They already have options on which OS you get. So currently it's a matter of someone looking at the order and choosing a disk image to put on the machine, as opposed to what they'd get if they offered an option for no OS, in which case they'd...choose a disk image to put on the machine, except one would be blank; or simply not put any image on the machines with no OS, which is easier.
Of course, for testing and Q/A reasons, they'd probably image the machine for testing and then have to erase the drive, but they'd have to reimage the machine anyway.
gconf is a concise, organized method for arranging and storing settings. It is not a friendly method, mainly because there's no documentation with any option. If you had a few lines of comments explaining each option and its possible values, and had a way to search, then it might be reasonable.
EXCEPT -- you're modifying applications with a system-wide configuration tool. It's not logically connected. All options should be available from the program that handles them.
gconf is acceptable for more arcane options affecting metacity and GNOME itself. Maybe even applets. But not gedit or rhythmbox, for instance.
He has no point, actually. For iPods, there's gtkpod and a few other utilities. Amarok and Rhythmbox (default music apps for KDE and GNOME respectively) have some support for iPods, as well.
There've been a few companies, as reported by Bruce Schneier, that responded to private disclosure of security flaws with restraining orders and injunctions.
If you're going for private disclosure, do so as anonymously as possible.
Using UNIX? Just patch the timezone definitions. You don't have to reboot, though you may have to restart some applications.
Using Windows? You have to reboot once a month anyway, if your server faces the outside at all. Otherwise, you can just train your employees to use the time the server thinks it is. Ugly, but if you can't handle ten minutes of downtime on a server, that's the way to do it.
Of course, if you can't handle ten minutes of downtime, you have duplication. So why not patch the backup, test it for correctness, swap out the production server, and patch that? Or are you saying that a mission-critical server that must be up every minute of the year doesn't have backups?
A trap is a U-bend used for a particular purpose. Internet Explorer is not an internet used for a particular purpose. It'd be like someone saying "the application Microsoft made to access the internet" and then discussing it as "the application".
What's wrong with taking the easy way out? It's easy, but it's also effective, gets the users better support, will be more reliable, and is cheaper to upgrade.
I'm not entirely certain that it was worthwhile to put the server's OS on the RAID, though, so the tech could easily have solved the problem by leaving the 40GB drive in the computer. Ah well.
Another question is, why didn't he leave the 40GB drive in there for the OS? Then he could have installed the RAID driver just fine. It doesn't matter so much if the OS drive fails; all the data's still there.
Now that Java is open source, you don't have as much vendor lock-in when using it. The main issue is the ClassPath exception (which states that static and dynamic linking to their libraries forms a derivative work), and that's a big one if you don't want all your software to be GPL (and use the ClassPath exception). Of course, you could only release source code to avoid ClassPath, but other than that, you have to use the proprietary form.
I'm not sure how enforceable the ClassPath exception is with Java, though--as long as you build your project against some other JRE when distributing, it doesn't matter what your end users do with it. You can still use whatever terms that license allows. Unfortunately, ClassPath is the main replacement for Java's core libraries, and of course they use the ClassPath exception.
The desktop tools are fully as useable as Microsoft's. More so, I'd say. Even GNOME is, with their habit of entirely removing everything that's unnecessary for more than 80% of the users.
The major remaining issues for Linux superiority are hardware support and games. I've got TuxRacer and Globulation 2, though, and set up my wireless card in three easy step (the other fifteen were fiendishly difficult).
After that, the remaining issues are Internet access and speed (Linux isn't good for slow connections), specific applications (if you have ten years' data for ARCview, you're staying with the platforms they support), and unfamiliarity with Linux.
Take a similar example: Apple produces a product that's more polished and better in many ways than Linux, better in most ways than Microsoft, and still has less than 10% market share. Why? Nothing technical, just economic and psychological.
You need to sync the computers while both are on. This is a decent solution, however.
The questor could just get an old P2 box for spare change, put Linux on it, and use that as a mail server. Or have both computers sync to it (assuming he has a setup that allows him to access it remotely, or doesn't mind remembering to check his email on his laptop before leaving).
Because most people are going for the low-end $400 computer and are already familiar with Windows. They'll see Windows Vista and think there will be no real difference until they sit down and use it--by which time it'll be too late to switch to a Mac Mini (which costs half again as much).
So the compelling reasons are slight UI modifications and tagging? And better 64-bit support. That's compelling. That's $400 worth of compelling, easily.
Two old MiGs against a dozen Corsairs--who do you think would win?
But since MiGs go for millions each, even older ones, and a Corsair would cost maybe a hundred thousand, you can afford a dozen WW2 planes for each enemy MiG. And it's simpler to maintain a Corsair than a MiG. You do need more pilots, but since each plane costs less, your pilots can train more.
I suppose it's simply a governmental / military desire to have the biggest and the best, even if that means you have less of it. Illogical, but no less true.
Okay, show me a domain or network that's set up out of the box. And by 'on the fly' do you mean 'delaying you several minutes'? I use computers on a domain setup like you describe; it's painful.
I've used Winedt. I think echo and cat might be more a pleasant editor.
Before shelling out cash, try TexNicCenter and TexMaker. I use a text editor, but at a cursory inspection TexMaker seems decent. Toolbars take up less than half the screen; there's a nice sidebar featuring the structure of your document; click on a section name there and you jump to it. And the current line of text is highlighted.
Now that I've tried it, perhaps I'll use TexMaker for my tex editing.
More like going to a dealership, telling the salesman what you need a car for, and having the salesman point out the types of cars that would best suit the needs you outlined.
As to the question at hand, most any distribution will work; most older/more popular distributions (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, RHEL, SuSE...) will have good default installations for desktop use. After that, it's merely a matter of installing tetex, basic dev tools, an IDE, and possibly apache. (I think there may be one or two distros out there that provide all that by default, but finding it probably isn't worth the effort.)
More recently, Torchwood has utterly appalling UIs. For some reason, graphic designers think it desirable for futuristic applications to have moving backgrounds, serving no purpose, yet being nonetheless distracting. Enlightenment DR17 supports moving backgrounds. They tend to waste a fair number of CPU cycles, though.
In applications, it's probably pointless. You could deliver information that way, I guess, but it'd be more useful if it stayed on the screen.
But it's reasonable to expect not to be rooted in the two or three hours it takes to get all the patches you need, if the mean time to failure is three months.
I really, REALLY do not want to see Lotus dominating anything. I have to use Notes, and that...I get the feeling that all the functionality you could possibly want is there, somewhere, but if you want to find it, you need a lot of patience and luck.
Slashdot Mirror
They already have options on which OS you get. So currently it's a matter of someone looking at the order and choosing a disk image to put on the machine, as opposed to what they'd get if they offered an option for no OS, in which case they'd...choose a disk image to put on the machine, except one would be blank; or simply not put any image on the machines with no OS, which is easier.
Of course, for testing and Q/A reasons, they'd probably image the machine for testing and then have to erase the drive, but they'd have to reimage the machine anyway.
gconf is a concise, organized method for arranging and storing settings. It is not a friendly method, mainly because there's no documentation with any option. If you had a few lines of comments explaining each option and its possible values, and had a way to search, then it might be reasonable.
EXCEPT -- you're modifying applications with a system-wide configuration tool. It's not logically connected. All options should be available from the program that handles them.
gconf is acceptable for more arcane options affecting metacity and GNOME itself. Maybe even applets. But not gedit or rhythmbox, for instance.
He has no point, actually. For iPods, there's gtkpod and a few other utilities. Amarok and Rhythmbox (default music apps for KDE and GNOME respectively) have some support for iPods, as well.
There've been a few companies, as reported by Bruce Schneier, that responded to private disclosure of security flaws with restraining orders and injunctions.
If you're going for private disclosure, do so as anonymously as possible.
Using UNIX? Just patch the timezone definitions. You don't have to reboot, though you may have to restart some applications.
Using Windows? You have to reboot once a month anyway, if your server faces the outside at all. Otherwise, you can just train your employees to use the time the server thinks it is. Ugly, but if you can't handle ten minutes of downtime on a server, that's the way to do it.
Of course, if you can't handle ten minutes of downtime, you have duplication. So why not patch the backup, test it for correctness, swap out the production server, and patch that? Or are you saying that a mission-critical server that must be up every minute of the year doesn't have backups?
A trap is a U-bend used for a particular purpose. Internet Explorer is not an internet used for a particular purpose. It'd be like someone saying "the application Microsoft made to access the internet" and then discussing it as "the application".
What's wrong with taking the easy way out? It's easy, but it's also effective, gets the users better support, will be more reliable, and is cheaper to upgrade.
I'm not entirely certain that it was worthwhile to put the server's OS on the RAID, though, so the tech could easily have solved the problem by leaving the 40GB drive in the computer. Ah well.
Another question is, why didn't he leave the 40GB drive in there for the OS? Then he could have installed the RAID driver just fine. It doesn't matter so much if the OS drive fails; all the data's still there.
Now that Java is open source, you don't have as much vendor lock-in when using it. The main issue is the ClassPath exception (which states that static and dynamic linking to their libraries forms a derivative work), and that's a big one if you don't want all your software to be GPL (and use the ClassPath exception). Of course, you could only release source code to avoid ClassPath, but other than that, you have to use the proprietary form.
I'm not sure how enforceable the ClassPath exception is with Java, though--as long as you build your project against some other JRE when distributing, it doesn't matter what your end users do with it. You can still use whatever terms that license allows. Unfortunately, ClassPath is the main replacement for Java's core libraries, and of course they use the ClassPath exception.
I've got a lovely Staphylococcus culture here...
Year of the Linux desktop = 2005
The desktop tools are fully as useable as Microsoft's. More so, I'd say. Even GNOME is, with their habit of entirely removing everything that's unnecessary for more than 80% of the users.
The major remaining issues for Linux superiority are hardware support and games. I've got TuxRacer and Globulation 2, though, and set up my wireless card in three easy step (the other fifteen were fiendishly difficult).
After that, the remaining issues are Internet access and speed (Linux isn't good for slow connections), specific applications (if you have ten years' data for ARCview, you're staying with the platforms they support), and unfamiliarity with Linux.
Take a similar example: Apple produces a product that's more polished and better in many ways than Linux, better in most ways than Microsoft, and still has less than 10% market share. Why? Nothing technical, just economic and psychological.
You need to sync the computers while both are on. This is a decent solution, however.
The questor could just get an old P2 box for spare change, put Linux on it, and use that as a mail server. Or have both computers sync to it (assuming he has a setup that allows him to access it remotely, or doesn't mind remembering to check his email on his laptop before leaving).
Because most people are going for the low-end $400 computer and are already familiar with Windows. They'll see Windows Vista and think there will be no real difference until they sit down and use it--by which time it'll be too late to switch to a Mac Mini (which costs half again as much).
So the compelling reasons are slight UI modifications and tagging? And better 64-bit support. That's compelling. That's $400 worth of compelling, easily.
This is off-topic, but it's interesting.
Two old MiGs against a dozen Corsairs--who do you think would win?
But since MiGs go for millions each, even older ones, and a Corsair would cost maybe a hundred thousand, you can afford a dozen WW2 planes for each enemy MiG. And it's simpler to maintain a Corsair than a MiG. You do need more pilots, but since each plane costs less, your pilots can train more.
I suppose it's simply a governmental / military desire to have the biggest and the best, even if that means you have less of it. Illogical, but no less true.
Meh, the measurement is used often enough that it should be a standard unit by now.
We really should be using hides instead--what's the tax value for an ice shelf?
Okay, show me a domain or network that's set up out of the box. And by 'on the fly' do you mean 'delaying you several minutes'? I use computers on a domain setup like you describe; it's painful.
I've used Winedt. I think echo and cat might be more a pleasant editor.
Before shelling out cash, try TexNicCenter and TexMaker. I use a text editor, but at a cursory inspection TexMaker seems decent. Toolbars take up less than half the screen; there's a nice sidebar featuring the structure of your document; click on a section name there and you jump to it. And the current line of text is highlighted.
Now that I've tried it, perhaps I'll use TexMaker for my tex editing.
More like going to a dealership, telling the salesman what you need a car for, and having the salesman point out the types of cars that would best suit the needs you outlined.
As to the question at hand, most any distribution will work; most older/more popular distributions (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, RHEL, SuSE...) will have good default installations for desktop use. After that, it's merely a matter of installing tetex, basic dev tools, an IDE, and possibly apache. (I think there may be one or two distros out there that provide all that by default, but finding it probably isn't worth the effort.)
In applications, it's probably pointless. You could deliver information that way, I guess, but it'd be more useful if it stayed on the screen.
"I have one computer. I can't afford any more than that. That's why I'm applying for this job."
He's using a 64-bit VM.
But it's reasonable to expect not to be rooted in the two or three hours it takes to get all the patches you need, if the mean time to failure is three months.
MSDN is better for general programming questions than man pages. Man pages are better for specific stuff. MS documentation on utilities sucks.
For programming, though, it's a wash.
I really, REALLY do not want to see Lotus dominating anything. I have to use Notes, and that...I get the feeling that all the functionality you could possibly want is there, somewhere, but if you want to find it, you need a lot of patience and luck.
As for speed, I hadn't noticed any.