It's something that VMWare is experimenting (playing) with and marked has "Experimental" for a while now. As for playing games, well that's one way to test it but there are quite a few apps out there, serious (e.g. scientific) apps, that also make use of the Direct3D functions.
When I do a beta for someone, I not only test the working stuff (which all gets certified first here) but also test all the experimental stuff as well. For instance, Solaris 10 is also "Experimental" and yep, I test it, each draw. Maybe that's why so many big firms keep asking me back.
It will. Actually, I've had that for years here for my 'net access through two pieces of software. Unless I unblock/uncloak (and I can do it selectively) all you see in your website logs are a date/timestamp and an IP address and I can change that IP address on a second by second basis if I'm really feeling beligerent. I take my anonymity seriously when I'm spelunking some segments of the web (mostly keeping track of what the system crackers are up to for my security interests). Usually I'm not that serious about it.
Agreed, there are situations that are totally unsuitable for virtualization. For instance, don't even think about a DirectX game under a VM instance which also exhibit similar behaviors in many ways. I do try it every time a new beta hits and am frequently disappointed.
Your MS licensing information is out of date. They've changed the way they handle Server 2003. Furthermore, you don't have to use Server 2003 as your base OS for VS 2005. I was using XP Pro SP2, Win'2K Server and Advanced Server, as well as Server 2003 Enterprise during the betas for both VS 2005 and VS 2005 R2. All worked just fine. Actually, I got the best performance from Win'2K AS after I really locked down the services running although that may be somewhat biased as I really know AS best and I didn't lockdown Server 2003 Enterprise. The improved memory model for Enterprise just might give it the edge if it were similarly configured.
LOL! Weeelllll, you do have to be careful about your mix of applications that are running in each VM OS. Seriously, if you are that worried about system freeze, VMWare ESX is the way to go and you need to step-up to some serious hardware from, say, IBM or one of the other big players. Then again, with a four-way, dual-core Opteron setup, you can get some pretty awesome VM set-ups and spend a lot less money than you would have a year or a year and a half ago. That's what I'm evaluating here for my VM server configuration, either a two-way or four-way, dual-core Opteron rig. Frankly, the prices have come down rather extremely of late. [And to think I used to be such a big Intel fan-boy for a decade. Pfffft, Intel.]
Frankly that's a can of worms that I stopped worrying about years ago as I have more licenses than I know what to do with. However, I would never run XP as my base system. Too much consumer crap in the way tying up system resources. Always select a server OS, even one of your older Windows 2000 Server or Advanced Server, as your base OS and disable as many services as you don't need, if you use Windows as your base OS. You'll see far better performance with either VMWare or Windows Virtual Server. I know, I've done the benchmarks.
If you play in the Enterprise space, virtuationization can be a god-send, just on the basis of server consolidation alone. Where I play, systems security from SMB to Enterprise, I've been doing some interesting work on developing bastions (no relation to the Linux setup with the same name, think the Military Engineers Vauban and Michelangelo) that I think will play well once fully worked out. Heck, even on a consumer machine, if all internet work is done in a VM, you cut the risk of infection by a wide margin. Those are just a three sample ways to go with this technology. Virtuationzation just gives you more interesting capabilities.
With VMWare Server (ex-GSX) switching to free status, frankly I don't think they had a choice. I've been working with, and beta-testing for years, with both and the VMWare product still wins in my opinion. No win situation for MS.
This is the first amazing program that I've seen for Windows in quite a while and I pretty much see everything whether it makes it to market or not. In most basic terms, think of it as a roll of continuous note-taking paper that you can pop-up at any time from your system tray. It is far, far more than that. It is really handy on lap-tops for students, and that is how they push it, but I've found it exceedingly useful here as well and I'm neither on a lap-top nor a student [sigh]. I've dumped using my notebooks, sticky-notes, Outlook notes, etc. either on the computer or in the physical world. If you are worried about losing your notes, well it even has a built-in automatic back-up feature in addition to a manual database back-up feature.
Lastly, they have a freeware version that doesn't feel the least bit stripped down. I was blown away after I tried this program and that was in the first fifteen minutes. It is well worth a look.
It seems that the server division lost their way for a while but frankly I think they've found it with a vengeance lately. I'm quite impressed with the new machines they've come out with, especially their broad range of OS support across the line. Sun is also another company, albeit off-topic, that seems to have had a renaissance in their hardware line. Decisions, decisions. Maybe I'll buy both lines! Yeah, that's the ticket;-).
Well that exact situation has happened after every war right up until after the Vietnam War in this country and not once did the military remove the President from office. This country has a history of gutting the military after every successful war. Heck, part of the reason that I, and quite a few other veterans, were put out to pasture was the rather significant reductions in force during the Bush I and Clinton administrations. Frankly, I don't buy your scenario since our military has a history of just gutting it out until they are needed again. Unfortunately, this policy of RIFing after a war has gotten a lot of our young people killed while they relearn the art of war.
One of my additional duties just happened to be strapping on a.45 cal pistol and standing a roving security watch. Among the duties of the watch was to shoot anyone that had crazy notions like this. The other services, especially the Marines, have similar people. Furthermore, anyone that wants to pull off a coup has to go through the Secret Service. I'm a damn fine shot, well treained in tactics, but frankly I'd rather face all of al Quaeda by myself than take on the Secret Service.
Which is the basic point. The people that would stop them, long before the Secret Service got involved would be the military itself. As I posted above, we are well trained in exactly what a lawful order is and what is an unlawful order. Face it, it ain't gonna happen no matter how many head honchos at the Puzzle Palace tell us to do it and all they are likely to get for their efforts is to end up dead.
I'd have to spend a ton of time redoing all my links to news sites in various countries and that doesn't even count various fora, blogs, and information/download sites. Every night I start in Russia and work my way around the globe. The only two regions I don't hit are Africa (except Egypt) and South America. Well, I suppose you can add Antartica to that list as well. I'm a total news junkie;-).
It shouldn't be too much of a problem. I've been up in the Persian Gulf several times and while we were a bit nervous about the Iranians it wasn't the Sunburn or Silkworm missiles we were worried about. It was those damn Boghammers. We were far more worried about some Boghammer trying a suicide strike on one of the smaller combatants, such as mine!
Can't disagree with you there. My vision of what will be required in the future will be the stealth equivalent (although they are already stealthed to some extent) version of a super Arleigh Burke destroyer with a serious bone in its teeth. Capable of getting into a region undetected, striking whatever targets are on the frag order, and getting out, and defending itself as necessary. This is a complete rejection of the Admiral Mahan doctrine of the blue water Navy and more akin to what our special operations forces do today, which makes sense.
Sure, a carrier can strike at distances up to 1500 km away, given refueling each way, however they can't do it undetected, not in this environment of a fully wired planet with massive satellite coverage. Carrier battlegroups are just too damn big and their destinations are a target of almost every intelligence agency on the planet. One tincan, on the other hand, can be almost anywhere and you can build a lot more tincans than you can carriers even if their long range (and I mean seriously long!) is just Tomahawk missiles. SLAM and Harpoon missiles are no slouches either.
We'll find out when the Chinese get frisky enough to try to take Taiwan or some other idiotic target. They've been talking for years about tactics to take out our carriers and if they do succeed, well we'll see what raider tactics can do. Back to the Civil War anyone?
Aside from the actual pay, you have to add housing, food, training, and other expenses. I wish they had been paying me $100K per year, I was certainly worth it. [In a typical year, the US Navy was saving $3-5 million as a result of each project that I engaged in, in addition to my regular duties.]
Yes, they were as I well know. All of the Spruance-class destroyers were supposed to be to that design but Congress, in their infinite wisdom cut the funding so we ended up with a half-assed design as a result that had to be fixed when the ships entered their first overhaul period. Since then the Spruances have, mostly, been sent to the bottom for target practice and we've sold, much to the hate of the PRC, the Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan.
The Aegis weapons system was designed for precisely this threat. Now true, neither the Brits nor the French have it, but the US does and seldom do we or they operate alone. Also, any aircraft with a look-down/fire-down radar system (even some versions of the Harrier have this) can lock onto these missiles. AMRAAM can certainly take one of these out, it has the speed to catch it and kill it. And you are also discounting any close-in weapons systems (CIWS) that the target will have as well, although that is a last ditch defense, albeit a viable one.
We've been thinking about this threat a long time (30+ years), so this is nothing new.
ROFLMAO! We are quite clear on our Constitutional duties, thank you, so don't expect a coup anytime this millenium. If someone were to even express such thoughts, they'd be out of the military so fast it would make their head spin. If they were to even try it, the rest of the military would come down on them like a kiloton of bricks.
I've lost count of the number of sessions where we reviewed our oaths of office/enlistment, the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice, the nature of lawful/unlawful orders, etc. We are quite clear on the concept. The rest of the world's militaries, with a few, rare exceptions, seem to be very unclear on the concept. It's called civilian authority.
Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else please.
You don't even have to crack the network, necessarily. I totally FUBARed the USS Enterprise battlegroup with nothing more than a dBX tapedeck and, with some inventive help from one of the Operation Specialist's who took control of some of their confused patrol airplanes, proceeded to put a dozen simulated SS-N-12's into her. Those were the days!
One more thing I forgot to bring up is that stress is the ultimate fatigue generator. The last thing you need in flight deck operations are fatigued personnel. That duty is hazardous enough as things are without adding an additional fatigue factor. Heck, I don't even want fatigued personnel on my tincan (destroyer)! You make too many mistakes and mistakes will either kill you (almost happened here when I got nailed by 20,000 volts) or someone (everyone) else. Sorry, I don't buy this.
I'm a former Electronics Technician although I'm cross-qualified to a fair-thee-well. Helmsman/Quartermaster of the Watch/Ship's Navigator including underway refueling, Supply Officer, Damage Control Locker Leader (and alternate Damage Control Assistant), Aviation Firefighter, Systems Administrator, etc. ad nauseum. So I think I can address this.
Basically I think they are willing to write these ships off as combat ineffective after taking damage, at least until it is repaired. Perhaps, just perhaps, a reduced crew may be able to conduct damage control while continuing combat operations but I don't believe so and automation is something I'm very familiar with here. If all personnel are involved in watchstanding/combat duties, any diversion of personnel is going to reduce/eliminate some of the ship's capabilities with respect to operations, period. You can't avoid it.
Another thing you have to remember is that any Aircraft Carrier is a veritable Disneyland for fire anytime and anyplace. We've had experience in the fleet with that (USS Forrestal, while my Father happened to be serving on it, among others btw). Toss a missile into the mix and forget it.
As for wandering around checking things, that's certainly true of some of the engineers (my first field), but not true of most of the rest of the crew that have watchstanding duties, aside from the security rover. Mostly you sit at a console or in an office watching and/or waiting for something to happen. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt. A lot. If anything, that's more mind-numbing than wandering around checking things. That's one reason, among many, why the US Navy runs more on coffee than diesel fuel marine. Heck, even lookout duty is far more interesting than staring at a sonar or electronics warfare display one watch in three.
If they reduce the personnel, I can't see the number of watchstanders going down by much as when I was in it was already automated to the max so you'll have roughly the same number of watchstanders with roughly half to two-thirds the personnel. That probably means going to one watch in two as a normal watch rotation. That's a formula for personnel retention disaster. Things are already bad enough what with the extended deployments due to all the reductions in force during the '90's. Sure, recruiting is about right or even up in some ratings, but if you don't retain trained personnel, your overall personnel costs go up due to the high training costs. I know for a fact that well over a million was spent on my training and that was even before I hit the fleet where more schools were heaped on top (see above). True, I was an extreme case but high training costs are a given for any technical rating (and I'm not just talking about electronics here). Even Damage Control Techs are expensive.
The days of sending someone just out of bootcamp to a ship are long past and career long training is reality. So, I see yet another possible false economy here. Human capital applies to the military just as much as it does to the business world, if not more so as you also need trained NCO's to train their juniors as well as the odd Ensign or Lieutenant The senior NCO's are the one's that make the Navy work as well as providing the glue that holds it together.
Perhaps the British (likely) and French navies are different, but that's the way I see it.
Slashdot Mirror
When I do a beta for someone, I not only test the working stuff (which all gets certified first here) but also test all the experimental stuff as well. For instance, Solaris 10 is also "Experimental" and yep, I test it, each draw. Maybe that's why so many big firms keep asking me back.
It will. Actually, I've had that for years here for my 'net access through two pieces of software. Unless I unblock/uncloak (and I can do it selectively) all you see in your website logs are a date/timestamp and an IP address and I can change that IP address on a second by second basis if I'm really feeling beligerent. I take my anonymity seriously when I'm spelunking some segments of the web (mostly keeping track of what the system crackers are up to for my security interests). Usually I'm not that serious about it.
Agreed, there are situations that are totally unsuitable for virtualization. For instance, don't even think about a DirectX game under a VM instance which also exhibit similar behaviors in many ways. I do try it every time a new beta hits and am frequently disappointed.
Your MS licensing information is out of date. They've changed the way they handle Server 2003. Furthermore, you don't have to use Server 2003 as your base OS for VS 2005. I was using XP Pro SP2, Win'2K Server and Advanced Server, as well as Server 2003 Enterprise during the betas for both VS 2005 and VS 2005 R2. All worked just fine. Actually, I got the best performance from Win'2K AS after I really locked down the services running although that may be somewhat biased as I really know AS best and I didn't lockdown Server 2003 Enterprise. The improved memory model for Enterprise just might give it the edge if it were similarly configured.
LOL! Weeelllll, you do have to be careful about your mix of applications that are running in each VM OS. Seriously, if you are that worried about system freeze, VMWare ESX is the way to go and you need to step-up to some serious hardware from, say, IBM or one of the other big players. Then again, with a four-way, dual-core Opteron setup, you can get some pretty awesome VM set-ups and spend a lot less money than you would have a year or a year and a half ago. That's what I'm evaluating here for my VM server configuration, either a two-way or four-way, dual-core Opteron rig. Frankly, the prices have come down rather extremely of late. [And to think I used to be such a big Intel fan-boy for a decade. Pfffft, Intel.]
Frankly that's a can of worms that I stopped worrying about years ago as I have more licenses than I know what to do with. However, I would never run XP as my base system. Too much consumer crap in the way tying up system resources. Always select a server OS, even one of your older Windows 2000 Server or Advanced Server, as your base OS and disable as many services as you don't need, if you use Windows as your base OS. You'll see far better performance with either VMWare or Windows Virtual Server. I know, I've done the benchmarks.
Just my $.02
With VMWare Server (ex-GSX) switching to free status, frankly I don't think they had a choice. I've been working with, and beta-testing for years, with both and the VMWare product still wins in my opinion. No win situation for MS.
I agree with AC and I will post by name. You haven't got a clue.
Lastly, they have a freeware version that doesn't feel the least bit stripped down. I was blown away after I tried this program and that was in the first fifteen minutes. It is well worth a look.
It seems that the server division lost their way for a while but frankly I think they've found it with a vengeance lately. I'm quite impressed with the new machines they've come out with, especially their broad range of OS support across the line. Sun is also another company, albeit off-topic, that seems to have had a renaissance in their hardware line. Decisions, decisions. Maybe I'll buy both lines! Yeah, that's the ticket ;-).
Or as Winston Churchill put it, it is the least worst system which I go along with.
Well that exact situation has happened after every war right up until after the Vietnam War in this country and not once did the military remove the President from office. This country has a history of gutting the military after every successful war. Heck, part of the reason that I, and quite a few other veterans, were put out to pasture was the rather significant reductions in force during the Bush I and Clinton administrations. Frankly, I don't buy your scenario since our military has a history of just gutting it out until they are needed again. Unfortunately, this policy of RIFing after a war has gotten a lot of our young people killed while they relearn the art of war.
Which is the basic point. The people that would stop them, long before the Secret Service got involved would be the military itself. As I posted above, we are well trained in exactly what a lawful order is and what is an unlawful order. Face it, it ain't gonna happen no matter how many head honchos at the Puzzle Palace tell us to do it and all they are likely to get for their efforts is to end up dead.
I'd have to spend a ton of time redoing all my links to news sites in various countries and that doesn't even count various fora, blogs, and information/download sites. Every night I start in Russia and work my way around the globe. The only two regions I don't hit are Africa (except Egypt) and South America. Well, I suppose you can add Antartica to that list as well. I'm a total news junkie ;-).
It shouldn't be too much of a problem. I've been up in the Persian Gulf several times and while we were a bit nervous about the Iranians it wasn't the Sunburn or Silkworm missiles we were worried about. It was those damn Boghammers. We were far more worried about some Boghammer trying a suicide strike on one of the smaller combatants, such as mine!
My bad. I got my mad on for that reply.
Sure, a carrier can strike at distances up to 1500 km away, given refueling each way, however they can't do it undetected, not in this environment of a fully wired planet with massive satellite coverage. Carrier battlegroups are just too damn big and their destinations are a target of almost every intelligence agency on the planet. One tincan, on the other hand, can be almost anywhere and you can build a lot more tincans than you can carriers even if their long range (and I mean seriously long!) is just Tomahawk missiles. SLAM and Harpoon missiles are no slouches either.
We'll find out when the Chinese get frisky enough to try to take Taiwan or some other idiotic target. They've been talking for years about tactics to take out our carriers and if they do succeed, well we'll see what raider tactics can do. Back to the Civil War anyone?
Aside from the actual pay, you have to add housing, food, training, and other expenses. I wish they had been paying me $100K per year, I was certainly worth it. [In a typical year, the US Navy was saving $3-5 million as a result of each project that I engaged in, in addition to my regular duties.]
Yes, they were as I well know. All of the Spruance-class destroyers were supposed to be to that design but Congress, in their infinite wisdom cut the funding so we ended up with a half-assed design as a result that had to be fixed when the ships entered their first overhaul period. Since then the Spruances have, mostly, been sent to the bottom for target practice and we've sold, much to the hate of the PRC, the Kidd-class destroyers to Taiwan.
We've been thinking about this threat a long time (30+ years), so this is nothing new.
I've lost count of the number of sessions where we reviewed our oaths of office/enlistment, the UCMJ (Universal Code of Military Justice, the nature of lawful/unlawful orders, etc. We are quite clear on the concept. The rest of the world's militaries, with a few, rare exceptions, seem to be very unclear on the concept. It's called civilian authority.
Take your conspiracy theories somewhere else please.
You don't even have to crack the network, necessarily. I totally FUBARed the USS Enterprise battlegroup with nothing more than a dBX tapedeck and, with some inventive help from one of the Operation Specialist's who took control of some of their confused patrol airplanes, proceeded to put a dozen simulated SS-N-12's into her. Those were the days!
One more thing I forgot to bring up is that stress is the ultimate fatigue generator. The last thing you need in flight deck operations are fatigued personnel. That duty is hazardous enough as things are without adding an additional fatigue factor. Heck, I don't even want fatigued personnel on my tincan (destroyer)! You make too many mistakes and mistakes will either kill you (almost happened here when I got nailed by 20,000 volts) or someone (everyone) else. Sorry, I don't buy this.
Basically I think they are willing to write these ships off as combat ineffective after taking damage, at least until it is repaired. Perhaps, just perhaps, a reduced crew may be able to conduct damage control while continuing combat operations but I don't believe so and automation is something I'm very familiar with here. If all personnel are involved in watchstanding/combat duties, any diversion of personnel is going to reduce/eliminate some of the ship's capabilities with respect to operations, period. You can't avoid it.
Another thing you have to remember is that any Aircraft Carrier is a veritable Disneyland for fire anytime and anyplace. We've had experience in the fleet with that (USS Forrestal, while my Father happened to be serving on it, among others btw). Toss a missile into the mix and forget it.
As for wandering around checking things, that's certainly true of some of the engineers (my first field), but not true of most of the rest of the crew that have watchstanding duties, aside from the security rover. Mostly you sit at a console or in an office watching and/or waiting for something to happen. Been there, done that, burned the t-shirt. A lot. If anything, that's more mind-numbing than wandering around checking things. That's one reason, among many, why the US Navy runs more on coffee than diesel fuel marine. Heck, even lookout duty is far more interesting than staring at a sonar or electronics warfare display one watch in three.
If they reduce the personnel, I can't see the number of watchstanders going down by much as when I was in it was already automated to the max so you'll have roughly the same number of watchstanders with roughly half to two-thirds the personnel. That probably means going to one watch in two as a normal watch rotation. That's a formula for personnel retention disaster. Things are already bad enough what with the extended deployments due to all the reductions in force during the '90's. Sure, recruiting is about right or even up in some ratings, but if you don't retain trained personnel, your overall personnel costs go up due to the high training costs. I know for a fact that well over a million was spent on my training and that was even before I hit the fleet where more schools were heaped on top (see above). True, I was an extreme case but high training costs are a given for any technical rating (and I'm not just talking about electronics here). Even Damage Control Techs are expensive.
The days of sending someone just out of bootcamp to a ship are long past and career long training is reality. So, I see yet another possible false economy here. Human capital applies to the military just as much as it does to the business world, if not more so as you also need trained NCO's to train their juniors as well as the odd Ensign or Lieutenant The senior NCO's are the one's that make the Navy work as well as providing the glue that holds it together.
Perhaps the British (likely) and French navies are different, but that's the way I see it.