beast to consumers even though from a technical standpoint it's just a different QoS priority.
It gives them a chance to charge more for added services which don't cost them anything additional so it's largely profit.
Of course the other side of the coin is the problems they've had with SMS and how unreliable it was when it was initially rolled out. Why could I call my friend in the UK but I couldn't SMS her? So people got used to the other idea that the quality and reliability of one service was unrelated to the other services the same company offered. That means they can charge different rates as well.
You don't think someone could take a picture of your property and build their property just like it? It's not only perfectly legal, it's not even that hard to do. Start small and look at cookie cutter housing in a lot of suburbs. Expand out and it's not that hard to make an artificial river if you're so inclined. If you already have a river nearby then it's even pretty easy. Getting trees that look identical might be a bit more difficult but I imagine it would be okay if branches were off by a few inches or feet.
With IP you simply can't do this as it would be considered infringement. Think live performances in bars for a recent example of this gone awry.
30 years for a copyright is atrocious though. If you're still making money on your copyright after 30 years then your product is big enough that the public is better served by moving it into the public domain. I would say 10 years or even 7 years would be far better terms for copyright. Of course that also depends on the field, if it's music versus software then it's usefulness will change over time. Of course that's a bad slope to be on since theoretically it would move people towards industries with the longest copyright terms. Of course I'm not sure how much money Microsoft is making on Windows 95 right now, that's 12 years old. Imagine if that copyright expired right now. The monopoly would start to crumble and Microsoft would be forced to come out with products that are actually new rather than resting on their past success.
This isn't a real touchpad, or at least, not a traditional one. It is small and efficient just like the eraser-mouse. The thing I hate about the Dell laptop I have is that is has both. If it has one or the other I'd be happy since accidental bumps of the touchpad move my cursor some place less convenient surprisingly often.
I've been using this keyboard for a while now and mouse and kb movements are pretty much the same, my hands never leave the keyboard and I have all the benefits of a mouse. It took me a few days to get used to it but it seems much more efficient for most people out there. It's definitely not for everybody as there is no number pad but for the majority of workers out there I think it would work very well.
I know in my own experience I use it for scripting a lot, it has some keys for text selection so it basically becomes a two-handed mouse.
How many people know they're using Linux on their phones? Do they know Linux runs a lot of DVRs? Do those numbers even count? The problem with counting Linux users is everyone is technically a Linux user. Do we then just count Linux desktop users? Is that number significant in any way?
Just a few honest questions here. You won't find much in the way of linux desktop OS users although their numbers are indeed growing. At what rate I have no idea as I believe that is hard to measure given.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew there was a reason I was on slashdot, haha... I was worried that there was 1.5 servers for every person in the company here but now you've made me feel better about my situation.
Course my problem is that we play transformers with our servers twice a year shipping half of them across the country and dynamically creating a new site where all the employees expect to be able to just plug in like they were back at home with no need to reconfigure everything. It's taken me three years but I've got a system that works now, of course it takes twice as many servers as would otherwise be required.
The paging is something that can be controlled in Windows, it may swap out too early for you but for that vast majority of people out there the default works just fine. For those like you, myself included, we modify the registry to change the swapping behavior.
HKEY_LM/SYSTEM/CurrentControlSet/Control/Session Manager/Memory Management>
I would like to see better file system support for Windows but I don't think that's going to happen. As for the scheduler, that behavior can be controlled as well. If I have an app that I know is going to be intensive then I just change it's priority and away I go. Even easier multiple cores and multiple processors as you can set affinity
Scheduling on the Linux end of things has definitely been improving faster than on the Windows end. I'd say after more than 10 years of course the kernel and the big distributions are going to pull ahead in some ways and stay behind in others. It's the nature of competition and the reason my next laptop will have a Linux distro on it with Windows inside a VM.
The thing that kills me is that "liberals" and "conservatives" have this entire issue backwards. You start by the basic principle that the climate of the Earth can, is, and does change and that staying our current course only speeds up the climate change. So if conservatives want things to stay the same, shouldn't they be FOR green laws to reduce our emissions to slow the process of change?
Given all the reasons to go green it baffles me that people are against it. I think slow change is better than fast change when it comes to the world at large. I have been called crazy in my time though.
I really should have added to my text to include the fact that the constitution only applies to what the government can do to the people. The constitution is not what makes it a bad decision to let scientists make decisions, it's the accountability involved in a publicly elected official that makes it the right person to make the hopefully informed decision.
Of course your statement is quite correct and it was entirely my fault for being unclear.
huh? We're in the U.S. we're all equally bound by the constitution whether janitor or senator. It really matters not, scientists shouldn't be making decisions about public policy but they certainly should be making their recommendations unaltered by publicly elected officials.
I see no reason to change how this works as that's pretty much how it exists today. Unfortunately that means the publicly elected officials invariably listen to corporate wants more than what is best for the most people. It's the price we pay as we can elect somebody else if our representative is bad enough to warrant a change. Of course with political parties mucking up the whole thing the issue gets more complicated with seniority and affiliation affecting appointments to committees.
I think we agree on this issue though in that scientists are not the right people to be making decisions about public policy but their voice is certainly worth hearing along with the people adversely affected by the proposed changes. Change is hard, and in my mind, it should be.
I think the millions of people on Youtube might beg to differ with your point of view there. A lot of those videos are edited with basic tools like Windows Movie Maker or the apps that come with any old HP laptop/desktop these days. Video editing is becoming a bigger and bigger deal although you can argue that current computers are more than capable of this kind of editing already and they won't care that they save a few minutes by upgrading and I'd be inclined to agree.
Your response is quite impressive because you leap to conclusions and ignore every point I made. You seem to have reading comprehension problems since I didn't say firewalling Microsoft was THE answer and I indeed said it was a bad move for Microsoft to make. Your blind hatred of MS speaks volumes as you only read what you want to read.
There are no DRM restrictions on Vista for media that isn't protected by DRM. That means I have complete control over my current and future media since I don't buy DRM laden music. No one has ever given a compelling or even semi-compelling reason to hate Vista because it honors a few standards out there. Curse Windows and Linux for honoring QoS policies, curse them for allowing 802.1X authentication, curse them all for doing anything that might restrict the end-user from doing whatever the hell they want.
Like it or not businesses have asked for these features and MS has obliged. You can argue with the merits of individual DRM implementations and the legitimacy of DRM in general but Vista supporting it in no way harms the user since it's supported, not forced.
Honestly I don't know why I'm bothering to respond since you only half read everything I wrote. I'm sure this post is already too long for you. I was not sugarcoating Vista and it's confounding that you accuse me of doing so given the number of valid negatives I stated about it in the same post. I even said the virtualization policy was not the best move and here you are accusing me of fanboism. You clearly don't even understand the implementation details of Vista since remote activation really isn't a problem. There is a reason that thousands hate Vista and a reason that some rather large organizations love it. The business versions give them everything they've been asking for and despite what you seem to think, you don't have to run another server separate from existing servers. It's easy to run right alongside your SMS server or any other server you like. It's just a service that doesn't even take up a lot of memory or cpu. You seem to be proponent of VMs, then it's even easier. You also neglect the phone option still exists allowing you to call your central office for a valid key instead of Microsoft. Although I only know of a few small companies which deploy machines remotely as that requires dedicated labor on-site. It makes more sense to deploy centrally and then ship the machines where you like. I do this for SUSE,Debian, and Windows because it means that I alone can deploy hundreds of desktops, maintain them all, monitor and maintain 30 servers and still have time to post on Slashdot.
That last bit might sound like bragging although the reality is that it's not impressive and that's my whole point. MS has only made Windows easier to deploy for businesses at the admitted expense of home users. Most people using Virtual Machines are not MAC or Linux users so your argument about forcing them to pay additional licensing is simply stupid or uninformed. I hope it's uninformed since that can change. Large companies by site licensing so whatever edition of Vista they have can be deployed in VM without any trouble. The problems as I already mentioned in my previous note certainly do outweigh the benefits for a good number of people but no one is suggesting or even encouraging everyone to go to Vista so I don't see why you have such paranoid ideas about MS being out to get those cursed Mac users.
MS has done a lot of bad stuff over the years, that does not mean that spreading FUD is a good idea as that only helps bolster their position since people will read what you spew and then ignore Linux or OS X because such stances are clearly not in the realm of reality.
The mere fact that you brushed off deactivating a machine automatically when it leaves the network is enough for me come to a lot of conclusions since you completely missed the whole point. If you've got sensitive information on a computer, you encrypt it! If the machine gets deactivated it doesn't get the keys to decrypt the
With Corp editions you authorize it yourself using your authorization server. You don't need Microsoft's permission. Only with personal/retail versions do you need to activate through Microsoft.
I can respect the decision to not support such behavior but it's certainly not more of an inconvenience then existing setups since you can authorize everything through SMS and group policy.
Of course that also means you can remove authorization from a machine if for instance it goes off-site without permission. The policy is tied to the machine so you would need to bring it back to get functionality restored which would happen automatically. Of course the thief could get around this by wiping the machine and installing their OS of choice on it.
You make a fine point but in addition opinions and controls over Google today don't have to be the same tomorrow. If they turn evil then we have some measured control we can exert. How effectively we exert it is a different question but theoretically they couldn't start dumping toxic waste into Seaworld so there is no point in fearing the impending apocalypse which involves my porn viewing habits being leaked to the press because I opposed legislation that Google later wanted. So far they seem to want to play nice. I say encourage this corporate attitude, embrace it! Ben and Jerry's was quite successful while holding onto corporate ethics, I see no reason why Google couldn't do the same thing.
The particular language Google wants added seems counter to their interests but creates a free market where you compete on quality of service which sounds good to me and sounds good for them given the nature of their products. It adds risk to the process but Google is acting as if it has nothing to fear from a little friendly competition and in reality, they don't. If only the big telecoms of the world would see this as a good thing. Unlike Sprint buying sprectrum and not even using it thus preventing others from using it.
Your posts interests me for some reason. Perhaps it's the blatant use of trolledness.
What draconian DRM are you referring to? I place a CD in my Vista box and it plays just fine, I can rip it to whatever format I like with nothing in my way. Now if I bought a CD with DRM on it then Vista will honor it. This makes sense to me given that consumers that don't care about DRM would then be allowed to do what they want and those of us that do care will choose not to buy DRM media. The added crap only runs if you're using DRM media so there's no problems if you're not.
Activation is indeed a problem although it's interesting that you explicitly state corp editions when it's a complete non-issue for corp editions and is only a problem for home users. For corp uses you have a central authorization server which you probably already have in the form of SMS. That's a complete non-issue a corp edition of Vista are not tied to the machines which is the whole reason business buy those licenses instead of retail.
Spyware, finally, something that at least has a hint of reality although easily filtered through an ISA server or most any proxy. If the proxy is transparent then the end-user won't even notice. A bad move and in my mind a sound reason for disliking Vista. That is definitely something MS should not have added to the OS.
I'm not sure what other cruft you're referring to or what you're particular problems are with the EULA. You are unlikely to want to virtualize the home versions or any of the light versions of Vista since the majority of Vista users out there are using more expensive premium versions. It's a stupid caveat for MS to have added and only serves to cut out the cheapskates from becoming customers but perhaps MS doesn't want cheapskate customers anymore perhaps because a lot of them are moving to Linux already.
Lastly, depending on the size and nature of the business just because users are happy with an OS doesn't mean that a newer OS won't give you the administrator a better ability to give users a unified desktop keeping users familiar with their surroundings and making it easier to deploy en masse. Plus there are other advanced shadow copy services which integrate with DPM natively to allow for versioning on your file server of whatever documents you wish whether they be ODF or xlsx.
Now of course not everyone needs to upgrades and most of course not everyone benefits from it. You however don't seem to be well educated in what Vista offers business users. Of course you might have perhaps just wanted a short post with a few quick jabs here and there. There are lots of reasons to dislike Vista just like lots of reasons to dislike any OS. You might want to pick things that are actually problems though. Memory management, footprint, processing power, broken legacy applications. Those are real reasons to dislike Vista. Of course per-user computer settings in group policy is mighty nice along with an image based install making hardware independent install images a snap are two reasons off the top of my head to like it. Of course there is also the improved shadow copy services, advanced auditing abilities, ease of compliance certification, complete administrative control over the desktop environment are just a few others.
I won't be deploying Vista anytime soon largely because of the hardware requirements. During the next lease refresh I'll surely consider it though weighing the good and bad for the company I work for and deciding accordingly. That probably won't be until next year though.
I dunno, the problem with analogies is that they are always wrong.
You're good mechanic may have diabetes causing his hands to shake. If he uses a manual screwdriver it will take him all day to finish a project. Give him the electric and he's done in seconds. Sounds to me like a good thing.
You're right that the tool is no replacement for a qualified professional but the tools can enable the person to do more in less time without having to worry about the small stuff they can move forward and start worrying about the bigger stuff. Why spend time messing with memory management if you don't have to?
There are times when you need the low level languages and they will always exist and it's good for people to know them but the majority of projects out there can be done using tools which are safer.
You wouldn't by any chance have tried to deploy Navision have you? hahaha... your post actually made me laugh. I had to inherent a Navision deployment, imagine my surprise when I wanted to replicate the data to another server so I could have an online backup. Whoops, the GUID column getting added stops the Navision client from being able to do anything!
Actually it does make it less efficient. The U.S. has lost 4000 soldiers in the years it's been since invading Iraq. That lost is significant but by no means leads to a win. It's only been used to continue our presence there. 4000 dead with several hundred thousand in reserve does not a good tactic make.
How many civilians and true enemy combatants have been killed against the 4000 soldiers that have been lost? I would say the fighting strategy is extremely both ineffectual and inefficient against the U.S.
Guerrilla fighting simply doesn't work. Best case scenario it causes the U.S. to say it's not worth it to prevent further civil war so we leave and cut off all economic ties and impose sanctions so no other country will trade and then the country starves because they can't or perhaps simply won't be peaceful. Of course it's hard when all sides have committed wrongs. Of course with all the oil involved it's going to take a long while before we agree enough that it's simply not worth it to leave all-together. More likely it we stop fighting and create a base and protect that one region instead of many. Overtime that region prospers while their neighbors continue to die. Perhaps in an optimal situation civil war wouldn't break out and the sides would come together without U.S. interference and then the secure region will prosper and the rest of the country will prosper and then the whole deal can be reintegrated.
In either case the problem is less of a technological problem. This technology will have little impact on who gets killed but it does reduce our own risk which will only prolong our resolve so you could say this will prolong the war.
Microsoft already did this with the OO-XML format that is used in Office 2007. It is a ratified standard or at least I recall them trying to get it ratified. Of course who in their right mind would want to work with Microsoft given the amount of control they like to exert. At least they aren't so blatantly acting against it these days. It would be nice if MS new office formats would be more open but I don't see it happening.
I would tend to think that a GPS tracking system for cars would be land based like what ships and boats use out at sea. Doesn't require the same level of transmission gear and is pretty damned reliable. You could certainly track cars as I believe that is what onStar does here in the U.S. already. Of course I suppose nothing stops car manufacturers from putting the required gear to transmit to a satellite or five.
You don't think removing someone's fear would lead to the exact same conditions? Some people are stupid no matter what drugs they take, and most have raging hormones against whether or not drugs/alcohol are involved. The drug will not change stupid or horny. If it does then no one will take it because our lives would become boring. "Stupid risks are what makes life worth living!"
This is intriguing though, I imagine it would help with a few personality disorders in addition to PTSD.
You've pretty much described the concept behind Cisco WAAS - Wide Area Acceleration Service. It caches locally to reduce transmissions over the wire intercepting packets as necessary. If you lose your connection to HQ then WAAS will continue to function as a replacement server responding to common packets as it did when everything was online. In this mode the data is read-only but still accessible. It's interesting technology to say the least. Cisco is not the only manufacturer with technology like this although its the only implementation I've personally seen in action.
The MAK proxy contains far more options than you seem to indicate as it can be built into an SMS package and deployed universally or individually or in groups depending on licensing. Then of course there are the 6 different pricing structures which reduce individual cost. Then of course there is still site licensing for even more choice. I would call that a number of options, even a myriad of options although I will grant that was probably a poor word choice.
It sounds like you've never been involved with the purchase of software assurance. Few companies pay it all up front and actually minimize the cash layout by spreading the payments out over three years. So 180k in MS software will result in 36k the first year, 50k the second year, and the remainder in the third year. Of course it all depends on how your company arranges the terms ahead of time.
With that said you have a point about software assurance being a bad idea but the ability to upgrade and down grade on the fly as well as lifting the hardware restrictions does make things more interesting. Of course you plan on assurance depending on the cost. Normally assurance saves a company money if they are planning on upgrading within three years. If you don't upgrade sooner then it's pointless and you might as well just pay the upgrade pricing when its time. Of course if you're licensing Windows this allows you transfer OEM licensing and role them into VL so you buy new machines you can use your Windows licenses on the next batch of computers. Lots and lots of options, definitely more complicated than it needs to be in my opinion.
I'm not sure, is this a troll? If so, well done sir!
If not you clearly don't know how Microsoft licensing works. You don't keep or maintain proof you own anything. It's all registered through Elicensing on Microsoft's own site. If you buy from vendor A they put in the paperwork with Microsoft and send you a copy so that you can authenticate through the licensing site. From there you can download any licensed product and you have a full inventory of all licensing you have purchased all in one place, serialized, and even commented.
Also, if you're a VL purchaser then you aren't activating Windows anyway as VL Windows XP at least doesn't require activation. With Vista there are a whole myriad of other options available even if they are more of a pain than with XP but don't kid yourself, there are a lot of options.
As for compliance checking, that is easily accomplished with an on-sight database. Hell, make it a Debian box running mysql. A simple login script can query all the installed applications and write all the information into a central inventory. Alternatively you can use Microsoft products for compliance monitoring such as Operations Manager and Systems Management Server if you have the money for such products.
Naturally there are plenty of open source compliance systems out there as well that make it perfectly easy to make sure you're not only in compliance with Microsoft but also Adobe and any other big software maker out there.
I would be curious about the number of businesses the BSA has investigated that have an existing VL agreement with Microsoft. I don't think it's ever happened although I recognize that it could happen so I guess it doesn't make any difference.
At any rate, genuine media is only a problem with Microsoft's retail products. OEM and VL products have different keys are difficult and/or pointless to fake in the case of a VL product since you can download the media yourself from the Eopen site.
The problem with that is that it makes sense to us. Most people would see that cell phone companies raising the rates of their voice service though. They had a general trend of reducing the cost of voice calls before data arrived on the spot. Now that data is here it's being treated as a separate beast to consumers even though from a technical standpoint it's just a different QoS priority.
It gives them a chance to charge more for added services which don't cost them anything additional so it's largely profit.
Of course the other side of the coin is the problems they've had with SMS and how unreliable it was when it was initially rolled out. Why could I call my friend in the UK but I couldn't SMS her? So people got used to the other idea that the quality and reliability of one service was unrelated to the other services the same company offered. That means they can charge different rates as well.
You don't think someone could take a picture of your property and build their property just like it? It's not only perfectly legal, it's not even that hard to do. Start small and look at cookie cutter housing in a lot of suburbs. Expand out and it's not that hard to make an artificial river if you're so inclined. If you already have a river nearby then it's even pretty easy. Getting trees that look identical might be a bit more difficult but I imagine it would be okay if branches were off by a few inches or feet.
With IP you simply can't do this as it would be considered infringement. Think live performances in bars for a recent example of this gone awry.
30 years for a copyright is atrocious though. If you're still making money on your copyright after 30 years then your product is big enough that the public is better served by moving it into the public domain. I would say 10 years or even 7 years would be far better terms for copyright. Of course that also depends on the field, if it's music versus software then it's usefulness will change over time. Of course that's a bad slope to be on since theoretically it would move people towards industries with the longest copyright terms. Of course I'm not sure how much money Microsoft is making on Windows 95 right now, that's 12 years old. Imagine if that copyright expired right now. The monopoly would start to crumble and Microsoft would be forced to come out with products that are actually new rather than resting on their past success.
This isn't a real touchpad, or at least, not a traditional one. It is small and efficient just like the eraser-mouse. The thing I hate about the Dell laptop I have is that is has both. If it has one or the other I'd be happy since accidental bumps of the touchpad move my cursor some place less convenient surprisingly often.
What about things like the DiNovo Edge?
I've been using this keyboard for a while now and mouse and kb movements are pretty much the same, my hands never leave the keyboard and I have all the benefits of a mouse. It took me a few days to get used to it but it seems much more efficient for most people out there. It's definitely not for everybody as there is no number pad but for the majority of workers out there I think it would work very well.
I know in my own experience I use it for scripting a lot, it has some keys for text selection so it basically becomes a two-handed mouse.
How many people know they're using Linux on their phones? Do they know Linux runs a lot of DVRs? Do those numbers even count? The problem with counting Linux users is everyone is technically a Linux user. Do we then just count Linux desktop users? Is that number significant in any way?
Just a few honest questions here. You won't find much in the way of linux desktop OS users although their numbers are indeed growing. At what rate I have no idea as I believe that is hard to measure given.