Seriously, I'd recommend two. Even if you leave the second one shrink wrapped.
Although, my own approach would be to put both cards in, and configured. I've been in computer telephony for 11 years, and I don't fully trust these 4 port Digium cards enough to not have a hot backup. (The digium T1 cards have been a bit more reliable). Just some advise from someone who has really, already been there.
It's not "all the upfront costs" nearly as much as it is the divergence between a well-supported commercial Voice over IP solutions, like those offered by Avaya (even Cisco has a foot in this market), and the relative inexpensive solutions brought to you by the open source Asterisk PBX / Voice over IP solution, that readily (with the addition of some, less than $400 each, interface cards) runs on any given x86/GNU-Linux box.
Then there's the service side. Plenty of "little telcomm companies" (to management eyes this also means unreliable and/or fly-by-night) are starting to sell Voice over IP trunk services. You don't need one with the other, but nobody selling you something wants to make that clear.
Basically, the "commercial" side of the business is hiding behind the complexity, while the "open" side of the business doesn't have enough press to make a dent in the mind of the pointy haired bosses that actually make these decisions.
I love asterisk boxes, but I would highly suggest spending more than a grand. Unless you already have a pile of compatible ADCs sitting around that your building this with, you should probably seriously consider buying more capacity for your box. (Unless, you only have a few people in your office).
MCI, Sprint (hell even back 10 years ago when WilTel was still in the business) have been selling multi-trunked T-1 service for years. Dedicate half a T-1 (typically channels 1-12) to voice, leave the rest for data. You need a channel separating DSU/CSU to do it, but those are a tiny cost to the "potential" savings.
So, believe it or not, in the SOHO, these have been quite popular for quite a while. The power in voice over IP is that for the same cost, a company will be able to run two T-1 lines to the same company, and if one of them goes down, they loose neither voice or data.
The savings comes in when you look at direct voice over IP service costing just a little less than traditional digital voice (PRI or 56K ESF) services.
As an IT Director, that's a good enough argument for me.
This precisely points out the weakness of the typical PBX. PBX systems have been running one of 5 or 6 stand-alone standards for decades. Everybody in telephony knows that you can't integrate a Norther Telecom with an Avaya without major headaches (or assigning each of them to different exchange prefixes).
However, Voice over IP and even open controlled analog/digital converted PBX systems (like Asterisk), will be able to converge into a single, re-assignable open standard.
If you are comfortable with interfacing your servlet engines with your phone system, Voice over IP (and H.323 standards) will allow you to do so.
Ethernet is designed to use four of the NON-VOICE wires in a standard 8 wire cable. All 8 wire, twisted pair (typically found connecting phones to a PBX or computers to your Ethernet HUB CAN run on the same wires. However, most people choose not to.
Basically, the savings is bull. Companies want ethernet separate from voice because they terminate at different devices.
In conclusion, all this will do is move everybody from two wires -- computer and phone -- to two wires computer and IP Telephony Device.
Again, you can argue that the computer and telephone can be the SAME BOX, and you are right the capabilities have been around for ten years (or even longer), but desktop computers -- to this day -- are not considered stable enough (even though, in truth most of them are) to run something as ubiquitous and important as a phone.
The Keys are different for "OEM License (what ships on that restore disk)", "Volume License" and "Retail". Most licenses sold are part of an OEM license.
Most likely the original user is trying to use an Install disk to do a dual-boot, but because the only available OEM copy of Windows is an "FDISK, Format and Re-install" recovery disk, he's S.O.L. on using a Retail disk.
The best thing to do is contact the seller of the PC, and ask for a Windows XP OEM installation CD that doesn't FDISK the system first.
Symantic logic dictates that the algorhithm itself does not necessarily know the subject matter at hand. Only the context availble to it from various RDF/XML feeds.
So, if one RDF feed from MSN says that I have a 'cheat and scam' property, and another RDF feed from Citibank says that I have an 'enough money' property, and yet another RDF feed from Yahoo links the two, perhaps the original MSN data does not describe strictly enough (within it's RDF definition) that 'cheat and scam' is only a property of MSN Gaming Zone. As is likely, MSN may be planning on implementing the same property in relation to other services as well, so why standardize it now? [ Lot's of room for unintentional human error messing with the system. ]
Basically, because the data comes from multiple sources - even a decent standard (such as RDF) as a backdrop does not guarantee correct digital interpretation. This stuff isn't magic. Especially when you look at the data-feeds that are currently available. Fair chance, on a ChefMoz feed that the restaurant you're looking for has both incorrect and misleading information.
Maybe a given implimentation puts a low trust score on ChefMoz, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it knows how to put different trust levels on individual data-points within a single RDF feed, maybe it doesn't. Either way, there will be a lot of room for mistakes.
That is to say, you are describing a bottom-up approach where every feed is already known and properly documented before you unleash the beast. Except, that isn't what is being envisioned. The vision is that through RDF feeds across the entire web a 'total' awareness picture can be made of anything. That can only be accomplished, as envisioned, by using an adaptive software that doesn't have 'built in' conclusions of every possible subject (RDF feed).
What I'm saying is I think that this is infinately more complex than you think, although I'm certainly willing to concede that some specialized implimentations may be slightly less complex than I am suggesting.
I am genuinely enjoying this exchange, so I really hope I'm not pissing you off, that is not my intent.
May I be the first to agree, except all of the DLLs complained about are Microsoft DLL files. Regardless of what 3rd party re-distributed the Microsoft DLL, I would hope that Microsoft's own scanning tool would be able to find and identify DLLs that Microsoft wrote (whether written for redistribution or core-os).
Beyond that, if I find out that my Windows version of "The Gimp" is also vulnerable, I know enough to go to the author of that program and find a patch.
If, on the other hand, 'The Gimp' told me that GTK may be vulnerable, and the 'GTK' folks told me that 'The Gimp' may be vulnerable, I would surely be the first person to stand up and write a singularly upset letter to those projects.
On the other hand, I didn't pay $199 per copy of "The Gimp" and, as a condition of my use of said software, it clearly tells me that I am free to modify the code to my liking. Thus, I don't feel that "The Gimp" and the "GTK" projects owe me merchantability. Microsoft (on the other hand) I do feel owes me - at least - merchantability to perform as advertised...
So long as Microsoft can fix the issues that are theirs (as opposed to point me in a circle), I have no qualms with spending more of my fine earned money to them for a really nice gaming OS.
The Semantic Web is for chasing tangents. Sorry if this seems marginal to you.
My point in the virtual vs. real persona is that you cannot expect the same behavior patterns from the same people given totally different situations. My killing your character in an online death-match does not mean I would be unethical enough to kill you. Likewise, if I pick up trinkets from the monsters you have slain (clearly, they are not my spoils to take), this does not mean that I will take tips off of tables at a restaurant.
Similarly, most of my 'online' activity is done from home. That does not mean that a symantec web is designed to tell the difference. In fact, just the opposite. It's designed to merge all data that's available on me into a single profile. Again, this could be misleading. If I spend 3 hours (average) per day gaming, does this make me less capable of doing my job? Maybe, maybe not. Would this change the way my employer perceives my performance? Probably, yes.
The other point which I think you are trying to make, is that if the data is out there, then it can already be searched out from other means already. This may be the case, but not necessarily.
Given a much more personal example:
If my cross-identy is posted by a friend on an obscure site, Google may pick that up. If you then trace my cross-identity into the online world, you will find many, many postings - as well as political views (mostly by the name you see me posting under now). My politics definately don't agree with those whom pay my salary. Would they hold these politics against me if they were easily traced? I don't know. I honestly don't want to find out. Point being, the symantic web (if working) would quickly link me with my politics.
My greater fear, it would be just as easy for an advertiser to do this (not that they don't already to some extent), it would just be even easier. The only benefit? I may stop getting ads for things I don't need.
Many of the issues of 'cleverness' are dealt with by the definition itself. First off, the Symantic Web relies on XML and/or RDF. Both are ways of describing disperate data-sets syntactically. This way the 'searching' programs do not have to be clever to glean usefull information from the data.
The important part is assigning levels of trust to each data-set ( a score perhaps ), and in some cases, even a negative score to some sources ( an RDF feed from HoaxBusters for example, where most of the subject matter is a negative truth [[ i.e. not true ]] ).
Of course, trust is always a shady proposistion. Do you trust a Slashdot RDF feed to make assertions about your relationship to common trolls? If you post in a story that also has posts with the Goat Sex pic, what does that say about you, especially to a programmer in Elbonia who's never heard of Slashdot (one of the few places where such an image is relatively common)? Unsettling, no?
Your faith in computational logic is astounding. Not to say that you may not be right, but to dismiss the possibility that 'shady' logic relationships such as this one would simply not occur. Especially when there are billions of similar relationships.
By your declaring such functionality to be an error of logic does not (in my view) make it less likely.
Back to my very example... the 'scams and cheats' property assertion of an online gamer against my account number is, by definition, a symantic inferrence. Unless a human jumps to the various links that make up the conclusion. Couple this with the very fact that my fictional search would be along the lines of 'transaction trust', the property does apply to the query.
Basically that is the point. It is broken beyond usable functionality. It cannot make the conclusions advertised. It can link to points to help a human create valid conclusions.
Ah, but what constitutes privacy but an obscurity of your own behaviors in certain circles.
That is to say, I may be an item scammer in online gaming realms, or in Diablo, but not in EverQuest. However, I may be one of the most honest people I know in the real world. Perhaps I have a second account that I use to Troll on Slashdot, but otherwise have this account where I try to post insightful information. You have the right to link these things, you may even have the right to link these to real world data like where I work and where I park my car. However, if I jilted someone in Diablo, do I want them to so easily find me and take it out on my car (as some people would)?
Do I want my employer having instant access to all of my online transactions, regardless if I'm on shift or off shift at the time? Individually, these are not things that have been considered something you would even want to 'secure', yet they may be valuable to someone.
While this stuff doesn't "execute", the assertions made by symantic logic could be far reaching. Consider the following (monoculture) type example:
Jim is 24601
Jim is 15931
Account 24601 is online gaming
24601 cheats and scams
Account 15931 is online banking
15931 has made 450 transactions this month
15931 has a positive balance
Thus, when Jim is passing me a check...
Jim has enough to cover this check, has made 450 transactions, but is known to cheat and scam
Incomplete, but technically correct picture of Jim. The bad part has no relavence to me, unless I'm selling him an item in an online game. The symantic web has no way of telling what's relavent to me in a given situation.
Having read both of your articles, I do not see either of them as opposite, but rather complimentary.
All information that is subjective is a poor candidate for the symantec web. All information that is quickly subject to change is a poor candidate for the symantec web. When mixing subjective (verb) pointers to a given truth on a large scale, modified by objective pointers, where even one of many thousands is false (or mis-keyed), the overall meaning can become quickly subverted.
In other words, if I get enough people to post somewhere that Allen Zadr lives in New Mexico, the multiple verbs that would otherwise point to the actual fact -- there is no Allen Zadr -- would be subverted. That is, unless you could syntactically link Allen Zadr to an actual human being.
Even more simply, the symantic web is only as good as the data. It's not very difficult to get a well trusted source to make an assertion of a truth while avoiding the linking details - thus presenting the users with a subverted view of reality. It has many flaws, and many promises. It won't fail, but it will never be better or worse than the existing systems, just different.
'a single Web of meaning, about everything and for everyone.'
So, once this is off the ground, who wants to bet that the answer really is, 42?
Seriously though, this could be really cool, but I imagine that this could have some very adverse effects on privacy given the amount of information that finds itself on the web. Items that are linked by obscurity in disperate places would be easily linked into a single profile (If the stuff he's talking about isn't primarily smoke and mirrors). Either way, like any powerful technology, it will have both good and bad consequences. Here's hoping for the good...
Avast, ye spake a language that I don't understand! These
scurvy youths a for the scientist folks to study.
Yet, in Pirate speak or Sign, I'm assumin' that the schoolin'
they did recieve showed them how to read 'n write. So,
wouldn't that have a major influence on the young blood
language inventors?
Post written in Pirate Speak in Honor of
"Talk Like a Pirate Day"
Fedora is more my speed. I used to use Slackware until the slackware-10 release when udev became the default device management, etc. Long story short (too late), my USB camera would no longer connect to the system (while I was on friggin vacation).
Anyway, I started using Slackware because at the time, it was the easiest to upgrade to Gnome 2.6.
My only complaint now... Just as I'm getting used to 2.6, 2.8 comes out, and now I want to upgrade again!
Besides that... Swaret doesn't track dependancies as well as up2date (in my personal experience, most slacker's experiences vary from mine).
Actually - I think Debian does have a preference towards KDE - simply because the bulk of documentation says:
Log in
Run % startx
And startx, out of the box, runs KDE.
As far a 'supporting' KDE, every distribution supports KDE. a good 30% of default apps require qt/kde widget libraries to run. I actively try to avoid applications that have KDE dependancies, and I can't do it. (The opposite is also true of Gnome, I might add).
This post is a reply to a (currently rated -1) comment that said (about Gnome): WHY BOTHER?
I can't be the only geek left that's used Linux for more than 5 years that actually prefers Gnome. But sometimes I feel like it.
That said, for quite a while, I ran KDE on my work desktop and Gnome on my home desktop. I like Gnome's interface. I find the spacial nautilus quite useful. (Less so for directory structures that I don't often use). The only thing I miss is the lack of shading options for desktop backgrounds. [So, I have to open up Gimp and do it myself.]
Frankly, I was always a little annoyed by konquerer, and all the little buttons that I didn't use.
That said... why not Gnome? Even if KDE was the absolute best in _every_ way. What makes Gnome a waste of time? Who said it's a war? If Gnome moves forward in a technology, chances are it will urge the KDE developers to move forward as well (like the expansion of KDE availability onto more non-Linux UNIX systems). There are certainly a number of features that KDE has put out that have effected Gnome. So what?
Basically, choice is an important factor to me. I prefer having a choice over having no choice. Choice is the very thing that got me to install Linux for the first time.
Yes, I have Solaris 8 from the Free Binary download page...
Yeah, I know. I'm probably the only regular SlashDot reader that actually cares (a little) about being legal on my home systems. It's a bleedover from watching an employer get sued for missing 'pieces of paper'.
SunOS is still at the core of Solaris (which really refers to the Graphical extended SunOS). Either way, SunOS only goes back to ~1986. Still not that long.
Sun has an excellent single place to search for all service calls on their equipment and OS, along with resolution information. So, it's a lot of information, yet more importantly, it's a single place for all of that information.
Personally, I have both Solaris AND Linux on my resume - and have to go with Solaris as the more impressive during interviews (less market share - more "serious").
I had a Solaris machine that ate itself running Solaris and Oracle. It turned out that one of the CPUs (StarFire E10000) was not torqued down properly. You should really have Sun take a look at your 450 - full tear down and rebuild if necessary. Otherwise, in my experience, Linux is slightly less stable, but I've been migrating to Linux because it's cheaper to run two Intel/Linux boxes (hot spare) than a single Solaris box with the same load capacity as one of the I/Linux boxes.
Slashdot Mirror
Although, my own approach would be to put both cards in, and configured. I've been in computer telephony for 11 years, and I don't fully trust these 4 port Digium cards enough to not have a hot backup. (The digium T1 cards have been a bit more reliable). Just some advise from someone who has really, already been there.
I haven't seen any servlets that will do this, yet. I wonder if anybody else has?
Then there's the service side. Plenty of "little telcomm companies" (to management eyes this also means unreliable and/or fly-by-night) are starting to sell Voice over IP trunk services. You don't need one with the other, but nobody selling you something wants to make that clear.
Basically, the "commercial" side of the business is hiding behind the complexity, while the "open" side of the business doesn't have enough press to make a dent in the mind of the pointy haired bosses that actually make these decisions.
I love asterisk boxes, but I would highly suggest spending more than a grand. Unless you already have a pile of compatible ADCs sitting around that your building this with, you should probably seriously consider buying more capacity for your box. (Unless, you only have a few people in your office).
So, believe it or not, in the SOHO, these have been quite popular for quite a while. The power in voice over IP is that for the same cost, a company will be able to run two T-1 lines to the same company, and if one of them goes down, they loose neither voice or data.
The savings comes in when you look at direct voice over IP service costing just a little less than traditional digital voice (PRI or 56K ESF) services. As an IT Director, that's a good enough argument for me.
However, Voice over IP and even open controlled analog/digital converted PBX systems (like Asterisk), will be able to converge into a single, re-assignable open standard.
If you are comfortable with interfacing your servlet engines with your phone system, Voice over IP (and H.323 standards) will allow you to do so.
Offtopic, My Ass.
Ethernet is designed to use four of the NON-VOICE wires in a standard 8 wire cable. All 8 wire, twisted pair (typically found connecting phones to a PBX or computers to your Ethernet HUB CAN run on the same wires. However, most people choose not to.
Basically, the savings is bull. Companies want ethernet separate from voice because they terminate at different devices.
In conclusion, all this will do is move everybody from two wires -- computer and phone -- to two wires computer and IP Telephony Device.
Again, you can argue that the computer and telephone can be the SAME BOX, and you are right the capabilities have been around for ten years (or even longer), but desktop computers -- to this day -- are not considered stable enough (even though, in truth most of them are) to run something as ubiquitous and important as a phone.
Most likely the original user is trying to use an Install disk to do a dual-boot, but because the only available OEM copy of Windows is an "FDISK, Format and Re-install" recovery disk, he's S.O.L. on using a Retail disk.
The best thing to do is contact the seller of the PC, and ask for a Windows XP OEM installation CD that doesn't FDISK the system first.
Either way, it worked. The spacecraft has landed successfully.
So, if one RDF feed from MSN says that I have a 'cheat and scam' property, and another RDF feed from Citibank says that I have an 'enough money' property, and yet another RDF feed from Yahoo links the two, perhaps the original MSN data does not describe strictly enough (within it's RDF definition) that 'cheat and scam' is only a property of MSN Gaming Zone. As is likely, MSN may be planning on implementing the same property in relation to other services as well, so why standardize it now? [ Lot's of room for unintentional human error messing with the system. ]
Basically, because the data comes from multiple sources - even a decent standard (such as RDF) as a backdrop does not guarantee correct digital interpretation. This stuff isn't magic. Especially when you look at the data-feeds that are currently available. Fair chance, on a ChefMoz feed that the restaurant you're looking for has both incorrect and misleading information.
Maybe a given implimentation puts a low trust score on ChefMoz, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it knows how to put different trust levels on individual data-points within a single RDF feed, maybe it doesn't. Either way, there will be a lot of room for mistakes.
That is to say, you are describing a bottom-up approach where every feed is already known and properly documented before you unleash the beast. Except, that isn't what is being envisioned. The vision is that through RDF feeds across the entire web a 'total' awareness picture can be made of anything. That can only be accomplished, as envisioned, by using an adaptive software that doesn't have 'built in' conclusions of every possible subject (RDF feed).
What I'm saying is I think that this is infinately more complex than you think, although I'm certainly willing to concede that some specialized implimentations may be slightly less complex than I am suggesting.
I am genuinely enjoying this exchange, so I really hope I'm not pissing you off, that is not my intent.
Beyond that, if I find out that my Windows version of "The Gimp" is also vulnerable, I know enough to go to the author of that program and find a patch.
If, on the other hand, 'The Gimp' told me that GTK may be vulnerable, and the 'GTK' folks told me that 'The Gimp' may be vulnerable, I would surely be the first person to stand up and write a singularly upset letter to those projects.
On the other hand, I didn't pay $199 per copy of "The Gimp" and, as a condition of my use of said software, it clearly tells me that I am free to modify the code to my liking. Thus, I don't feel that "The Gimp" and the "GTK" projects owe me merchantability. Microsoft (on the other hand) I do feel owes me - at least - merchantability to perform as advertised...
So long as Microsoft can fix the issues that are theirs (as opposed to point me in a circle), I have no qualms with spending more of my fine earned money to them for a really nice gaming OS.
My point in the virtual vs. real persona is that you cannot expect the same behavior patterns from the same people given totally different situations. My killing your character in an online death-match does not mean I would be unethical enough to kill you. Likewise, if I pick up trinkets from the monsters you have slain (clearly, they are not my spoils to take), this does not mean that I will take tips off of tables at a restaurant.
Similarly, most of my 'online' activity is done from home. That does not mean that a symantec web is designed to tell the difference. In fact, just the opposite. It's designed to merge all data that's available on me into a single profile. Again, this could be misleading. If I spend 3 hours (average) per day gaming, does this make me less capable of doing my job? Maybe, maybe not. Would this change the way my employer perceives my performance? Probably, yes.
The other point which I think you are trying to make, is that if the data is out there, then it can already be searched out from other means already. This may be the case, but not necessarily.
Given a much more personal example: If my cross-identy is posted by a friend on an obscure site, Google may pick that up. If you then trace my cross-identity into the online world, you will find many, many postings - as well as political views (mostly by the name you see me posting under now). My politics definately don't agree with those whom pay my salary. Would they hold these politics against me if they were easily traced? I don't know. I honestly don't want to find out. Point being, the symantic web (if working) would quickly link me with my politics.
My greater fear, it would be just as easy for an advertiser to do this (not that they don't already to some extent), it would just be even easier. The only benefit? I may stop getting ads for things I don't need.
The important part is assigning levels of trust to each data-set ( a score perhaps ), and in some cases, even a negative score to some sources ( an RDF feed from HoaxBusters for example, where most of the subject matter is a negative truth [[ i.e. not true ]] ).
Of course, trust is always a shady proposistion. Do you trust a Slashdot RDF feed to make assertions about your relationship to common trolls? If you post in a story that also has posts with the Goat Sex pic, what does that say about you, especially to a programmer in Elbonia who's never heard of Slashdot (one of the few places where such an image is relatively common)? Unsettling, no?
By your declaring such functionality to be an error of logic does not (in my view) make it less likely.
Back to my very example... the 'scams and cheats' property assertion of an online gamer against my account number is, by definition, a symantic inferrence. Unless a human jumps to the various links that make up the conclusion. Couple this with the very fact that my fictional search would be along the lines of 'transaction trust', the property does apply to the query.
Basically that is the point. It is broken beyond usable functionality. It cannot make the conclusions advertised. It can link to points to help a human create valid conclusions.
That is to say, I may be an item scammer in online gaming realms, or in Diablo, but not in EverQuest. However, I may be one of the most honest people I know in the real world. Perhaps I have a second account that I use to Troll on Slashdot, but otherwise have this account where I try to post insightful information. You have the right to link these things, you may even have the right to link these to real world data like where I work and where I park my car. However, if I jilted someone in Diablo, do I want them to so easily find me and take it out on my car (as some people would)?
Do I want my employer having instant access to all of my online transactions, regardless if I'm on shift or off shift at the time? Individually, these are not things that have been considered something you would even want to 'secure', yet they may be valuable to someone.
- Jim is 24601
- Jim is 15931
- Account 24601 is online gaming
- 24601 cheats and scams
- Account 15931 is online banking
- 15931 has made 450 transactions this month
- 15931 has a positive balance
Thus, when Jim is passing me a check...- Jim has enough to cover this check, has made 450 transactions, but is known to cheat and scam
Incomplete, but technically correct picture of Jim. The bad part has no relavence to me, unless I'm selling him an item in an online game. The symantic web has no way of telling what's relavent to me in a given situation.All information that is subjective is a poor candidate for the symantec web. All information that is quickly subject to change is a poor candidate for the symantec web. When mixing subjective (verb) pointers to a given truth on a large scale, modified by objective pointers, where even one of many thousands is false (or mis-keyed), the overall meaning can become quickly subverted.
In other words, if I get enough people to post somewhere that Allen Zadr lives in New Mexico, the multiple verbs that would otherwise point to the actual fact -- there is no Allen Zadr -- would be subverted. That is, unless you could syntactically link Allen Zadr to an actual human being.
Even more simply, the symantic web is only as good as the data. It's not very difficult to get a well trusted source to make an assertion of a truth while avoiding the linking details - thus presenting the users with a subverted view of reality. It has many flaws, and many promises. It won't fail, but it will never be better or worse than the existing systems, just different.
So, once this is off the ground, who wants to bet that the answer really is, 42?
Seriously though, this could be really cool, but I imagine that this could have some very adverse effects on privacy given the amount of information that finds itself on the web. Items that are linked by obscurity in disperate places would be easily linked into a single profile (If the stuff he's talking about isn't primarily smoke and mirrors). Either way, like any powerful technology, it will have both good and bad consequences. Here's hoping for the good...
Avast, ye spake a language that I don't understand! These scurvy youths a for the scientist folks to study.
Yet, in Pirate speak or Sign, I'm assumin' that the schoolin' they did recieve showed them how to read 'n write. So, wouldn't that have a major influence on the young blood language inventors?
Post written in Pirate Speak in Honor of "Talk Like a Pirate Day"Anyway, I started using Slackware because at the time, it was the easiest to upgrade to Gnome 2.6.
My only complaint now... Just as I'm getting used to 2.6, 2.8 comes out, and now I want to upgrade again!
Besides that... Swaret doesn't track dependancies as well as up2date (in my personal experience, most slacker's experiences vary from mine).
Log in
Run % startx
And startx, out of the box, runs KDE.
As far a 'supporting' KDE, every distribution supports KDE. a good 30% of default apps require qt/kde widget libraries to run. I actively try to avoid applications that have KDE dependancies, and I can't do it. (The opposite is also true of Gnome, I might add).
WHY BOTHER?
I can't be the only geek left that's used Linux for more than 5 years that actually prefers Gnome. But sometimes I feel like it.
That said, for quite a while, I ran KDE on my work desktop and Gnome on my home desktop. I like Gnome's interface. I find the spacial nautilus quite useful. (Less so for directory structures that I don't often use). The only thing I miss is the lack of shading options for desktop backgrounds. [So, I have to open up Gimp and do it myself.]
Frankly, I was always a little annoyed by konquerer, and all the little buttons that I didn't use.
That said... why not Gnome? Even if KDE was the absolute best in _every_ way. What makes Gnome a waste of time? Who said it's a war? If Gnome moves forward in a technology, chances are it will urge the KDE developers to move forward as well (like the expansion of KDE availability onto more non-Linux UNIX systems). There are certainly a number of features that KDE has put out that have effected Gnome. So what?
Basically, choice is an important factor to me. I prefer having a choice over having no choice. Choice is the very thing that got me to install Linux for the first time.
I don't know about other distributions though.
Yeah, I know. I'm probably the only regular SlashDot reader that actually cares (a little) about being legal on my home systems. It's a bleedover from watching an employer get sued for missing 'pieces of paper'.
Sun has an excellent single place to search for all service calls on their equipment and OS, along with resolution information. So, it's a lot of information, yet more importantly, it's a single place for all of that information.
Personally, I have both Solaris AND Linux on my resume - and have to go with Solaris as the more impressive during interviews (less market share - more "serious").
I had a Solaris machine that ate itself running Solaris and Oracle. It turned out that one of the CPUs (StarFire E10000) was not torqued down properly. You should really have Sun take a look at your 450 - full tear down and rebuild if necessary. Otherwise, in my experience, Linux is slightly less stable, but I've been migrating to Linux because it's cheaper to run two Intel/Linux boxes (hot spare) than a single Solaris box with the same load capacity as one of the I/Linux boxes.
That's to say - you've both got valid points.