This used to be a mecca for technology and comic books; this seems like a great space to put this type of museum in. My understanding is that the owners still haven't figured out what to do with it. Keep the movie theatre and the Game Walk of Fame, put in the museum, followed by a better arcade, and revitalize the Metreon.
It's still one of my favorite places to go when in SF.
I wanted to get away from Exchange. So I put in HP Openmail (Samsung Contact). That works for a few years until my users crashed my server (management refused to allow me to place limits on mailboxes, so this is what happens). After the crash, I put up a Postfix IMAP server and used Mozilla Thunderbird. What I found was that even though my users essentially use the email portions of Outlook and not the other collaborative features (some use the Contacts and Calendars, but not with any critical data), they still wanted Outlook. Daily I would hear complaints about how they hated using Mozilla, and eventually, we put Exchange 2007 and Outlook back in.
I think what happened is that many companies put in Exchange without understanding whether or not their company would really use all the collaborative features with Outlook. I'm willing to be many of them only really use the email portions, like mine does. Had my company started out with using just a simple POP3/IMAP server, then we might be using something like Google right now. But because we started out with the "defacto" standard, we setup the wrong expectation. This is what will be tough for Google; trying to get existing users to switch.
I agree that the Outlook plugin was probably not the best thing Google did, but it may be the only way Google can start transitioning people over to their services.
I've watched this ad, and I noticed a few things, and it brought up some information I already knew.
1) She Picked Apple First. Why?
She's an actress, and a member of SAG (Screen Actors Guild). Hollywood primarily uses Apple in their productions, and on screen. Getting rights to use Apple products are a lot easier than getting the rights to a Dell product, which uses Microsoft and a host of other vendors. That's why you don't see a lot of TV and movies using PC's; notice that they use Macs if they can.
She's familiar with using Mac's from her work as an actress on a set.
2) Why did she want a 17" Screen?
To be honest, I'm not sure. For checking emails, and doing some minor multimedia, and web surfing, a 17" screen seems a bit overkill...Then again, why do we want the 50" HDTV vs the 32"? Because it's bigger.
3) What criteria did she use to pick out her PC?
According to the ad, price, screen size, speed, and aesthetics, but you could tell her sole motivation was screen size and price. The other criteria she mentioned were supporting her rationalization, and no other criteria mentioned. Essentially like buying a toaster, or a blender.
4) What didn't the ad mention?
No additional warranty on the HP she bought; just the HP one year parts/labor. No Office suite; no Anti-Virus security package; no additional multimedia software. This is what's left out to get a "bargain basement" price on these Worst Buy laptops.
5) Is Microsoft desperate and worried?
From this ad, they sure are. Vista dug a big hole for them, and the Apple ads made it even bigger. Also, they're trading at $18.37 a share today, whereas Apple at $105.12 is quite good.
Yet the interesting thing is, this ad made them out to be the "cheap" option, which I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be associated as a "cheap" manufacturer of a product, because my product comes off as being cheap just as much as the cost might be cheap.
6) Will Apple ever develop low-cost units to compete with?
No. To do this, they would either license OSX to a PC house like Dell or they'd have to go the "clone" route, which had disastrous consequences the first time around. Neither one of these are likely, as it would dilute the Apple brand. This is why you don't find BMW, Mercedes, Alfa-Romeo, Bentley or Rolls-Royce making vehicles less than $30,000. You're paying for a higher end experience.
Most of the communities online seem to have the same opinion. Fusion seems to be more "solid" than Parallels. Most of my users have come to the conclusion that Parallels is just very glitchy and unreliable.
Even though their benchmarks show Parallels is faster, it visually doesn't feel faster. Running Fusion brings up the session much faster, apps feel faster and printing is definitely better within Fusion than Parallels.
I am an assistant professor. If you came to my office and told me to use anything, I'd kick your IT-fiddle-monkey-ass to the door.
That's because you have little respect for others based on the tirade you just posted.
Here's something I really want university IT guys to get through their thick skulls:
You work for us. Not the other way around.
I'm not sure what it is that you teach, you didn't mention that; however something you may need to get through your thick skull is that professors, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are good at their profession. They suck as any authority for IT work. They need to stop acting as if they have any experience dealing with IT whatsoever. I don't tell you how to teach your class, don't tell me or him how to run my network or his workstations
If I want to use a Windows machine, you need to figure out how to let me. If I want to use a Mac (which I do), you need to make sure I can get to my servers. If I want to use Linux (which I hope to be doing one day--when the software I need to do my research is available on the platform), I expect your support there, too.
No, you run what the university deems as the most cost effective, safest software they can use. Your needs are of a lower priority than the security, safety and reliability of the University's IT department. They are entrusted with that, not you. They entrust you to provide knowledge and experience to students; stick to that.
In the specific case of what you're proposing--moving to OSS for all everyday tasks, I have to be totally clear and honest here: You are wholly unqualified to make that call. It's not your job; it's not your responsibility; it's none of your damned business. You don't even know what I do; how could you know what I need?
That may be true. He may be unqualified to make the final call. But IT's is responsible for your network stability, security, and support. It should be their call as to how to handle this, as university professors do not know enough about computer networks and systems to be qualified either. You're a rarity in a bunch of academics that have no more training than the average office worker.
Finally, let me say this: My first jobs in academia were in IT support, and I, too, got drunk on the power. I, too, was young and full of myself, and I, too, ran around telling people what they should do, instead of listening to what it is that they needed to do, and helping them do it. Now that I'm on the other side (and older and less full of myself), I see why I pissed people off so much in those days. I sucked at my job.
If you try to meddle in your customers' business, you suck at your job, too.
You seem to forget that yours and others workflow is based upon a device given to you for your use by the university. These are their tools; not yours. Your workflow needs to conform to their standards of operation for IT, not how you would run things.
It is unprofessional to suggest that you, an academic, should be the deciding factor in how IT infrastructure is run. Again this is like me coming into your classroom and telling you how to run your class; I wouldn't do it, so where's your justification for why you see fit to tell IT how to do their job?
How you choose to run your computers and/or networks at home is your business, but at a business or at a university, you run your system the way the business or university designates it, and if IT designates that you run using certain products, then you'll run them that way. If you were running on my network, you run what I say you can run, end of story.
I had this same issue a few years ago. The company brought in a consultant to do a high level assessment of IT within the company.
The assessment also covered opinions by various staff and management as to what expectations they have for IT, and what IT comparable to other businesses of our size were doing with their departments.
It sure made believers out of management after they saw what it was I actually did. Sometimes bringing in an objective opinion is the only way to convince people to do what's needed to solve problems effectively.
For example, the consultants actually found that my annual budget was 80% below the average budget for the amount of money we brought in. After presenting that information to the President of the company, I had buy in and to this day, still have good support and buy in.
I read about this on Dell's website, and if you read the fine print, Dell will install the image for you, but if you need to reinstall from the XP disk they provide you, they won't support what you installed, only what they installed.
Only the pre-installed image at the factory can be supported. However they will support Vista fully if you upgrade.
This is a sneaky way of making XP fans happy, but giving them a time limit.
I think it needs to be made clear the following:
XP Home will be available for budget laptops, such as the EEE PC, OLPC, Cloudbook, and Intel's Classmate PC.
XP Home and Pro for standard vendors is still being taken off the market as of June 30.
This is only for budget laptops; Dell and the other OEM's won't be carrying XP after June 30.
Some of the AP stories and writeups on other websites are making it sound like they've gone back on their statement, and XP will be available again.
This is to prevent Linux from getting a foothold in the budget laptop game.
So let me get this straight, rock stars will now have to actually WORK for the money they make? They can no longer rely solely on record sales to provide their multi-million dollar mansions
That's not how the economics of the music industry works. Artists don't make much off the sales of albums and CD's; record companies do. Take for example Jordin Sparks from American Idol. Most likely she's making anywhere from $.03 to $.05 per CD based on her contact with Simon Cowell.
This is standard for most newly signed artists. The first contract is essentially a slave contract; you do what they say for the first album or 2, then once you're famous, you can re-negotiate your contract for a larger slice of the CD sales and royalties. This is why many artists like Madonna created their own labels, so that the big 5 are used for distribution and licensing, not for full production. Madonna gets the majority share of her CD sales, and most of her royalties that way.
Most new artists make money from touring. Sponsors and advertisers are able to foot the upfront costs necessary to go touring, leaving ticket sales, merchandising and endorsement money going to the artists, after overhead costs are paid. (This is why Gene Simmons from KISS is a master merchandiser; he understood this is how you make money in the music business).
Royalties from radio, TV, movie and video game usage of music is used by the record company to pay off the "overhead" they lent to the artist to produce their CD. The artist doesn't see royalties on music unless the money loaned to the artist is payed off; only then will an artist see royalty money.
(For example, Nelly, for his last major album, supposedly borrowed $800,000 from his label to record, promote, and distribute his CD. This also payed for his living expenses as well; so the money he's using to pay for all the bling isn't necessarily coming from his tour income; it's coming from the record label, and royalties are not paid to Nelly until that "loan" is paid in full.
If they took Steve Jobs advice and changed to a revenue based model, in which CD sales would determine if you made another album, then the industry might start sustaining itself again.
Unfortunately, you kept bringing in the one thing that companies aren't very interested in: employee morale.
The prime goal of a company is to make money and it's main responsibility is to it's shareholders. Restrictions are put in place for a variety of reasons: legal, techinical, security, financial, and procedural.
The company I work for is a security company; webmail is a bad idea because files such as drawings, designs, and specifications could be leaked if individuals had access to webmail.
Personal laptops are just that; they're personal. When you bring in a personal item, the companies liability insurance may or may not cover any damages sustained while in the office. Also, again with security; it's a lot harder to secure a device that needs connectivity on multiple systems, then if it only needs to connect to one system.
Your example of your university doesn't apply to businesses; the criteria are much different.
Your ideas work in an academic environment, but aren't real plausible in the real world.
No, I'm sorry...you're not interpreting this correctly.
IANAL...just a BS in CS
The line states "Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may
reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device
becomes the "licensed device."
What this is saying is that the first user of the software (the purchaser, or the transfer) may reassign the license to another device one time only(the only is implied, as the statement is worded such that there isn't a condition for multiple times, just one time). If a user builds a new PC, then it can be transferred to that new PC. No subsequent transfers after that can be made by the same purchaser.
Now I'm not entirely sure how that works if you transfer the license. My guess would be that each time you transfer the license, the transfer has to contact Microsoft to "erase" the license details for the last user.
What this does is effectively make more people buy OEM machines. I've transferred the retail license for my wife's PC (a white box) twice since she's had it. This would cut off that use completely. It assures Microsoft that "one license, one device" lock in they've wanted for retail.
This is the first step in Microsoft jumping away from retail licensing, and concentrating on OEM and Volume Licenses. It also could mean harder times for white box users, as we'd have to buy an OEM part to get an OEM license. Not good.
I'm a bit confused as to the RIAA's standing within the court.
If copyright infringement is the basis for the suit, then would not the copyright holder have to bring on the action against the suspected infringing party? The RIAA does not represent all studios and artists, yet they are bringing actions against an individual without their group directly being infringed upon. I understand that they are representing the interests of the studios and or copyright holders, but doesn't the actual copyright holder have to bring their case forth?
From what I've read of the RIAA, they seem to be instigating actions against individuals, but there's not been mentioned any direct copyright holders bringing actions against individuals. Could you clarify this please?
My point to the original poster was that he was complaining about the lack of MP3, DVD Playback, and multimedia codecs in Ubuntu without installing them directly, then saying that XP comes with all of that.
XP comes with it because Dell and other PC mfg's install it before the user gets it. The comparison is not the same. If the original poster were to do parallel installs of Ubuntu and XP, he'd find that XP doesn't come with these built in either. He would have to go find them, just like he would with Ubuntu.
I was also mentioning that his use of the "Grandma" standard wasn't correct because "Grandma" wouldn't be doing a from scratch reinstall, the Geek Squad, CompUSA, or a relative with computer experience would be.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Re:Dapper is good, but it's not there yet.
on
Ubuntu 6.06 Reviewed
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You just don't get it do you?
The vast majority of PC's that "Grandma" are using are Dell's, Compaq/HP's, Gateway's or Sony's
These all come PRE-INSTALLED with MP3 Support, DVD Support, and Multimedia CODECS.
This type of user never reinstalls their systems from scratch. Restore discs, Geek Squad, or grandson with computer experience.
The comparison is flawed.
Windows XP on its own does not prepackage any MP3 support, any DVD support, and any "accelerated" video drivers from Nvidia or ATI.
None of these are available from Microsoft via Windows Update that I know of.
I'm sick of hearing this FUD argument.
I think the problem here doesn't extend so much to the PDF format itself, for licensing purposes, as it does the fact that Microsoft has now entered the same market space with "Metro". Microsoft now has a competitor in the same space as what Adobe does (create and edit portable documents). Having Microsoft carry PDF functionality at the same time it's carrying XPS or "Metro" format could be considered an antitrust breach.
Had Microsoft just carried the PDF format, and not created XPS, then there wouldn't be an issue. By creating XPS, they now control most means of portable document creation.(Not sold seperately; included) Oh, and I'm assuming that Microsoft is allowing XPS to be fully alterable with Word or some other program, which means they're shoving into Adobe's space for both creation and edit of portable documents. This is where I think antitrust comes into it.
So the 2 choices are:
1) Microsoft drops XPS and carries only PDF
2) Microsoft drops PDF and only carries XPS (More likely of the 2)
A lot of users will be upset at this. This was one of the "wow" features Office users were waiting for.
I'd love to try it out, but MS's website for product keys is hosed. Has anyone been able to get an MSDN key?
(And no, I'm not asking for it, just asking if anyone was successful)
Thanks for the info. However, the original poster's question was if there were any Tax Software programs that were Open Source.
I'm going to ask the silly question here...Why has TurboTax or TaxCut or any of the tax programs not developed a Linux or Open Source version of their software to use. Numbers indicate that there are more Linux PC's in use than Mac's, yet you only develop for Windows and Mac.
I'd use your software, and I'm betting quite a lot of the Slashdot crowd would as well if you'd create a Linux version of TurboTax.
I appreciate the comments so far. However I did want to clarify a few
things.
1) The reason for IS instead of IT-My
company uses the term IS, not IT. Mea Culpa...I should have used the
term Information Systems to start out with. Apologies.
2)The 3 basic Contentions-Many
of you got the idea that these 3 statements were my thoughts on running
an Information Systems department. They're not.
1) The main job of IS is connectivity. Connectivity is the core of why
we have IS. Anything else is extraneous, and I shouldn't be dealing
with it.
This is their position. Mine has
always been that service and user issues drive what I do.
2) IS involvement in other divisions isn't necessary. IS is involved
with other divisions when physical products get connected to the
network, but not before. Software should be evaluated by IS only when
it becomes necessary for purchase and implementation, not before. Any
developed piece of software (we have an in-house programmer in
accounting who uses Access -- I know, I know...) should be evaluated by
IS when the software is ready to install.
Once again, this is management's
position. Mine is having interaction at the right points. I must have
not made it clear this was their position, not mine.
3)I'm too overloaded. With 93 permanent users and 110 workstations
(some are floaters), I can't do both systems work and admin work (my
title is Systems Administrator, but I carry no management authority) on
my own. My proposal stated the need for the creation of staff (a tech
and a clerk). Management thinks because things are running, I have no
issues, but I'm falling apart from all I have to do to keep things
running. I need to offset the load so I can do more of the 'bigger
picture' things to help guide this company out of the IS dark ages. (We
have no CTO or CIO; Management is made up of engineers from different
disciplines)
I guess what I meant to say on this
was that it's essentially a tradeoff now; I can't do the admin
functions that management has "expected" of me without systems issues
(user issues with hardware, software and network) taking a hit; I've
essentially sacrificed any kind of structure I can setup in order to
solve user problems all day and into late nights. Most of why there's
no structure is essentially a time issue; if I had any semblance of
time to do it, I have lots of ways to do it, but I'd be sacrificing
user issues, and that's the only thing manangement has been concerned
with for 6 years.
I also did not tell them they were
wrong. They accepted my proposal because I've done enough over the last
6 years for them to trust some of the things I explained. I did not
threaten or force them; I simply explained what my years of experience
and what my role as it applied to their business was as perceived by
me. Some people seemed to comment that I stuck this down their throat;
they didn't take it that way at all (in fact, the owner of the
company authorized my proposal before I submitted it.)
3) Some have mentioned about proving it based on numbers and ROI.
Yes, in an environment where I would have
the time to be able to compile this information effectively, that would
work, but I found, even when doing this proposal, that I had no time to
do anything else. User issues, management inquiries, admin functions,
some semblance of a home life, and sleep were what I could normally fit
into my timetable. The proposal reinforced the idea that something
would suffer. It did.
4) Some mentioned about being able to handle 100 users or so without
breaking a sweat. Yes, under
conditions in which you have a certain amount of control, time,
opportunity, and budget to do it, it can work (and yes I've seen it). I
have limited amounts of some, and none of others. Take your pick as to
which ones. I was left with a shambles of a structure; I've been trying
to maintain it for 6 years, but its not maintainable like this now.
View it the same way with software.
If you buy a version of software, and there are upgraded improvements to the original software you purchased, then they normally offer upgrade pricing.
The music industry should do that as well; offer an upgrade price to people who have a copy of the LP, CD, or Tape or "Licensed Digital Audio" file purchased.
I run Samsung Contact, which is an implementation of HP Openmail. It was designed to scale at least 32000 users per server, and can be used with a webclient, with POP3, IMAP, and Outlook via MAPI.
My users think it's exchange, but it isn't.
All running off a Linux server
Did anybody notice that the HR recruiter wasn't using Microsoft software to post appointments?
I checked out the site, and it's a 3rd party online scheduling software...I would think MS would want their people using their CRM or some kind of MS product to do scheduling.
Steve Jobs, in an interview talking about Itunes and the Ipod, stated the largest problem with the recording industry is that their business model is flawed.
Most businesses start out on a revenue based model(gross profit-operating costs=net profit). This is the model Apple Computer uses(yes, it's more complicated than that, but that's relatively what's done)
The recording companies are not entirely on this model. Recording companies work more off a "bank" model of business, in that they loan out vast sums of money to artists to create these albums, then collect the royalties off the sales of the albums, so they can redistribute that money to another artist as a "loan" against album sales.
Even if the album makes $500,000 in sales, the recording companies make a bundle; their operating costs only account for 3% of their total revenue; the majority of the royalties are profit for them; not the artist.
Jessica Simpson makes only $.33 per CD. (A new artist's contract is usually between.07 and.11 per CD) so the artist doesn't make a whole lot. The majority of that money is used to pay the expenses of someone else usually.
The business model is flawed. If music sales go down (just like they have been lately), then their model is threatened. If they would have moved to a revenue based model, this wouldn't happen anymore.
They could sustain product losses much easier.
And weed out talent that isn't talent.
I run a Linux groupware solution that hooks into Outlook (Samsung Contact, based on HP OpenMail) as well as web-based stuff and it cost less than Exchange 2003 did, and is a lot sturdier than Exchange would have been.
The problem with Microsoft integrating things together so much is that at a certain point, while you have interoperability, you have interdependency, and central point of failure.
I like my stuff separated, that way if one component goes down, the others don't suffer.
And it didn't take me any longer to configure this server than it did to set up an Exchange server.
I don't agree.
Vader fufilled the prophecy by killing off the Jedi in Episode 3.
The prophecy states that the Chosen one will bring balance to the Force. The Jedi assumed that the Sith was the unbalance to the Force, as did much of the audience. However, Jedi were the majority until Sidious and his apprentices appeared (Maul, Dooku and Vader).
Anakin brought balance by killing off all Jedi. No more majority/minority.
Slashdot Mirror
This used to be a mecca for technology and comic books; this seems like a great space to put this type of museum in.
My understanding is that the owners still haven't figured out what to do with it. Keep the movie theatre and the Game Walk of Fame, put in the museum, followed by a better arcade, and revitalize the Metreon.
It's still one of my favorite places to go when in SF.
I wanted to get away from Exchange. So I put in HP Openmail (Samsung Contact). That works for a few years until my users crashed my server (management refused to allow me to place limits on mailboxes, so this is what happens). After the crash, I put up a Postfix IMAP server and used Mozilla Thunderbird. What I found was that even though my users essentially use the email portions of Outlook and not the other collaborative features (some use the Contacts and Calendars, but not with any critical data), they still wanted Outlook. Daily I would hear complaints about how they hated using Mozilla, and eventually, we put Exchange 2007 and Outlook back in.
I think what happened is that many companies put in Exchange without understanding whether or not their company would really use all the collaborative features with Outlook. I'm willing to be many of them only really use the email portions, like mine does. Had my company started out with using just a simple POP3/IMAP server, then we might be using something like Google right now. But because we started out with the "defacto" standard, we setup the wrong expectation. This is what will be tough for Google; trying to get existing users to switch.
I agree that the Outlook plugin was probably not the best thing Google did, but it may be the only way Google can start transitioning people over to their services.
I've watched this ad, and I noticed a few things, and it brought up some information I already knew.
1) She Picked Apple First. Why?
She's an actress, and a member of SAG (Screen Actors Guild). Hollywood primarily uses Apple in their productions, and on screen. Getting rights to use Apple products are a lot easier than getting the rights to a Dell product, which uses Microsoft and a host of other vendors. That's why you don't see a lot of TV and movies using PC's; notice that they use Macs if they can.
She's familiar with using Mac's from her work as an actress on a set.
2) Why did she want a 17" Screen?
To be honest, I'm not sure. For checking emails, and doing some minor multimedia, and web surfing, a 17" screen seems a bit overkill...Then again, why do we want the 50" HDTV vs the 32"? Because it's bigger.
3) What criteria did she use to pick out her PC?
According to the ad, price, screen size, speed, and aesthetics, but you could tell her sole motivation was screen size and price. The other criteria she mentioned were supporting her rationalization, and no other criteria mentioned. Essentially like buying a toaster, or a blender.
4) What didn't the ad mention?
No additional warranty on the HP she bought; just the HP one year parts/labor. No Office suite; no Anti-Virus security package; no additional multimedia software. This is what's left out to get a "bargain basement" price on these Worst Buy laptops.
5) Is Microsoft desperate and worried?
From this ad, they sure are. Vista dug a big hole for them, and the Apple ads made it even bigger. Also, they're trading at $18.37 a share today, whereas Apple at $105.12 is quite good.
Yet the interesting thing is, this ad made them out to be the "cheap" option, which I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be associated as a "cheap" manufacturer of a product, because my product comes off as being cheap just as much as the cost might be cheap.
6) Will Apple ever develop low-cost units to compete with?
No. To do this, they would either license OSX to a PC house like Dell or they'd have to go the "clone" route, which had disastrous consequences the first time around. Neither one of these are likely, as it would dilute the Apple brand.
This is why you don't find BMW, Mercedes, Alfa-Romeo, Bentley or Rolls-Royce making vehicles less than $30,000. You're paying for a higher end experience.
Most of the communities online seem to have the same opinion. Fusion seems to be more "solid" than Parallels. Most of my users have come to the conclusion that Parallels is just very glitchy and unreliable. Even though their benchmarks show Parallels is faster, it visually doesn't feel faster. Running Fusion brings up the session much faster, apps feel faster and printing is definitely better within Fusion than Parallels.
I am an assistant professor. If you came to my office and told me to use anything, I'd kick your IT-fiddle-monkey-ass to the door.
That's because you have little respect for others based on the tirade you just posted.
Here's something I really want university IT guys to get through their thick skulls:
You work for us. Not the other way around.
I'm not sure what it is that you teach, you didn't mention that; however something you may need to get through your thick skull is that professors, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals are good at their profession. They suck as any authority for IT work. They need to stop acting as if they have any experience dealing with IT whatsoever. I don't tell you how to teach your class, don't tell me or him how to run my network or his workstations
If I want to use a Windows machine, you need to figure out how to let me. If I want to use a Mac (which I do), you need to make sure I can get to my servers. If I want to use Linux (which I hope to be doing one day--when the software I need to do my research is available on the platform), I expect your support there, too.
No, you run what the university deems as the most cost effective, safest software they can use. Your needs are of a lower priority than the security, safety and reliability of the University's IT department. They are entrusted with that, not you. They entrust you to provide knowledge and experience to students; stick to that.
In the specific case of what you're proposing--moving to OSS for all everyday tasks, I have to be totally clear and honest here: You are wholly unqualified to make that call. It's not your job; it's not your responsibility; it's none of your damned business. You don't even know what I do; how could you know what I need?
That may be true. He may be unqualified to make the final call. But IT's is responsible for your network stability, security, and support. It should be their call as to how to handle this, as university professors do not know enough about computer networks and systems to be qualified either. You're a rarity in a bunch of academics that have no more training than the average office worker.
Finally, let me say this: My first jobs in academia were in IT support, and I, too, got drunk on the power. I, too, was young and full of myself, and I, too, ran around telling people what they should do, instead of listening to what it is that they needed to do, and helping them do it. Now that I'm on the other side (and older and less full of myself), I see why I pissed people off so much in those days. I sucked at my job.
If you try to meddle in your customers' business, you suck at your job, too.
You seem to forget that yours and others workflow is based upon a device given to you for your use by the university. These are their tools; not yours. Your workflow needs to conform to their standards of operation for IT, not how you would run things.
It is unprofessional to suggest that you, an academic, should be the deciding factor in how IT infrastructure is run. Again this is like me coming into your classroom and telling you how to run your class; I wouldn't do it, so where's your justification for why you see fit to tell IT how to do their job?
How you choose to run your computers and/or networks at home is your business, but at a business or at a university, you run your system the way the business or university designates it, and if IT designates that you run using certain products, then you'll run them that way. If you were running on my network, you run what I say you can run, end of story.
Once you've run the HD diag programs, either from the vendor or the ones mentioned earlier, do the following:
1) Run Defrag
2) Run CHKDSK /F
3) Delete your Page File (set to 0) then restart.
4) ReCreate your Page File after Reboot.
This seems to cure most problems on my XP systems pretty quickly.
I had this same issue a few years ago. The company brought in a consultant to do a high level assessment of IT within the company.
The assessment also covered opinions by various staff and management as to what expectations they have for IT, and what IT comparable to other businesses of our size were doing with their departments.
It sure made believers out of management after they saw what it was I actually did. Sometimes bringing in an objective opinion is the only way to convince people to do what's needed to solve problems effectively.
For example, the consultants actually found that my annual budget was 80% below the average budget for the amount of money we brought in. After presenting that information to the President of the company, I had buy in and to this day, still have good support and buy in.
I read about this on Dell's website, and if you read the fine print, Dell will install the image for you, but if you need to reinstall from the XP disk they provide you, they won't support what you installed, only what they installed. Only the pre-installed image at the factory can be supported. However they will support Vista fully if you upgrade. This is a sneaky way of making XP fans happy, but giving them a time limit.
I think it needs to be made clear the following: XP Home will be available for budget laptops, such as the EEE PC, OLPC, Cloudbook, and Intel's Classmate PC. XP Home and Pro for standard vendors is still being taken off the market as of June 30. This is only for budget laptops; Dell and the other OEM's won't be carrying XP after June 30. Some of the AP stories and writeups on other websites are making it sound like they've gone back on their statement, and XP will be available again. This is to prevent Linux from getting a foothold in the budget laptop game.
So let me get this straight, rock stars will now have to actually WORK for the money they make? They can no longer rely solely on record sales to provide their multi-million dollar mansions That's not how the economics of the music industry works. Artists don't make much off the sales of albums and CD's; record companies do. Take for example Jordin Sparks from American Idol. Most likely she's making anywhere from $.03 to $.05 per CD based on her contact with Simon Cowell. This is standard for most newly signed artists. The first contract is essentially a slave contract; you do what they say for the first album or 2, then once you're famous, you can re-negotiate your contract for a larger slice of the CD sales and royalties. This is why many artists like Madonna created their own labels, so that the big 5 are used for distribution and licensing, not for full production. Madonna gets the majority share of her CD sales, and most of her royalties that way. Most new artists make money from touring. Sponsors and advertisers are able to foot the upfront costs necessary to go touring, leaving ticket sales, merchandising and endorsement money going to the artists, after overhead costs are paid. (This is why Gene Simmons from KISS is a master merchandiser; he understood this is how you make money in the music business). Royalties from radio, TV, movie and video game usage of music is used by the record company to pay off the "overhead" they lent to the artist to produce their CD. The artist doesn't see royalties on music unless the money loaned to the artist is payed off; only then will an artist see royalty money. (For example, Nelly, for his last major album, supposedly borrowed $800,000 from his label to record, promote, and distribute his CD. This also payed for his living expenses as well; so the money he's using to pay for all the bling isn't necessarily coming from his tour income; it's coming from the record label, and royalties are not paid to Nelly until that "loan" is paid in full. If they took Steve Jobs advice and changed to a revenue based model, in which CD sales would determine if you made another album, then the industry might start sustaining itself again.
The prime goal of a company is to make money and it's main responsibility is to it's shareholders. Restrictions are put in place for a variety of reasons: legal, techinical, security, financial, and procedural.
The company I work for is a security company; webmail is a bad idea because files such as drawings, designs, and specifications could be leaked if individuals had access to webmail.
Personal laptops are just that; they're personal. When you bring in a personal item, the companies liability insurance may or may not cover any damages sustained while in the office. Also, again with security; it's a lot harder to secure a device that needs connectivity on multiple systems, then if it only needs to connect to one system.
Your example of your university doesn't apply to businesses; the criteria are much different.
Your ideas work in an academic environment, but aren't real plausible in the real world.
IANAL...just a BS in CS
The line states "Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device."
What this is saying is that the first user of the software (the purchaser, or the transfer) may reassign the license to another device one time only(the only is implied, as the statement is worded such that there isn't a condition for multiple times, just one time). If a user builds a new PC, then it can be transferred to that new PC. No subsequent transfers after that can be made by the same purchaser.
Now I'm not entirely sure how that works if you transfer the license. My guess would be that each time you transfer the license, the transfer has to contact Microsoft to "erase" the license details for the last user.
What this does is effectively make more people buy OEM machines. I've transferred the retail license for my wife's PC (a white box) twice since she's had it. This would cut off that use completely. It assures Microsoft that "one license, one device" lock in they've wanted for retail.
This is the first step in Microsoft jumping away from retail licensing, and concentrating on OEM and Volume Licenses. It also could mean harder times for white box users, as we'd have to buy an OEM part to get an OEM license. Not good.
If copyright infringement is the basis for the suit, then would not the copyright holder have to bring on the action against the suspected infringing party? The RIAA does not represent all studios and artists, yet they are bringing actions against an individual without their group directly being infringed upon. I understand that they are representing the interests of the studios and or copyright holders, but doesn't the actual copyright holder have to bring their case forth?
From what I've read of the RIAA, they seem to be instigating actions against individuals, but there's not been mentioned any direct copyright holders bringing actions against individuals. Could you clarify this please?
XP comes with it because Dell and other PC mfg's install it before the user gets it. The comparison is not the same. If the original poster were to do parallel installs of Ubuntu and XP, he'd find that XP doesn't come with these built in either. He would have to go find them, just like he would with Ubuntu.
I was also mentioning that his use of the "Grandma" standard wasn't correct because "Grandma" wouldn't be doing a from scratch reinstall, the Geek Squad, CompUSA, or a relative with computer experience would be.
Hope that clears it up for you.
You just don't get it do you? The vast majority of PC's that "Grandma" are using are Dell's, Compaq/HP's, Gateway's or Sony's These all come PRE-INSTALLED with MP3 Support, DVD Support, and Multimedia CODECS. This type of user never reinstalls their systems from scratch. Restore discs, Geek Squad, or grandson with computer experience. The comparison is flawed. Windows XP on its own does not prepackage any MP3 support, any DVD support, and any "accelerated" video drivers from Nvidia or ATI. None of these are available from Microsoft via Windows Update that I know of. I'm sick of hearing this FUD argument.
Had Microsoft just carried the PDF format, and not created XPS, then there wouldn't be an issue. By creating XPS, they now control most means of portable document creation.(Not sold seperately; included) Oh, and I'm assuming that Microsoft is allowing XPS to be fully alterable with Word or some other program, which means they're shoving into Adobe's space for both creation and edit of portable documents. This is where I think antitrust comes into it. So the 2 choices are: 1) Microsoft drops XPS and carries only PDF 2) Microsoft drops PDF and only carries XPS (More likely of the 2) A lot of users will be upset at this. This was one of the "wow" features Office users were waiting for.
I'd love to try it out, but MS's website for product keys is hosed. Has anyone been able to get an MSDN key? (And no, I'm not asking for it, just asking if anyone was successful)
Thanks for the info. However, the original poster's question was if there were any Tax Software programs that were Open Source. I'm going to ask the silly question here...Why has TurboTax or TaxCut or any of the tax programs not developed a Linux or Open Source version of their software to use. Numbers indicate that there are more Linux PC's in use than Mac's, yet you only develop for Windows and Mac. I'd use your software, and I'm betting quite a lot of the Slashdot crowd would as well if you'd create a Linux version of TurboTax.
I appreciate the comments so far. However I did want to clarify a few things.
1) The reason for IS instead of IT-My company uses the term IS, not IT. Mea Culpa...I should have used the term Information Systems to start out with. Apologies.
2)The 3 basic Contentions-Many of you got the idea that these 3 statements were my thoughts on running an Information Systems department. They're not.
1) The main job of IS is connectivity. Connectivity is the core of why we have IS. Anything else is extraneous, and I shouldn't be dealing with it.
This is their position. Mine has always been that service and user issues drive what I do.
2) IS involvement in other divisions isn't necessary. IS is involved with other divisions when physical products get connected to the network, but not before. Software should be evaluated by IS only when it becomes necessary for purchase and implementation, not before. Any developed piece of software (we have an in-house programmer in accounting who uses Access -- I know, I know...) should be evaluated by IS when the software is ready to install.
Once again, this is management's position. Mine is having interaction at the right points. I must have not made it clear this was their position, not mine.
3)I'm too overloaded. With 93 permanent users and 110 workstations (some are floaters), I can't do both systems work and admin work (my title is Systems Administrator, but I carry no management authority) on my own. My proposal stated the need for the creation of staff (a tech and a clerk). Management thinks because things are running, I have no issues, but I'm falling apart from all I have to do to keep things running. I need to offset the load so I can do more of the 'bigger picture' things to help guide this company out of the IS dark ages. (We have no CTO or CIO; Management is made up of engineers from different disciplines)
I guess what I meant to say on this was that it's essentially a tradeoff now; I can't do the admin functions that management has "expected" of me without systems issues (user issues with hardware, software and network) taking a hit; I've essentially sacrificed any kind of structure I can setup in order to solve user problems all day and into late nights. Most of why there's no structure is essentially a time issue; if I had any semblance of time to do it, I have lots of ways to do it, but I'd be sacrificing user issues, and that's the only thing manangement has been concerned with for 6 years.
I also did not tell them they were wrong. They accepted my proposal because I've done enough over the last 6 years for them to trust some of the things I explained. I did not threaten or force them; I simply explained what my years of experience and what my role as it applied to their business was as perceived by me. Some people seemed to comment that I stuck this down their throat; they didn't take it that way at all (in fact, the owner of the company authorized my proposal before I submitted it.)
3) Some have mentioned about proving it based on numbers and ROI. Yes, in an environment where I would have the time to be able to compile this information effectively, that would work, but I found, even when doing this proposal, that I had no time to do anything else. User issues, management inquiries, admin functions, some semblance of a home life, and sleep were what I could normally fit into my timetable. The proposal reinforced the idea that something would suffer. It did.
4) Some mentioned about being able to handle 100 users or so without breaking a sweat. Yes, under conditions in which you have a certain amount of control, time, opportunity, and budget to do it, it can work (and yes I've seen it). I have limited amounts of some, and none of others. Take your pick as to which ones. I was left with a shambles of a structure; I've been trying to maintain it for 6 years, but its not maintainable like this now.
5) S
View it the same way with software. If you buy a version of software, and there are upgraded improvements to the original software you purchased, then they normally offer upgrade pricing. The music industry should do that as well; offer an upgrade price to people who have a copy of the LP, CD, or Tape or "Licensed Digital Audio" file purchased.
I run Samsung Contact, which is an implementation of HP Openmail. It was designed to scale at least 32000 users per server, and can be used with a webclient, with POP3, IMAP, and Outlook via MAPI. My users think it's exchange, but it isn't. All running off a Linux server
Did anybody notice that the HR recruiter wasn't using Microsoft software to post appointments? I checked out the site, and it's a 3rd party online scheduling software...I would think MS would want their people using their CRM or some kind of MS product to do scheduling.
Steve Jobs, in an interview talking about Itunes and the Ipod, stated the largest problem with the recording industry is that their business model is flawed. Most businesses start out on a revenue based model(gross profit-operating costs=net profit). This is the model Apple Computer uses(yes, it's more complicated than that, but that's relatively what's done)
The recording companies are not entirely on this model. Recording companies work more off a "bank" model of business, in that they loan out vast sums of money to artists to create these albums, then collect the royalties off the sales of the albums, so they can redistribute that money to another artist as a "loan" against album sales.
Even if the album makes $500,000 in sales, the recording companies make a bundle; their operating costs only account for 3% of their total revenue; the majority of the royalties are profit for them; not the artist. Jessica Simpson makes only $.33 per CD. (A new artist's contract is usually betweenLike Jessica Simpson.
I run a Linux groupware solution that hooks into Outlook (Samsung Contact, based on HP OpenMail) as well as web-based stuff and it cost less than Exchange 2003 did, and is a lot sturdier than Exchange would have been. The problem with Microsoft integrating things together so much is that at a certain point, while you have interoperability, you have interdependency, and central point of failure. I like my stuff separated, that way if one component goes down, the others don't suffer. And it didn't take me any longer to configure this server than it did to set up an Exchange server.
I don't agree. Vader fufilled the prophecy by killing off the Jedi in Episode 3. The prophecy states that the Chosen one will bring balance to the Force. The Jedi assumed that the Sith was the unbalance to the Force, as did much of the audience. However, Jedi were the majority until Sidious and his apprentices appeared (Maul, Dooku and Vader). Anakin brought balance by killing off all Jedi. No more majority/minority.